Legal Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies When Debts Can Be Discharged In Bankruptcy


Michael A. Yoshida

May 14, 2013

On Monday, May 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified when certain debts can be discharged in bankruptcy. In Bullock v. BankChampaign, NA, No. 11-1518, the unanimous Court explained what the term “defalcation” means in section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In that case, Randy Bullock’s father established a trust for the benefit of Bullock and his siblings, making Bullock the trustee. Bullock borrowed money from the trust three times, and although each loan was repaid with interest and the court found no malicious intent, his siblings obtained a judgment against him for breach of his fiduciary duty as trustee. Bullock then filed for bankruptcy, seeking to discharge the debt. Generally speaking, debts such as money judgments may be discharged in bankruptcy unless the debt is a result of “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” His siblings claimed the judgment was nondischargeable because although Bullock may not have acted with malicious intent, loaning money to himself from the trust could be characterized as objectively reckless. The bankruptcy court agreed, and held that the debt was non-dischargeable.

The Supreme Court disagreed, and concluded that the term “defalcation” includes “a culpable state of mind requirement” which involves knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of someone’s conduct. In other words, since the lower courts had not found that Bullock had acted with ill intent or that he had caused the trust to lose principal, the judgment in favor of his siblings could be discharged in bankruptcy. The Court concluded:

“Thus, where the conduct at issue does not involve bad faith, moral turpitude, or other immoral conduct, the term requires an intentional wrong. We include as intentional not only conduct that the fiduciary knows is improper but also reckless conduct of the kind that the criminal law often treats as the equivalent.”

What this means is that an absence of actual knowledge that what someone is doing is wrong will not insulate that person from a finding of “defalcation,” but includes situations where that person consciously disregards or is willfully blind to the risk that his or her conduct will turn out to violate a fiduciary duty.

For more information, contact Michael at, or at (808) 531-8031.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robert Thomas, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.