DANIEL S. OPPERMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.
The Plaintiff, Jason Fulcher, requests that this Court determine that a debt arising from a judgment in favor of him and against the Defendant, Brandon Battles, in the amount of $220,000 be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Genesee County Circuit Court entered this judgment because Mr. Battles struck Mr. Fulcher on April 22, 2012, knocking Mr. Fulcher unconscious, breaking his jaw and causing other serious injuries. Because the Court finds that this debt is from a willful and malicious injury, the Court concludes that the debt of Mr. Battles to Mr. Fulcher is excepted from discharge.
The Court held a Trial in this matter on March 26, 2018 and heard testimony of Mr. Fulcher, Greg Murray, and Lonnie Whitman who were called by the Plaintiff and Mr. Battles who testified on his own behalf. The Court also admitted the deposition transcript of Ryan Brittain at the request of the Defendant because Mr. Brittain was unavailable to testify on March 26, 2018. After hearing the testimony of these witnesses and examining Exhibits 1 and 2 admitted at Trial, the Court makes the following findings of fact.
Mr. Fulcher is a disc jockey and has played pre-recorded music at various places throughout the greater Flint area for 28 years. One of these places is a bar known as New Jester's Bar ("Jester's") where Mr. Fulcher was performing on April 21 and 22, 2012. Mr. Fulcher was very busy at Jester's that night performing a 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift and business was very brisk. After closing down his act, Mr. Fulcher was relaxing in the smoking room when he heard noise outside in the parking lot. He recalls walking out of the smoking room and into the parking lot and then raising his arms with open palms while asking the crowd in the parking lot to calm down and disperse. As Mr. Fulcher turned, he was hit by Mr. Battles. Mr. Fulcher then dropped to the ground and was unconscious for a few minutes before he was revived. Mr. Battles' punch was so strong that Mr. Fulcher was taken to the hospital and hospitalized for approximately one week.
Mr. Whitman and Mr. Murray generally collaborate Mr. Fulcher's version of the facts. Mr. Whitman is an individual in charge of security for the parking lot of Jester's with a primary focus of avoiding theft, vandalism of vehicles, and deterring drug usage and transactions. Per Mr. Whitman, Mr. Fulcher walked into the parking lot area at a normal gait and was punched by Mr. Battles. Mr. Whitman did not see that Mr. Battles was in any imminent danger and did not see Mr. Fulcher take any belligerent action against Mr. Battles.
Mr. Whitman was not aware that there was a heated discussion between two groups in the parking lot and that Mr. Battles was a member of one of those groups. Mr. Murray, whose wife works at Jester's, had been at Jester's 3 to 4 hours that night. He had a slightly different perspective, in that he saw the two groups arguing with each other with Mr. Battles taunting members of one group to come and fight him. In doing so, Mr. Battles assumed a stance. Mr. Fulcher then stepped into the parking lot with his arms up and palms open and Mr. Battles hit him.
Mr. Battles gives a slightly different view of the events of April 22, 2012. He was at Jester's to be part of his friend's birthday celebration and arrived there at approximately 1:45 a.m. He testified that he had one beer at Jester's and then left Jester's, but was accosted in the parking lot by a group of 3-5 patrons verbally abusing him and then punching him. After separating himself from this group and after 30 seconds, he started backing away from this group, heard Mr. Fulcher, turned and punched Mr. Fulcher in the face, dropping him to the ground. Thereafter, the bouncers of Jester's detained Mr. Battles until the Genesee Township Police arrived. While Mr. Fulcher was being taken to the hospital, the Genesee Township Police cited Mr. Battles for assault and battery.
At Trial, Mr. Battles gave conflicting views as to exactly what happened on April 22, 2012. At one time, he testified that he was engaged in a heated discussion with 3-5 people who were trying to surround him and that he was physically attacked by a couple of people in this group. He placed Mr. Fulcher behind him at that time and indicated that Mr. Fulcher touched his shoulder, prompting him to swing and punch Mr. Fulcher. Later, however, Mr. Battles testified that Mr. Fulcher approached him from the front, touched or bumped his chest, and then Mr. Battles hit Mr. Fulcher.
Although he was not available, the Court admitted the deposition testimony of Ryan Brittain. Pertinent parts of that testimony include:
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, Pages 4-12)
Mr. Battles posted the following on his Facebook page at 12:03 p.m. on April 22, 2012, less than 12 hours after he hit Mr. Fulcher:
Mr. Battles' next public statement regarding the altercation occurred at his arraignment in the 67th District Court for Genesee County on May 14, 2012.
A few days later, on May 23, 2012, Mr. Battles again posted an interesting statement on Facebook:
Thereafter, Mr. Fulcher sued Mr. Battles in the Genesee County Circuit Court and obtained a judgment against him in the amount of $220,000. Despite some attempts to pay a portion of this obligation, Mr. Battles concluded that he could not do so and filed a petition seeking relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code with this Court on June 22, 2016. In turn, Mr. Fulcher filed the instant adversary proceeding and obtained a default judgment, which Mr. Battles requested to have this Court set aside. This Court did so, but concluded that the sole issue to litigate was whether the actions of Mr. Battles were malicious and willful under Section 523(a)(6).
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and E.D. Mich. LR 83.50. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) (determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts).
Section 523(a)(6) authorizes a bankruptcy court to exclude a debtor from receiving a discharge "from any debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity." The exceptions to discharge are to be narrowly construed in favor of the debtor. Monsanto Co., v. Trantham (In re Trantham), 304 B.R. 298 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2004) (citing Meyers v. I.R.S. (In re Meyers), 196 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 1999)); see also Walker v. Tuttle (In re Tuttle), 224 B.R. 606, 610 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1998) (recognizing "the axiom that requires this court to construe exceptions to the bankruptcy discharge narrowly and in favor of the debtor.") (citing Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998)). A party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a debtor committed an injury that is both willful and malicious. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991).
In Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998), the United States Supreme Court discussed and determined the meaning of the language used in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The issue before the United States Supreme Court involved "whether a debt arising from a medical malpractice judgment attributable to negligent or reckless conduct" fell within 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Id. at 59. The Kawaauhaus argued that the malpractice award fell within the Section 523(a)(6) exception because Dr. Geiger engaged in the intentional act of providing inadequate medical services which led to Mrs. Kawaauhau's injury. Id. at 61.
In analyzing the parameters of the language "willful and malicious injury," the United States Supreme Court found that:
Id. at 61-62 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, Comment a, p. 15 (1964)).
The United States Supreme Court further determined that to adopt the interpretation proposed by the Kawaauhaus would:
Id. at 62 (quoting Gleason v. Thaw, 236 U.S. 558, 562 (1915)).
More than a year later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the "willful and malicious injury" language contained in § 523(a)(6), in Markowitz v. Campbell (In re Markowitz), 190 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted Geiger and noted that:
Id. at 464.
Based on the language used and analysis of the United States Supreme Court in Geiger, the Markowitz Court announced the standard of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that:
Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, at 15 (1964)); see Kennedy v. Mustaine, 249 F.3d 576, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
In addition to proving a willful injury, a party must also prove that the debtor committed a malicious injury. "`Malicious' means in conscious disregard of one's duties or without just cause or excuse; it does not require ill-will or specific intent." Wheeler v. Laudani, 783 F.2d 610, 615 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473, 486 (1904)). If a party fails to prove either willful or malicious, the debt will be discharged. Markowitz, 190 F.3d at 463. Inferences can be made, however, if the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury warrant such:
O'Brien v. Sintobin (In re Sintobin), 253 B.R. 826, 831 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000) (citations omitted).
Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals re-visited this issue in the case of Kennedy v. Mustaine (In re Kennedy), 249 F.3d 576, 581 (6th Cir. 2001). In that case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterating the holdings in Geiger and Markowitz, summarizing the test under Section 523(a)(6) as: "[O]nly acts done with the intent to cause injury—and not merely acts done intentionally—rise to the level of willful and malicious injury for purposes of satisfying § 523(a)(6).".
The parties agree that the judgment by the Genesee County Circuit Court is binding upon them as to the underlying facts that support this judgment, as well as the plea made by Mr. Battles. Damages are also not in issue. Thus, the only issue that was litigated at trial and is before this Court for determination is whether the actions of Mr. Battles were willful and malicious.
At the May 14, 2012 arraignment, Mr. Battles clearly admits that he hit Mr. Fulcher and that statement was accepted as the factual basis for the plea of being guilty of assault. In Michigan, assault and battery is defined as the intentional, uncontested, harmful or offensive touching of another person with the intent to injure. Lakin v. Rund, 318 Mich.App. 127 (2016). At his arraignment, Mr. Battles admitted striking Mr. Fulcher, which supported his plea of being guilty of assault. Parsing the situation closely, Mr. Battles did plead guilty to assault, but not necessarily battery. In doing so, Mr. Battles freely admits striking Mr. Fulcher.
Mr. Battles seeks to raise the affirmative defense of self-defense and argues that it is his mental state that controls here and that in this situation his debt to Mr. Fulcher is discharged. The terms of the Michigan Self-Defense Act therefore apply. In particular, self-defense may be found "if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual." Mich. Comp. Laws 780.972(2). The claim of self-defense is an affirmative defense, so Mr. Battles carries the burden of proof in establishing that these elements have been met. Kleman v. Taylor (In re Taylor), 322 B.R. 306, 309 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2004).
Here, this Court does not find the requisite elements of self-defense. First, while certain witnesses testified that they were aware that there were words and shoving going on between the two groups in question, no one other than Mr. Battles and perhaps Mr. Brittain place Mr. Fulcher in the middle of this altercation. Mr. Murray, a witness called by Mr. Fulcher, was in a position to see that there was some interaction between the two groups, but his testimony is that Mr. Battles was goading one group to fight him. Second, Mr. Battles testified that there was at least a 30 second delay between the last time that he had any exchange with the one group before he punched Mr. Fulcher. At various times, Mr. Battles places Mr. Fulcher either in front of him or behind him, but always in a position where Mr. Fulcher had his arms extended and palms open with no evidence that Mr. Fulcher intended to hit Mr. Battles. The best version for Mr. Battles is that Mr. Fulcher somehow approached him from behind and touched his shoulder, but no witness other than Mr. Battles support this version. Three witnesses, two of which are disinterested, confirm that Mr. Fulcher did not touch Mr. Battles.
Third, Mr. Battles testified that he punched other individuals prior to hitting Mr. Fulcher and whatever force he used with those individuals did not apparently render any of these individuals unconscious. Accordingly, not only did Mr. Battles unnecessarily hit Mr. Fulcher, but hit him harder than needed so as to render him unconscious. With these facts, this Court does not find that there was any self-defense by Mr. Battles that was merited under these circumstances.
The testimony of Mr. Brittain partially supports Mr. Battles, but his testimony is inconsistent with all other witnesses and, in many cases, Mr. Battles. Mr. Brittain's deposition testimony paints Mr. Battles as an innocent bystander near an ongoing fight, which could form the basis of self-defense for Mr. Battles. But Mr. Brittain places Mr. Fulcher in front of Mr. Battles at all times and has Mr. Fulcher chest bumping Mr. Battles, in direct contradiction to the other witnesses and part of the trial testimony of Mr. Battles. Moreover, Mr. Brittain testified that Mr. Fulcher goaded Mr. Battles to fight him, and no witness confirms that understanding. The Court finds that Mr. Brittain's testimony is not credible, but included it in this Opinion to give a complete statement of the record and demonstrate that the Court considered and then rejected a majority of that evidence.
The Court construes the Facebook posts of Mr. Battles to conclude that Mr. Battles did not accidently hit Mr. Fulcher or, if he did so, expressed no regret, which evidences that Mr. Battles did indeed intend to hit Mr. Fulcher and cause the injuries that he caused. This is particularly true given that inferences must be drawn from circumstances in cases such as this. Also, there are no inferences that can be drawn from these facts that suggest, much less prove, otherwise.
The Court finds the testimony of Mr. Battles to be inconsistent and insufficient to prove self-defense. Instead, the Court finds that Mr. Battles intentionally hit Mr. Fulcher and in doing so intended to injure Mr. Fulcher, all as defined by Geiger and Markowitz. The Court also finds that Mr. Battles committed a malicious injury by hitting Mr. Fulcher in conscious disregard to his duties or without just cause or excuse. The Court finds that Mr. Battles did not act in self-defense and that he was not in danger or in need to defend himself when he hit Mr. Fulcher.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the obligation owed by Mr. Battles to Mr. Fulcher pursuant to the Genesee County Circuit Court judgment is excepted from discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(6). The calculation of that amount, as well as the enforcement of the judgment, is left with the Genesee County Circuit Court.
Counsel for the Plaintiff is directed to prepare an order consistent with this Opinion and the entry of order procedures of this Court.
