Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

IN RE BURGE, 14-05590-JMC-7 (2015)

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana Number: inbco20151218823 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW JAMES M. CARR , Bankruptcy Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Richard Burge ("Defendant") on December 16, 2015 (Docket No. 40) (the "Motion"). The Court, being duly advised, now DENIES the Motion. Ind. Code 22-4-17-2(a), made applicable to this case by Ind. Code 22-4-13-1.1.(c), requires an individual to dispute the determinat
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Richard Burge ("Defendant") on December 16, 2015 (Docket No. 40) (the "Motion"). The Court, being duly advised, now DENIES the Motion.

Ind. Code § 22-4-17-2(a), made applicable to this case by Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1.1.(c), requires an individual to dispute the determination of the Department of Workforce Development ("Plaintiff") and request a hearing before an administrative law judge within 10 days after such a determination is mailed to the individual's last known address. If the individual fails to do so, the determination is final. The issue of the appropriateness of the penalties determination must have been raised through the state's system of administrative and judicial review based on applicable state law. There is nothing in the record showing that the Defendant followed this procedure to dispute the Plaintiff's determination and nothing was raised in the pleadings or at trial regarding the issue. Therefore, the Plaintiff's determination became final.

The only issue before the Court was the nondischargeability of the underlying undisputed debt based on federal law. The Court based its decision on the statutory language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) which, unlike Ind. Code § 22-4-13-1.1(b), contains no intent element. The Plaintiff satisfied the elements of § 523(a)(7) and therefore is entitled to judgment in its favor and against the Defendant.

Although there may be additional reasons for denial, including issues of state law, the Court DENIES the Motion based on the reasons described in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer