Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case holding that the settlement of a lawsuit claiming fraud converted the defendant’s obligation from a potentially nondischargeable debt for fraud to a contract obligation that is dischargeable under bankruptcy law. In a misguided attempt to encourage settlements, the 4th Circuit in Archer v. Warneradopted the approach taken by the 7th and 9th Circuits and rejected the opposite result reached by the D.C. and 11th Circuits. The facts are these: Elliott and Carol Archer purchased a business owned by Arlene Warner and her then-husband, Leonard Warner. Several months later, the Archers sued the Warners for fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the sale. After extensive pretrial discovery, the suit was settled. The settlement documents included an agreement, a promissory note and mutual releases. The Archers gave the Warners broad releases of any claims arising out of or relating to the litigation. The settlement did not, however, make specific mention of nondischargeability claims in the event of bankruptcy. When the Warners failed to make either of the payments required by the promissory note, the Archers sued. The Warners then filed under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Archers, in turn, filed an adversary proceeding to have the debt evidenced by the promissory note declared nondischargeable. But Arlene Warner persuaded both the Bankruptcy Court and, on appeal, the U.S. District Court that the promissory note created a new debt, or novation. Thus the note effectively substituted a dischargeable contract debt for the potentially nondischargeable claims of fraud and misrepresentation. When the case reached the 4th Circuit, the court characterized the issue of whether a novation had occurred as one of fact, such that the district court’s decision could only be reversed if it constituted clear error. Given the broad language of the releases, as well as the terms of the settlement agreement and promissory note, the 4th Circuit held that the lower court had not clearly erred when it found that the promissory note constituted a new obligation. The 4th Circuit also addressed broader public policy arguments. In the 4th Circuit’s view, the approach taken by the courts with which it joined — the 7th and 9th Circuits — encourages settlements. If, on the other hand, the settlement obligation is nondischargeable, “the incentive to settle is gone.” It is difficult to understand how the 4th Circuit reached this conclusion. While the result in Archermight encourage the defendant to settle, it will discourage the plaintiff from settling, for fear that the defendant might subsequently file for bankruptcy. Indeed, Archermight even encourage defendants to settle nondischargeable debts and then file for bankruptcy as a strategy to avoid the debt altogether, raising issues of fraud in the inducement with respect to the settlement. This is such a significant concern that the federal government, 30 states and the AARP have filed amicus briefs in favor of the nondischargeability of the settlement debt. The D.C. and 11th Circuits, in reaching the opposite result, focused on the general policy underlying the bankruptcy discharge provisions — that only an honest debtor should receive a discharge — and held that a fraudulent debtor should not be permitted to transform himself into an honest debtor simply by settling a nondischargeable claim. Under these cases, if the claim that gave rise to the settlement was nondischargeable, then the settlement debt is also nondischargeable. Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees with the D.C. and 11th Circuits. Janet M. Meiburger is the managing partner of Meiburger & Associates ( www.lawyers.com/meiburgerlaw), a McLean, Va., firm specializing in bankruptcy, business law, real estate, and trusts and estates matters. She can be reached at [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at cus[email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.