Bayshore v. Evans

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-20421
_____________________
In The Matter of: DEAN RAY EVANS; JANE ELAINE EVANS
Debtors
BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK OF LA PORTE,
Appellant,
v.
DEAN RAY EVANS; JANE ELAINE EVANS,
Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
February 7, 1996
Before KING, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bayshore National Bank of La Porte appeals the district
court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's discharge of Dean
Ray Evans and Jane Elaine Evans in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. By
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
focusing on the Evanses' transfer of nonexempt assets into their
exempt homestead, Bayshore sought to bar the Evanses' general
discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) and to impose an
equitable lien on their homestead pursuant to the Texas
Fraudulent Transfers Act. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 24.005 and
24.008. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor
of the Evanses on all causes of action regarding the homestead.
Because we find that Bayshore did not submit sufficient summary
judgment evidence as to the Evanses' intent to conceal the
transfers, or to hinder, delay, or defraud, and because the
transfers did not occur within one year of the Evanses'
bankruptcy filing, we conclude that the district court did not
err in affirming the bankruptcy court's summary judgment.
By focusing on the transfer by Dean Ray Evans of two
cashier's checks to Texas Coastal Bank ("TCB"), Bayshore sought
to bar the Evanses' general discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
727(a)(2) or, alternatively, to have the debt to Bayshore
declared nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
After trial on the merits, the bankruptcy court found that D.
Evans' transfer of the cashier's checks was a preferential
payment and not a transfer made to hinder, delay, or defraud
creditors. The record supports that finding. Additionally, the
bankruptcy court determined that Bayshore had no cause of action
under § 523(a)(6) because Bayshore had no legal claim to the
cashier's checks at the time that D. Evans transferred them to
TCB. We agree with the lower courts that, on the facts
2
presented, the transfer of the two cashier's checks to TCB did
not justify denial of discharge under § 523(a)(6).
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court.
3