Intentional Injury Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

Background and Allegations

Mark Riley filed a lawsuit against Niko Irizarry in federal district court, alleging claims for civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, malicious prosecution, violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, common law false imprisonment or arrest, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Riley's claims were based on allegations with convincing evidence that Mr. Irizarry made a false statement that led to the search of Mr. Riley's car and his subsequent arrest.

On February 11, 2022, the Lee County Sheriff's Office arrested Charles Custodio, Scott Snider, and Mr. Irizarry. Mr. Irizarry admitted to the Lee County Sheriff's Office that he lied in a sworn statement to Lieutenant Ryan Poklemba of the Lee County Sheriff's Office that he had had no prior knowledge that drugs would be found in Mr. Riley's car; that he caused Mr. Riley harm by arresting him for a crime he did not commit; and that he obstructed the Lee County Sheriffs Office's drug investigation by lying in a sworn statement.

The court found that Mr. Irizarry's false statement in his probable cause affidavit was an intentional and deliberate act, substantially certain to lead to the search of Mr. Riley's car and his subsequent arrest, and was wrongful and without just cause.

Court's Ruling

Mr. Riley's motion for summary judgment was granted, as Mr. Irizarry failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to dispute the material facts or the inference created by Mr. Riley's evidence. The court concluded that Mr. Riley had met his burden of proof, and Mr. Irizarry's false statement was both willful and malicious.

The court held that, under Rule 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An injury is "willful" under § 523(a)(6) if the debtor commits an intentional act with the purpose of causing injury or which is substantially certain to cause injury. An injury is "malicious" if it was wrongful and without just cause or excessive even in the absence of personal hatred, spite, or ill-will.

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code "provides an exception to discharge for debts for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity." An injury is considered "malicious" under § 523(a)(6) "if it was wrongful and without just cause or excessive even in the absence of personal hatred, spite or ill-will."

In this case, each of Mr. Riley's claims was predicated on allegations that Mr. Irizarry falsely stated in his probable cause affidavit that he witnessed Mr. Riley with drugs in his hands; that Mr. Irizarry's false statement gave rise to probable cause to search Mr. Riley's car (in which the planted drugs were found) and for his later arrest; and that as a result of Mr. Irizarry's false statement in his probable cause affidavit, Mr. Riley was charged with 6 felonies and faced a maximum of 65 years (and a mandatory minimum of 25 years) in jail.

Based on the record evidence Mr. Riley presented, it was undisputed that Mr. Irizarry intended his false statement in his probable cause affidavit to injure Mr. Riley. At the very least, Mr. Irizarry's false statement was substantially certain to lead to the search of Mr. Riley's car and Mr. Riley's subsequent arrest—i.e., substantially certain to injure Mr. Riley. The court found Mr. Riley came forward with sufficient evidence entitling him to a directed verdict that Mr. Irizarry's false statement was willful.

Once Mr. Riley met his burden of coming forward with evidence entitling him to a directed verdict, the burden shifted to Mr. Irizarry. Mr. Irizarry failed to meet his burden of coming forward with sufficient evidence to call into question the inference created by Mr. Riley's evidence.

Based on the record evidence, there was no dispute as to any material fact that Mr. Irizarry's false statement in his probable cause affidavit (1) was an intentional and deliberate act; (2) that, at a minimum, was substantially certain to lead to the search of Mr. Riley's car and his subsequent arrest; and (3) was wrongful and without just cause.

The court then entered a separate final judgment determining that Mr. Riley's claims against Mr. Irizarry in the district court action were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Conclusion

Mr. Irizarry's attempt to avoid a judgment obtained by Mr. Riley for his false arrest and malicious prosecution failed. Bankruptcy is a system to help people avoid debts they incurred and start their lives anew. It is not available to protect a person like Mr. Irizarry from their intentional and willful act to get someone like Mr. Riley arrested and jailed. There is no right to discharge the judgment because of the wrongful conduct of Mr. Irizarry.