IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT K. YEATON, YEATON CONSULTING SERVICE, BANKRUPT. ROBERT K. YEATON, BANKRUPT-APPELLANT,
v.
L. E. WEISENBURG, JR., CREDITOR-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court was not clearly erroneous in affirming the denial of a bankruptcy discharge based on the debtor's failure to keep adequate financial records.
A debtor, engaged in real estate sales, filed for bankruptcy and had his discharge denied by the referee for inadequate records and concealment of ass…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concealment Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this California bankruptcy case, Robert K. Yeaton appeals a District Court order affirming the Referee in Bankruptcy’s denial of a discharge. Yea-ton had been engaged in the business of subdividing and selling real estate when he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. L. E. Weisenburg, Jr., alleging that Yeaton had borrowed $20,000 from him, objected to the discharge. Yeaton produced no records of the alleged loan.
The referee denied Yeaton’s discharge because (1) Yeaton had failed to keep or preserve adequate books or records from which his financial situation could be determined, and (2) Yeaton deliberately concealed his ownership of certain assets. The District Court affirmed on the first ground only. We agree with the District Court:
The District Court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the stacks of canceled checks, escrow statements, diaries, expense listings, and other miscellaneous papers furnished by Yeaton were inadequate to ascertain his financial position and business transactions. Yeaton’s own certified public accountant admitted the difficulty with which he managed to file income tax returns. There was adequate evidence to find that a denial of discharge under § 14(c) (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 32(c) (2), was proper. See Rhoades v. Wikle, 453 F. 2d 51 (9th Cir., 1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Goff v. The Russell Co., 495 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Rhoades v. Wikle, 453 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1971)