In re: Luanne Macri

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4.

Case: 15-1982

Document: 003112217448

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1982
___________
In re: LUANNE MACRI,
Debtor
SARALYN MCQUEEN,
Appellant
v.
LUANNE MACRI
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-05053)
District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 22, 2016
Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 25, 2016)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1982

Document: 003112217448

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

Saralyn McQueen, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey affirming an order entered by the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. We will affirm as well.
I.
In March 2007, McQueen brought a lawsuit against her neighbor, Luanne Macri,
in New Jersey court seeking damages for injuries she had sustained when Macri’s two pit
bulls attacked and bit her. The parties ultimately settled the matter for $21,886.53. In
April 2011, Macri filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. At
that time, she had paid less than half of the settlement award to McQueen.
On June 28, 2011, McQueen commenced an adversary action in the bankruptcy
case asking the court to declare Macri’s debt to her nondischargeable in accordance with
section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge any debt
incurred “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the
property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The Bankruptcy Court conducted a
trial to determine whether the settlement award satisfied the criteria of section 523(a)(6),
ultimately concluding that it did not. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court denied
McQueen’s request and declared the debt dischargeable. McQueen appealed to the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Following oral argument,1 the District Court
affirmed. McQueen now appeals to this Court.

1

Macri did not appear at the argument.
2

Case: 15-1982

Document: 003112217448

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291.
“Our review of the District Court’s decision effectively amounts to review of the
bankruptcy court’s opinion in the first instance.” In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del., 298
F.3d 219, 224 (3d Cir. 2002). We review factual findings of the bankruptcy court for
clear error, while legal determinations are subject to plenary review. In re Fruehauf
Trailer Corp., 444 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2006). “Factual findings may only be
overturned if they are completely devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bear no
rational relationship to the supporting data.” Id. at 210 (internal alteration and quotation
marks omitted). The question of whether a debt correctly falls within section 523(a)(6) is
a question of law. In re Gerhardt, 348 F.3d 89, 91 (5th Cir. 2003).
Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from discharge “any debt . . . for
willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another
entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). A debtor’s actions are willful and malicious under
section 523(a)(6) “if they either have a purpose of producing injury or have a substantial
certainty of producing injury.” In re Conte, 33 F.3d 303, 307 (3d Cir. 1994). The burden
is on the creditor to prove willful and malicious injury by a preponderance of the
evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 291 (1991).
Upon review, we agree with the District Court’s determination that the Bankruptcy
Court did not err in denying McQueen’s request to declare the settlement award
3

Case: 15-1982

Document: 003112217448

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/25/2016

nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). McQueen contends that the lower courts erred
in determining that she failed to demonstrate that Macri willfully and maliciously ordered
her dogs to attack her. According to McQueen, the dogs ran “directly at [her,] like
somebody sicced them on [her].” (Tr. 3/16/15, p. 4.) She also faults Macri for failing to
properly contain her dogs, for failing to apologize after the attack, and for having “no
compassion or value for human life.” (Br. 9.) We, like the District Court, sympathize
with McQueen for the injuries she sustained. But we agree with both the District Court
and Bankruptcy Court that McQueen did not meet her burden of demonstrating, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Macri willfully and maliciously directed her dogs to
attack her; without any additional evidence to support her allegations, her belief that
Macri “sicced” the dogs on her is mere speculation.
III.
We have considered McQueen’s remaining arguments in support of this appeal
and conclude that they are meritless.2 Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court.

2

To the extent that McQueen accuses the District Court and Bankruptcy Court Judges of
bias, she provides no support for this contention. We have reviewed the record before us
and discern no bias.
4