Beach Community Bank v. Johnson
Order AFFIRMING the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/30/2016. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
BEACH COMMUNITY BANK,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-00467-KD-M
This matter is before the Court on Appellant Beach Community Bank’s (“the Bank”)
appeal of the United States Bankruptcy Court’s September 1, 2016 decision granting judgment
for the Debtor, Appellee Julie Johnson, on the Bank’s Adversary Complaint objecting to the
Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4). (See Doc. 12 at 5). The Court has
reviewed the decision (Doc. 7), the record, and the accompanying briefing (Docs. 12, 14, and
15). Upon consideration, the United States Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED.
Standard of Review
Upon entry of a final order by the bankruptcy court, a party may appeal to the district
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The United States District Court functions as an appellate
court in reviewing decisions of the United States Bankruptcy Court. In re Colortex Indus., Inc.,
19 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 1994). This Court reviews de novo the legal conclusions of the
bankruptcy court. In re JLJ, Inc., 988 F.2d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 1993).
The standard of review employed by this Court in reviewing the bankruptcy court’s
findings of fact is the clearly erroneous standard of review described in Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8013: “Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence,
shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of
the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” See In re Thomas, 883 F.2d 991,
994 (11th Cir. 1989). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, “although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Crawford v. W. Elec. Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 1373, 1378 (11th
Cir. 1984) (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948)).
Upon its review of the record and the decision of the bankruptcy court, this Court has
has determined that the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and after
de novo review of the conclusions of law, finds no error. The Court hereby adopts the decision of
the United States Bankruptcy Court as its own. That decision (nearly verbatim)1 follows:
Debtor Julie Johnson is 35 years old and lives with her parents in Fairhope, Alabama.
She has been wholly supported by her parents since graduating from college in 2003. Ms.
Johnson unfortunately has had some severe personal and physical challenges. She is a recovering
alcoholic and has been sober for about five years. She went through two interventions, several
hospitalizations, and two stints in residential rehab before becoming sober. She also suffers
from severe Crohn’s disease, a disease of the digestive system which sometimes causes her to
unexpectedly lose control of her bowels. Ms. Johnson also suffers from stress, depression, and
anxiety and has been treated for those conditions.
As part of her recovery process, Ms. Johnson, with her mother Linda Johnson’s support,
has taken up fitness and bodybuilding, even competing in bodybuilding competitions. Her
mother supports her financially in the endeavors because it helps Ms. Johnson stay healthy and
This Court has made minor adjustments to the Bankruptcy Judge’s oral opinion to clarify or remove conversational
Debtor Julie Johnson and her father Terrell Johnson guaranteed or executed a promissory
note in the amount of $780,000 from 30A Estate, Inc. to Beach Community Bank in 2007. 30A
Estate failed shortly thereafter in the recession of 2008-09. Beach sued 30A Estate, Julie
Johnson, and Terrell Johnson and obtained a Florida state court judgment in the amount of
$960,045.42 in November 2009.
The Johnson family currently has jewelry stores in Fairhope, Alabama, Mountain Brook,
Alabama, and Highlands, North Carolina. The Highlands store is operated on a seasonal basis
during the second half of the year only. Julie Johnson helps out in the Fairhope store both when
her parents are there and when they are operating the store in Highlands. She has never received
any W-2s or 1099s from any of the jewelry businesses. She has never filed an income tax return.
In March 2015, when Julie Johnson filed her Chapter 7 case, there were several bank
accounts to which she had access. First, there was a Regions Bank account ending in 1575 in her
father Terrell Johnson’s and her names. There was a PNC Bank account ending with 5844 in the
name of TLJ Estate Jewelry. Additionally, Julie had signatory authority and charging privileges
on several other family business accounts and debit cards.
In the spring of 2015, Beach domesticated its judgment against Julie Johnson in the
Circuit Court of Baldwin County and garnished her Regions Bank account. In response, her
parents opened up two accounts at The First[.] One account was in Julie’s name individually
and the other was in the name of TLJ Estate Jewelry. Her parents deposited $500 in the personal
account. Julie Johnson did not instigate the opening of these accounts and her parents provided
the paperwork for her to sign.
Ms. Julie Johnson also had access to jewelry business funds by use of a “Square” account
 which some store sales paid for via American Express or the sale proceeds of some consigned
The name of the bank is simply “The First.” (footnote not in original).
items would be paid into her personal Regions Bank account. She also on occasion has used
cash from the Fairhope store for small personal purchases.
All three members of the immediate family -- Terrell, Linda, and Julie Johnson -- have
“lived out of” the business bank accounts to a large degree for the last several years. In other
words, they all three made substantial personal charges on the jewelry business accounts.
All three of Julie Johnson, Linda Johnson, and Terrell Johnson testified that they
considered that the money in those business accounts belonged to Linda Johnson and that Julie
was allowed to use the debit cards or other money from the company accounts only with
permission of her mother, Linda Johnson. That permission could be cut off at any time.
Both Mrs. Johnson and Julie Johnson testified, and the Court finds it to be true, that Julie
was allowed to use the business accounts for incidental personal expenses but that she had to get
express permission from her mother for anything other than that or for any significant business
expenses. Julie’s personal use of the business accounts has been substantially curtailed by her
mother since the bankruptcy filing.
The Johnsons’ tax and accounting situation is, putting it mildly, not the best. None of the
companies in which Terrell and/or Linda Johnson have any interest have filed tax returns since
2011. None of Linda, Terrell, or Julie Johnson have filed tax returns since 2011. As noted
earlier, Julie has never filed a tax return.
The company accountant, Brad Congleton, testified that he was working on the overdue
corporate tax returns and the individual returns of Linda and Terrell Johnson for 2012 forward.
He testified that -- assuming that Linda Johnson continued to tell him as she had before and as
she testified in court, which was that she intended that any personal charges incurred by Julie
Johnson on the corporate accounts to be gifts from her to Julie -- those charges would be
accounted for as distributions to Linda Johnson.
The gifts to Julie Johnson would be reflected, to the extent they exceeded $14,000 a year,
on a gift tax return by Linda Johnson. He further testified that he had never seen any W-2 or
1099 issued for any employee of any of the Johnson-related businesses, but that draws by a
member of any of the LLC’s would be reflected by a K-1 and the income taxes paid by the
Linda Johnson testified that her daughter’s problems, primarily the Crohn’s disease and
accompanying bowel problems at this point, make it impossible for Julie Johnson to work a
regular job and that having Julie help out at the store and supporting her with gifts is much better
than risking the possibility of relapse. In the early years of her daughter’s sobriety, Mrs. Johnson
required her daughter to be seen by a nurse and to receive regular breathalyzer tests. She
continues to keep close tabs on her daughter even when Linda Johnson is in North Carolina and
the daughter is in Fairhope.
The discrepancies which form the basis of the bank’s 727(a)(4) claim can be summarized
First, the original petition did not list any amounts on Official Form 22A-1, the Chapter 7
“statement of your current monthly income.” Question 4 of that form calls for “all amounts from
any source which are regularly paid for household expenses of you or your dependents, including
Include regular contributions from an unmarried partner, members of your
household, your dependents, parents, and roommates....”
Second, on Schedule B, Ms. Johnson did not list the personal account at The First which
had been opened about two weeks earlier, and she did not list any of the business accounts to
which she had access. In June 2015, she amended Schedule B to list her personal bank account
at The First.
Third, on Schedule I, Ms. Johnson checked that she was not employed and did not list
any employment income. She later amended Schedule I to add an addendum that she had access
to certain business accounts of her parents.
Fourth, the Debtor did not list any equitable or future interests, rights, or powers
exercisable for the benefit of Debtor under Item 19 of Schedule B.
There was testimony at trial about several different entities in which Linda Johnson
and/or Terrell Johnson have had interests: TLJ Estate Jewelers Holdings, LLC, TLJ Holdings,
LLC, TLJ Management, LLC, TLJ Irrevocable Trust of 2010, and Cook Elrod Johnson LLC.
However, the undisputed testimony was that Julie Johnson has not and does not have any
ownership interests in or any control over any of these entities or any other business entities
the Johnsons’ except that she briefly had an interest in Cook Elrod Johnson LLC about ten or
twelve years ago.
Here is the applicable law. Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(4)(A) provides that the
Court should grant the Debtor a discharge, unless the Debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in
connection with the case, made a false oath or account.
To justify denial of a discharge under Section 727(a)(4)(A), the false oath must be
fraudulent and material.  Swicegood v. Ginn, 924 F.2d 230, 232 (11th Cir. 1991).
The subject matter of a false oath is material, and thus is sufficient to bar discharge, if it
bears a relationship that the bankrupt’s business transactions or estate, or concerns the discovery
of assets, business dealings, or the existence and disposition of its property.  Chalik v.
Moorefield, 748 F.2d 616 (11th Cir. 1984).
A debtor’s signature on a bankruptcy petition, schedule of assets and liabilities, and a
statement of financial affairs, under penalty of perjury, are written declarations that have the
force and effect of oaths. Thus a false statement or omission within a debtor’s schedules may
qualify as a false oath under Section 727(a)(4)(A).  In Re: Gonzalez, 2008 WL 2397608
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008).
 Judge Margaret Mahoney, stated in the case of In Re: Cornelius, 333 B.R. 850 (Bankr.
N.D. Fla. 2005) the following […]:
As a general proposition of bankruptcy law, one of the Bankruptcy Code’s
fundamental goals is to relieve the honest but unfortunate debtor of his
indebtedness, allowing him to make a fresh financial start. This fresh start is
primarily accomplished through the discharge of debt.
Though the Bankruptcy Code provides most debtors with a fresh start, the Code
prevents dishonest debtors from improperly using it as a shield. While the
Bankruptcy Code does not expressly require that the debtor file and prosecute the
bankruptcy case in good faith, good faith and candor are necessary prerequisites
to obtaining a discharge.
Denial of a discharge is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore statutory
exceptions to discharge must be construed liberally in favor of the debtor and
strictly against the objecting party. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
the grounds for denial of discharge and must prove his case by a preponderance of
333 B.R. at 859. [(citations and quotations omitted, some paraphrasing)].
Section 727(a)(4) ensures that those who seek the shelter of the Bankruptcy Code
do not play fast and loose with their assets or with the reality of their affairs. The
statutes are designed to ensure that complete, truthful, and reliable information is
put forward at the outset of the proceedings, so that decisions can be made by the
parties in interest based upon fact rather than fiction.
The Eleventh Circuit has stated that the veracity of the bankrupt’s statements is
essential to the successful administration of the Bankruptcy Act. The plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that the false oath was made knowingly and
fraudulently about a material matter.
For a false oath to be material, it must be demonstrated that it bears a relationship
to the bankrupt’s business transactions or estates, or concerns the discovery of
assets, business dealings, or the existence and disposition of his property.
333 B.R. at 862. [(citations and quotations omitted, some paraphrasing)].
The bank put on evidence about the somewhat byzantine corporate ownership structure of
the family jewelry stores and the fact that all three of the immediate family members, as stated
above, essentially live out of the businesses by paying most of their expenses from business
The bank contends that Terrell and Linda Johnson have utilized these measures in order
to shield assets and income from the reach of the bank’s judgment against Terrell Johnson and
Julie Johnson. However, the only question before this Court is the 727(a)(4)(A) issue of whether
the Debtor Julie Johnson swore fraudulently on her schedules such that her discharge should be
With respect to the business bank accounts, although Julie Johnson had access to some of
the business accounts both by check and debit card, her use of those funds was strictly monitored
and controlled by her mother. She had to get permission from her mother for any extraordinary
expenses, either corporate or individual. The funds in the accounts were not generated by Julie
Johnson, and her access to the accounts could be cut off at any time. She did not have any
ownership interest in any of the businesses at any relevant time.
The cases cited by Beach involving failure to disclose bank accounts are distinguishable
because they all involved the debtor owning the account, creating the funds in the account, or
controlling the account. In In Re: Cornelius, 333 B.R. 850, 866 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 2005), the
debtor testified that he had no bank account during a period of time in which he had actually
deposited $250,000 into a personal checking account. In other words, the undisclosed checking
account was his own.
In In Re: Roberts, 2010 WL 376399 (W.D. Tex. 2010), it is not clear from the opinion in
whose name the account was held, but the court found that the debtors had “exercised continuing
ownership and control over the account....”
In In Re: Bullough, 358 B.R. 261 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007), the debtor wholly owned the
two corporations in which name the accounts were held and a third account was in the name of
the debtor and his personal assistant.
In In Re: Guenther, 333 B.R. 759 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2005), it was the debtor’s own bank
accounts which were not revealed on the schedules. The same is true for In Re: Rao, 526 B.R.
623 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2015).
In In Re: Zhang, 463 B.R. 66 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2012), the debtor was 20 percent owner
of the corporation which owned the bank account and his wife owned 80 percent.
And in In Re: Baldridge, 256 B.R. 284 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2000), the debtor failed to list
at least three accounts as a part of a broad overall admitted scheme to avoid creditors.
Although the Debtor here had the ability to make some charges on the business bank
accounts, that access was limited and controlled by her mother. And although the pattern of the
whole family “living out of” the business checking accounts may have been unorthodox, the
Court finds that Julie did not have any interest in or any control over the business accounts such
that they should be considered hers and thus had to be listed on her schedules.
The Court thus finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the schedules were false under Section 727(a)(4) for failure to list the business
The Debtor’s failure to list the checking account in her name at The First is more
problematic. Julie Johnson testified without contradiction that the account was opened by her
parents after her Regions Bank account had been garnished. She did not go by the bank; her
parents brought the paperwork for her to sign.
The First account was opened on March 3, 2015, and the bankruptcy was filed on March
13, 2015. The account was opened with a deposit of $500. The statement for the account, which
was Beach Exhibit 5, shows that the Debtor used the account eight times between March 3, 2015
and March 10, 2015 -- all relatively small charges totaling $431.19. Julie Johnson testified that
she simply forgot about that account when she was sitting down with her first bankruptcy
attorney to draft her schedules.
The account had $68.81 in it at the time she filed bankruptcy on March 13[, 2015]. That
amount certainly would have been exempt under Alabama law, although the fact that an unlisted
asset would have been exempt is not an excuse for failing to list it. That account was in the
Debtor’s name and it was in existence at the time of filing and should have been listed on the
However, given the turmoil in her life at that time, the Debtor’s relative lack of financial
sophistication, and the lack of incentive to conceal the account since the funds would have been
exempt, the Court believes Julie Johnson’s testimony that her failure to list The First personal
account was inadvertent, not intentional, and not knowingly made with fraudulent intent. The
Court thus finds that her failure to list The First bank account does not bar her discharge.
With regard to the claim that Debtor should have listed as income on her schedules the
support which she receives from her parents -- housing, food, clothing, and use of the store
accounts -- the Court finds that the support was not regular enough such that it should have been
listed as income or “regular contributions” or “regularly paid” amounts for purposes of her
There was no specific or regular amount of support or gifts, and as of the time of the
bankruptcy Linda Johnson had substantially reduced it. Further, the questions do not clearly call
for listing non-cash support such as a room in which to live.
Regarding whether her charges on the business accounts and other money from the
businesses should be counted as income, the Debtor has never received a W-2 or 1099 from any
of the businesses. As discussed earlier, the company accountant is going to treat those amounts
as distributions to the Debtor’s mother, Linda Johnson.
Although the arrangement may have been unconventional, the Court finds that Julie
Johnson could not have reasonably been expected to recharacterize the purchases and other funds
from the business accounts as income when the businesses themselves did not do so. The
charges and other items from business accounts were thus not income which had to be reported
on the schedules.
The Court also finds that the question of whether those charges and items should have
been counted as income was at best such a gray area that in not listing them as income the
Debtor did not have the requisite fraudulent intent.
Regarding the Debtor’s answer to Item 19 on Schedule B, the Court finds that Plaintiff
did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor had any equitable or future
interests, rights, or powers exercisable for the benefit of the Debtor. And therefore, there was no
falsity with that answer.
[The Court] understand[s] that the bank’s position is that Linda and Terrell Johnson have
structured their jewelry businesses and arranged for the family members to live out of those
businesses in an attempt to prevent the bank from collecting on its large judgment against Terrell
Johnson and Julie Johnson.
Again, that is not the issue before this Court. The only issue before this Court is whether
under Bankruptcy Code Section 727(a)(4)(A) Julie Johnson swore falsely on her bankruptcy
schedules such that she should be denied a Chapter 7 discharge.
There was no evidence at trial that she participated in setting up the arrangements of
which the bank complains, and the Court will not impute any alleged fraudulent intent of the
parents to Julie Johnson in the absence of such evidence.
Based on the foregoing, and after conducting a de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s
conclusions of law the undersigned concludes that there is no error. Nor were the findings of fact
clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Alabama is AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December 2016.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?