October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1518

Does defalcation require intent to defraud?

The dispute centers on whether a trustee's self-dealing constitutes defalcation without proof of intent to defraud.

Official caption
Bullock v. BankChampaign, N. A.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Byrne stated that defalcation is a confounding question in bankruptcy law.

    Mr. Bensinger argued that the trustee's self-dealing was a reckless breach of duty.

    Mr. Gannon contended that no particular mens rea is inherent in defalcation.

    Justice Breyer noted that the trustee acted knowingly, which is stronger than recklessness.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case examines the mental state required for defalcation under bankruptcy law. the side that brought the case argues that reckless self-dealing suffices. the opposing side contends that intent to defraud is necessary. The Court must define the term defalcation in Section 523(a)(4).

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 18, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to hold that reckless self-dealing meets the defalcation standard.

the opposing side wants the Court to require proof of intent to defraud for defalcation.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that a reckless breach of fiduciary duty is a defalcation.

the opposing side argues that no specific mental state is inherent in the term defalcation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked whether the mental state applies to facts or law.

Justice Sotomayor noted the trustee wanted profits from the investment.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the mental state required for defalcation. It determines when a trustee's self-dealing bars debt discharge. It clarifies the scope of fiduciary duties in bankruptcy. It impacts how courts treat reckless breaches of trust.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON