22 B 13283, 23 A 20
Plaintiffs hired Debtor/Defendant to build a house.  During the course of construction, Defendant furnished a number of sworn contractor’s affidavits that reflected the amounts paid by Plaintiffs rather than the amounts paid to various subcontractors.  Plaintiffs filed a two-count complaint seeking a finding that Defendant’s debt to them is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6), and then sought summary judgment on the complaint.  HELD: There is no issue of fact that Defendant made false representations in the contractor’s affidavits.  The purpose of the Mechanics Lien Act is to protect both property owners and subcontractors.  When a contractor demands payment and furnishes a sworn affidavit regarding the status of payments to subcontractors, that affidavit must reflect payments made to subcontractors and amounts remaining due.  Since there is a genuine issue of fact regarding Defendant’s intent, however, the court denied summary judgment on the § 523(a)(2)(A) count.  As for the claim that the debt was incurred for willful and malicious injury, the case law requires intent to cause injury.  There is an issue of fact as to Defendant’s intent when he furnished the affidavits.  This issue can best be resolved at a trial where the court can evaluate Defendant’s credibility on the witness stand.  Therefore, the court denied summary judgment on the § 523(a)(6) count as well.