The following excerpt is from Thruston v. Reaves (In re Thruston), Adv. No. 10-2156, BAP No. AZ-14-1309-KiPaJu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015):
The party objecting to a debtor's discharge under 727(a) bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor's discharge should be denied. In re Retz, 606 F.3d at 1196. Courts are to "'construe 727 liberally in favor of debtors and strictly against parties objecting to discharge.'" Id. (quoting Bernard v. Sheaffer (In re Bernard), 96 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996)).
Section 727(a)(4)(A) states: "The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless . . . the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case made a false oath or account." "A false statement or an omission in the debtor's bankruptcy schedules or statement of financial affairs can constitute a false oath." Khalil v. Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. (In re Khalil), 379 B.R. 163, 172 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). To obtain a denial of discharge under 727(a)(4)(A), the objector must show: "(1) the debtor made a false oath in connection with the case; (2) the oath related to a material fact; (3) the oath was made knowingly; and (4) the oath was made fraudulently." In re Retz, 606 F.3d at 1197.
Page 21
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.