Carroll v. Vernon (In Re Vernon)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that law firm failed to establish the element of “justifiable reliance” where it was “on repeated and direct notice that Defendant was considering bankruptcy following the divorce” thereby posing “a threat to its fees, both those earned in the past and those about to be earned”
• The creditor-plaintiff has the burden to establish that the debtor’s obligation or any part of it falls under § 523(a)(2)(C
• “[I]mprovident creditors are not to be afforded special protections in bankruptcy for the assumption of common business risks.”
• “The provision of legal services for divorce are not for some extravagant, indulgent, or nonessential object.... Divorce serves a necessary family function — to end a dysfunctional family and resolve obligations of each spouse. Thus, the services involved here were not of a luxury nature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).