5
cause of action must be involved in both cases.” Banny v. Onewest Bank, FSB (In re Banny),
Bankr. No. 11-51783, Adv. No. 11-05046, 2012 WL 7655322, at *7 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Apr. 23,
2012) (citing Eubanks v. FDIC, 977 F.2d 166, 169 (5th Cir. 1992)). These conditions are met
here, and res judicata applies to the prior judgment of nondischargeability. Pacher has not met
her burden to show that the prior judgment should not be enforced.
Further, because no affirmative action is required on the part of the creditor to seek
enforcement of a prior judgment of nondischargeability, Simone’s argument cannot be untimely.
See In re Szafranski, 147 B.R. at 989 (holding that if a creditor chose to file a new adversary
proceeding, it would “not [be] subject to [the] deadlines under [Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure] 4007(c) [or] 9006(b)(3)”).
B. Difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Discharge
The discharge in a Chapter 13 (sometimes colloquially referred to as a “super discharge”)
discharges some debts that would be nondischargeable under Section 523 in a Chapter 7 case.
Allegra Network, LLC v. Ruth (In re Ruth), Bankr. No. 10-50184, Adv. No. 10-5009, 2013 WL
139265, at *7 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2013); see also 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(2) (2005). But the
Court has found no case (and Pacher has submitted none) holding that the distinction between
the discharges in Chapters 7 and 13 is relevant to the validity of a prior judgment of
nondischargeability.
4
In fact, Section 523(b) addresses what types of debts found
4
Even if the distinction were relevant, the result would be the same in this case. At the hearing, Simone stated that
the state court awarded judgment for embezzlement and for forging Simone’s name on medical documents. The
parties did not put forth any of the original state court pleadings in this case to show on what the judgment was
based, but the Court takes judicial notice of Simone’s proof of claim filed in Pacher’s 2008 bankruptcy. Simone
attached the original judgment she obtained in state court, and that judgment merely states that it is a default
judgment and does not identify the causes of action. Further, the prior agreed order finding this debt
nondischargeable does not state any specific grounds. With no other evidence related to the basis for the state court
judgment and because Pacher did not rebut this statement at the hearing or in any subsequent briefing, the Court
assumes it is accurate. Debts for embezzlement and related forgery are excepted from discharge under Section
523(a)(4); see Gamble-Ledbetter v. Andra Group, L.P. (In re Gamble-Ledbetter), 419 B.R. 682, 695-98 (Bankr.
E.D. Tex. 2009). Debts under this subsection are nondischargeable in a Chapter 13 case. See § 1328(a)(2).