Debt Resulting from Fraud is Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
Post 5230
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpF3y7Vd, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gR5cVcbY and at https://lnkd.in/gch6Q4_V, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Knowing Misappropriation and Conversion of Funds is Fraud
In re Matthew Jene Tubbs (Bankr. N.D. Tex., Fort Worth Div., No. 22-42728-MXM-7; Adv. No. 23-04019-mxm), October 15, 2025 .
Key Facts
Plaintiffs (Robles) and Defendant (Tubbs) met through their church; both held leadership roles. In Feb 2021 Robles home suffered major water damage from Winter Storm Uri and insurance paid $173,000.
In the Fall of 2021: Tubbs represented to Mr. Robles that he personally built a newer house and large barn on his parents’ property “with his own hands” (except foundation/insulation). That he had 10 years’ experience overseeing window/door installations at a major home-improvement chain, was a licensed contractor (false) and carried general contractor liability insurance.
Relying on these representations and Tubbs’s church handyman work, Robles hired Tubbs as general contractor for insurance repairs + upgrades, even though Tubbs had no prior general contracting experience.
The parties did not enter into a formal written contract. Instead, the parties jointly created a detailed budget Spreadsheet (labor + materials by room) and an 8–9 week timeline (later revised to end of Feb 2022).
Plaintiffs advanced $216,000 to Tubbs. Tubbs made almost no meaningful progress by August 2022 and was fired. Most items on the Spreadsheet never started. Flooring and kitchen cabinets he did start were defective and had to be redone. Tubbs failed to buy most materials despite having the funds and could not account for the money. Tubbs admitted on June 10, 2022: “I do not have the money to finish the project right now.” Tubbs admitted he used project funds for personal expenses (floor sander $5,000; personal credit-card bills $8,581).
Tubbs claimed he paid himself ~$78,000 as a legitimate GC/overhead fee ($10k/month). Court rejected this as not credible and unsupported by the Spreadsheet or timeline. Tubbs raised numerous defenses (undue influence by church authority, insurance fraud by plaintiffs, no binding contract, Tex. Prop. Code § 162.031(b) trust-fund defense, illegality, unclean hands, mistake, statute of frauds, etc.).
Legal Conclusions
§ 523(a)(2)(A) – False Pretenses / False Representation (nondischargeable)
Court found Tubbs made three material false representations that induced plaintiffs to hire him and advance funds:
He built the house and barn himself.
He was a licensed contractor.
He carried GC liability insurance.
The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs justifiably relied on these representations and rejected Tubbs’s “puffery” argument. The entire $152,610.05 debt was found to be nondischargeable on this ground alone (court did need to reach a finding of “actual fraud.)
§ 523(a)(6) – Willful and Malicious Injury (nondischargeable)
The statute requires deliberate/intentional injury (not just intentional act), or objective substantial certainty of harm + subjective motive, or intent to cause the actual injury.
Tubbs’s knowing misappropriation and conversion of at least $152,610.05 of project funds for personal use while knowingly leaving the job incomplete constituted willful and malicious injury to plaintiffs’ property.
Contract debts can be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) when the breach/conversion is intentional and harmful.
All of Tubbs’s Defenses Overruled
No undue church influence.
No insurance fraud or unclean hands by plaintiffs.
Valid oral contract existed (Spreadsheet + communications).
Tex. Prop. Code § 162.031(b) trust-fund defense inapplicable because the $78,000+ was not legitimately spent on the project or reasonable overhead/GC fee.
Conclusion
The bankruptcy court entered a nondischargeable judgment of $152,610.05 against debtor Matthew Tubbs in favor of the Robles, based on false representations that induced the contract and willful/malicious conversion of construction funds. Tubbs’s numerous defenses were rejected as not credible or legally unsupported.
Judgment for plaintiffs Felipe and Shereen Robles in the amount of $152,610.05, declared nondischargeable in Tubbs’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy under both 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) (false pretenses/representations) and 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury).
ZALMA OPINION
The availability of a great deal of insurance money creates a temptation to even honest church going people. Mr. Tubbs was tempted, lied about his abilities and took the insurance money designated to repair the home of Felipe and Shereen Robles and used it to pay off his ongoing debts and then filed bankruptcy hoping to avoid paying back what he owed. The bankruptcy court found that he defrauded the Robles’ and could not discharge that debt.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
