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.
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
