SEXUAL intercourse with a minor is called statutory rape. Whether the minor consented is irrelevant. If the law states that anyone below 16 is a minor, then carnal knowledge of the minor is rape even if the minor consented to the act. Most civilized humans and cultures agree that carnal knowledge of a minor is wrong, a despicable act of animals. But some religions and cultures see nothing wrong with it. If you are part of the latter, you are truly an abomination.
Imagine a situation where a convicted statutory rapist files for chapter 7 bankruptcy to discharge all his liabilities including the state court lawsuit that the child victim filed for damages. Should the victim’s claim for damages be discharged? This reminds us of Roman Polanski’s statutory rape of a 13 year old girl during a photo shoot in 1977. He pleaded guilty to statutory rape but fled from Los Angeles to London before sentencing. The victim filed a lawsuit asking for damages which Polanski settled for $500,000. If Polanski filed for Chapter 7 relief, should the $500,000 settlement be discharged?
In Re Long decided January 2014, plaintiff and debtor were lovers from 1999 to 2000. During the course of their relationship, debtor was 22, while the plaintiff was 12. Plaintiff gave birth to a child in 2000. Subsequently, debtor pleaded guilty to two counts of carnal knowledge under the penal code of Virginia. When the criminal case was done, plaintiff sued debtor alleging sexual assault and battery and carnal knowledge of a minor. Debtor did not respond. A default judgment was entered against debtor and a jury trial was set to determine damages. Before trial began, the parties reached a settlement with the debtor signing a promissory installment note with a confession of judgment.
Thereafter, debtor filed for Chapter 7 relief. Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint objecting to the discharge of her claim pursuant to Section 523(a)(6) which excepts from discharge any “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity…” She asserted that the state court criminal and civil judgments were entitled to collateral estoppel effect establishing that her claim was not dischargeable. This should be an open and shut case in favor of the plaintiff, right?
But the bankruptcy court disagreed because the issue of the debtor’s intent was not necessarily determined in the criminal or civil case, while the issue of debtor’s intent to cause “willful and malicious” injury is the only issue in 523(a)(6). To clarify was it debtor’s willful and malicious intent to cause plaintiff injury by having sexual intercourse with her? Sometimes, logic and the law results in the absurd. You know where this is going right? This reasoning is going down the yellow brick road.
“Under Virginia law, a sexual battery is committed if one sexually abuses another against his or her will by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse. Sexual abuse is further defined, in part, as an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person,” the court said. “A cause of action in tort for sexual assault and battery would require a showing of such intent. The intent required to establish sexual assault and battery may, but need not necessarily, include intent to injure. Because such acts could be committed with the intent to gratify the actor, intent to injure is not essential to proving sexual assault and battery. In other words, the court is saying, maybe, just maybe, debtor’s intent in having sex with the plaintiff was to gratify his animalistic lust, not to injure plaintiff!
“Therefore, the issue to be precluded in this case would not be identical to the issue decided by the state court default judgment.” The court added that carnal knowledge of a minor is a strict liability offense where intent is irrelevant. In other words, all you need is a minor and carnal knowledge of that minor to prove the elements of statutory rape. Proof of intent is not required. Plaintiff’s claim is discharged.
“The mind of the sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace.” – Romans 8:6.
* * *
Lawrence Bautista Yang specializes in bankruptcy, business, real estate and civil litigation and has successfully represented more than five thousand clients in California. Please call Angie, Barbara or Jess at (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
