Legal Opinion
Marilyn Scheer v. State
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 14, 2016No. 14-56622PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
OWENS, Circuit Judge:
Pro se appellant Marilyn Scheer, an attorney with a suspended California law license, contends that the district court erred when it held that her debt to a former client was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). We agree with Scheer that this particular type of debt does not fall within the scope of section 523(a)(7), so we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Client Dispute and State Bar Proceedings
In September 2010, a client named Clark retained Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan, and paid her $5500…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Kelly v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Central Virginia Community College v. KatzSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Lenore Albert-Sheridan v. State Bar of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Ghadimi v. AshaiDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2016
- Anthony Kassas v. State Bar of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2022
- In re DickersonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · 2019
- (BK) In Re: Ernesto & Marilyn PatacsilDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2024
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.