In a recent 9th Cir. B.A.P decision, the court held that a California state court judgment was not entitled to issue-preclusive effect as to the debtor’s fraud under California law. The state court made numerous findings of fraudulent conduct by the debtor. Nonetheless, in a nondischargeability proceeding under Code § 523(a)(2)(A), the court denied to hold that the state court judgment had an issue-preclusive effect as to the debtor’s fraud where there was no indication in the record that any of the state court’s fraud findings were essential to the judgment.
In re Tinajero, 2018 WL 4939467 (9th Cir. B.A.P., Oct. 11, 2018)