Reference no: EM133375970
Identify each marked section as either a Conclusion (C); a Rule (R); Rule Explanation (RE); or Analysis/Application (A).
1.____The Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment because material issues of fact exist as to whether the Plaintiff purchased luxury goods within the context of 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a) (2)(C)(i) (1).
2.________ Under section 523, luxury goods include purchases for items not necessary to the support the debtor or the debtor's family. I
11 U.S.C. § 523 (a) (2)(C)(i) (II).
3.________ The Bankruptcy Court for the Middle
District of Florida concluded that a $200 treadmill purchased within 20 days of a Bankruptcy filing constituted a luxury good. Jones v. Smith (In re Jones), 417 B.R. 111
Bank MD. Fla. 2006). That court also determined that excessive or indulgent spending patterns can lead to a presumption that a debtor has purchased luxury goods.
Id. at 113
4.________ Here, Plaintiff purchased a $1,400 Bowflex machine 12 days before she filed her Bankruptcy case. Within 30 days of the Bankruptcy filing, she also incurred $746.00 in charges to Starbucks, with receipts showing that she visited Starbucks several times a day during that period. The Bowfles, which was more expensive and purchased closer to the date of the Bankruptcy filing that the treadmill in the Jones case, should be considered a luxury good. Additionally, the daily charges to Starbucks, a gourmet coffee chain, indicate an excessive and indulgent spending pattern.
5.________ Plaintiff argues that her doctor told her to lose weight and that her purchase of a Bowflex machine was necessary for her slimming regime.
She also argues that her
daily charges to Starbucks assisted her in her weight loss endeavor because she ordered low fat lattes. Although she does assert health reasons for the charges, Debtor has not demonstrated that she sought less expensive weight loss solutions. Nor has she shown that either the Bowflex or the Starbucks charges were necessary to support her or her family.
6.________Because material issues of fact exist as to whether the Plaintiff's charges constitute luxury items under Section 523, the Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.