Former NFL Star's Bankruptcy Discharge Denied

Former NFL wide receiver Antonio Brown's recent bankruptcy case has highlighted important limitations in Subchapter V bankruptcy protection, particularly regarding the discharge of judgment debts stemming from willful and malicious conduct.

The case originated from a 2020 incident where Brown allegedly assaulted Anton Tumanov, an Amerimoving LLC employee, during a relocation dispute. This led to a $1.2 million Florida state court judgment against Brown in October 2022. When Brown filed for Subchapter V bankruptcy in May 2024, seeking to discharge this debt, Tumanov quickly challenged the discharge through an adversary complaint.

Subchapter V bankruptcy, typically known for its debtor-friendly features like lower costs and faster processing, has become increasingly popular. However, Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically prevents discharge of debts arising from "willful and malicious injury" caused by individual debtors.

The bankruptcy court's decision hinged on the preclusive effect of the state court judgment. Despite the original judgment not explicitly using the terms "willful" or "malicious," the court found that the underlying conduct satisfied these criteria. The court granted summary judgment in Tumanov's favor, making the $1.2 million judgment non-dischargeable.

This case offers several key lessons for legal practitioners:

First, when drafting judgments, attorneys should explicitly include "willful and malicious" language to strengthen protection against future bankruptcy discharge attempts. This simple addition can provide significant leverage if a judgment debtor later threatens bankruptcy.

Second, the reach of Section 523(a)'s discharge exceptions is expanding. More circuit courts are ruling that these exceptions apply not just to individuals but also to businesses in Subchapter V cases. This trend is particularly significant given the current $3,024,725 debt limit for Subchapter V filings.

Finally, Tumanov's aggressive legal strategy provides a blueprint for creditors in similar situations. By quickly filing an adversary proceeding and seeking summary judgment based on the preclusive effect of the state court judgment, Tumanov maintained control of the proceedings. This approach has led to further investigations into Brown's property interests and transfers, demonstrating how strategic bankruptcy litigation can protect creditor interests effectively.

The case serves as a reminder that while bankruptcy offers powerful protections for debtors, these protections have limits, particularly when dealing with debts arising from intentional wrongdoing.