ILNews

Ex-mayor argues $108 million judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ex-East Chicago mayor hit with a $108 million racketeering judgment because of public corruption wants a federal bankruptcy court to dismiss a civil complaint against him that questions whether the judgment is dischargeable under bankruptcy code.

In a brief filed earlier this week, former mayor Robert Pastrick contends that the Indiana attorney general’s adverse action doesn’t prove that he acted willfully or maliciously as required to make the multi-million dollar judgment nondischargeable.

On March 25, the state agency filed a 22-page complaint against Pastrick in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging that five provisions of the federal bankruptcy law exempt this debt from being eligible for discharge through bankruptcy. This came in response to the 2010 judgment against Pastrick and his former aids, who admitted their roles in a “sidewalk for votes” scheme that funneled $24 million in public money to pay for sidewalks and concrete paving in exchange for votes in the city’s 1999 primary election. The AG’s office has been trying to collect that money for the past year, but Pastrick in December filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying the amount.

In the civil complaint, the AG’s office contends that Pastrick’s theft, abuse of power while in office, and federal racketeering means the $108 million can’t be dismissed through bankruptcy proceedings. The five counts spell out the arguments that the debt shouldn’t be discharged because of Bankruptcy Code sections 523(a)(6), 523(a)(4), 523(a)(7), 523(a)(13), and 523(a)(2)(A).

But Pastrick argues that bankruptcy code requires his conduct have been “willful” or “malicious,” and that isn’t the case here.

“There is a clear distinction between an act that is intentional and an act that is intentional and ‘malicious,’” the brief says. “The Plaintiff’s response did not address this distinction and relies on the findings and suggestion that Defendant’s actions were ‘intentional.’”

Pastrick also argues that he didn’t receive any financial benefit from the alleged activities, and that’s a requirement under bankruptcy code in classifying the debt as nondischargeable. He also points out the judgment was compensatory as well as punitive, and that it doesn’t include any specific restitution order so the debt can be written off.

“The mere allegations or findings of morally repugnant activity does not guarantee that any civil judgment resulting therefrom would qualify as nondischargeable,” Pastrick’s brief says.

How the court decides this issue of dismissal could determine how the underlying bankruptcy case proceeds against Pastrick, and ultimately how the AG’s office is able to pursue collecting the $108 million judgment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT