Court Rules Against WICR WATERPROOFING Again in WICR Vs Keck

  • WICR in Pursuit of a $1.3 Million Judgement for Damages
  • Bankruptcy Filing by Keck Prevented Collection
  • Years of Appeals Later, Court Affirms Keck’s Debt is Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

WICR just won’t give up hope of collecting a judgement from an ex-employee of theirs. Scott Keck and WICR have been battling for years with Keck’s lawyers getting the best of WICR’s attorneys time after time.

On March 5th the Court issued a ruling regarding the dischargeablity of the judgement in bankruptcy, affirming the bankruptcy courts finding that the debt is dischargeable.   This link takes you to a copy of the decision on another website.

From the court document, the court found all sorts of failures on WICR’s attorneys Lindborg & Mazor’s part. (Irina Mazor of the firm is married to David Mazor, owner of WICR)

“WICR challenges two decisions by the bankruptcy court: (1) the dismissal of Arwen Keck from the nondischargeability action; and (2) the Order discharging Scott Keck’s debt. As explained below, the Court vacates the bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss Arwen Keck and remands for further proceedings, and affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to discharge Scott Keck’s debt.”

“Accordingly, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that WICR failed to prove willfulness under § 523(a)(6).”

“The Court therefore also affirms the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusion that WICR did not prove that Scott Keck acted with malice.”

“In sum, the bankruptcy court correctly found that WICR failed to show that Scott Keck subjectively or objectively believed he was harming WICR for purposes of willfulness, intended to harm WICR for purposes of malice, or caused WICR actual lost profits by his actions. Thus, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Scott Keck’s debt was dischargeable because WICR failed to carry its burden to prove willfulness and malice under § 523(a)(6).”

This case will continue on going after Arlen Keck, because Dave is, I’m sure bent on revenge and hounding his opponent using low cost legal services…but then again, especially when it comes to lawyers, you get what you pay for…

Tell Us Your Opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s