American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Hashemi
United States Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit
104 F.3d 1122 (1996)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Dr. Hashemi (defendant) filed for bankruptcy after returning from a six-week trip to Europe with his family. Hashemi alleged that the purpose of the trip was to ask his mother-in-law for funds relating to a condominium project in which Hashemi held a one-half ownership interest. Upon his return, Hashemi owed American Express Travel Related Services Co. (Amex) (plaintiff) more than $60,000 for close to 170 credit card charges, which included numerous purchases of expensive meals and luxuries. When the trip began, Hashemi owed more than $300,000 to other credit card companies but only $227 to Amex. He had carried balances exceeding $60,000 with Amex before but had never been in default. His annual income was less than $60,000. While Hashemi was in Europe, a second-mortgage holder for the condominium project commenced foreclosure proceedings. Amex petitioned the bankruptcy court to declare Hashemi’s debt to it nondischargeable on account of fraud pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The court granted Amex’s petition, and the district court affirmed the judgment on appeal. Hashemi again appealed, arguing that Amex had failed to prove intent to defraud, the making of a false representation, and justifiable reliance.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.