In re Nance

556 F.2d 602 (1977)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Nance

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
556 F.2d 602 (1977)

Play video

Facts

In 1970, James Nance (debtor), a professional football player for the New England Patriots, was in arrears on multiple debts owed to Coolidge Bank and Trust Co. (Coolidge) (creditor). Nance executed a document purporting to assign his contract with the Patriots for payment over the 1970, 1971, and 1972 seasons to Coolidge as additional collateral. Nance was traded to another team in 1971. In 1972, Coolidge questioned whether it had adequate security for Nance’s debts. Nance created a trust to receive all outstanding compensation owed from the Patriots for the 1970 and 1971 seasons and named Coolidge and Nance’s agent as the trustees. One month later, Coolidge had Nance execute a demand note consolidating all of his debts and naming the trust and all compensation owed from the Patriots as security for the note’s repayment. In December 1973, Nance and the Patriots settled a dispute over Nance’s deferred compensation, and the Patriots paid Nance about $29,000. Nance gave Coolidge only $5,000. Coolidge sued Nance in state court to recover the unpaid balance on the demand note. Nance filed for bankruptcy in federal court, staying the state-court action. Coolidge then filed a petition in the bankruptcy proceeding, seeking to have about $24,000 of Nance’s debt declared nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court held that because of the assignment, the $24,000 Nance received from the Patriots belonged to Coolidge, and Nance’s willful and malicious conversion of that amount rendered the associated debt nondischargeable. The district court reversed, concluding that the money never belonged to Coolidge because Nance’s purported assignment violated a Massachusetts law prohibiting assignments of future wages. Coolidge appealed to the First Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership