Larry Bruce Thacker v. SE Property Holdings, LLC

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11802
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:15-cv-00183-MP-CJK; 5:12-bkc-50370-KKS
In re: LARRY BRUCE THACKER,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
LARRY BRUCE THACKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC
Defendant - Appellee.
Case: 16-11802 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 30, 2017)
Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL,∗ District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Larry Thacker appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
bankruptcy court’s denial of his discharge and grant of summary judgment for the
appellee SE Property Holdings, LLC (SEPH) based on a continuing concealment
theory and collateral estoppel. After careful review of the record and parties’
briefs, along with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgement de novo. In re Optical Techs,
Inc., 246 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2001). This litigation originated in 2009 and
has allowed Mr. Thacker to avoid satisfying a million dollar judgment owed to
SEPH. Since then, several courts have affirmed the finding of fraudulent conduct
exhibited by Mr. Thacker when he transferred most of his assets into a trust with
intent to hinder, delay, and defraud SEPH. The district court determined that the
bankruptcy court properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the findings of fraud in
order to conclude that “Thacker is not the kind of honest debtor who is entitled to
∗ Honorable James Randal Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 16-11802 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
discharge.” Thacker v. SE Prop. Holdings, LLC, No. 5:15-cv-00183-MP-CJK, at
*20 (N.D. Fla., Mar. 21, 2016). The bankruptcy court also properly applied the
doctrine of continuing concealment to conclude that Thacker’s fraudulent behavior
continued after the initial transfers were made. We agree with the thorough and
well-reasoned decision of the district court. Although denial of discharge is an
extraordinary measure, “it is clear that these facts present a case in which the
denial was warranted.” Id. at 21.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-11802 Date Filed: 01/30/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --