Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Brewer, II

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN RE:
JAMES L. BREWER II,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-11352-T
Chapter 7
OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES L. BREWER II,
Defendant.
Adv. No. 25-01016-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (the “Motion”), 1 filed by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (“Plaintiff”).
Presently at issue is whether a debt is dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 2 The
following facts and conclusions of law are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52,
made applicable to this bankruptcy proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.
Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and venue is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to
1 ECF No. 15.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Filed/Docketed
May 18, 2026
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 1 of 8

2
28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Determination as to the dischargeability of a debt is a “core” proceeding as
that term is defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).
Summary Judgment Standard
The United States Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit has held that:
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue is ‘genuine’ if there is sufficient evidence on
each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.” Adler v.
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). “An issue of fact is
‘material’ if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the
claim.” Id. Put differently, “[t]he question . . . is whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d
1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). “On summary judgment the
inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986) (quotation
omitted). 3
When the nonmoving party fails to respond to a movant’s assertion of fact, the Court may
“consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” 4 Nonetheless, the Court must
“examin[e] the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its initial burden of
demonstrating that no material issues of fact remain for trial and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” 5
3 Becker v. Bateman, 709 F.3d 1019, 1022 (10th Cir. 2013).
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056.
See also Bankr. N.D. Okla. Local Rule 7056-1(B) (“All properly supported material facts set forth
in the movant’s statement shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless
specifically controverted by a statement of the non-movant that is supported by evidentiary
material.”).
5 Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir. 2002).
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Background
In 2018, Defendant James L. Brewer II (“Defendant”) filed for and received unemployment
insurance benefits from Plaintiff for a period of fourteen weeks. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff,
Defendant was gainfully employed by Hirecall Licensing, LLC during those weeks. After
conducting a routine audit in December 2019, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant had failed to
disclose material facts which would have rendered him ineligible to receive benefits, constituting
fraudulent overpayment. As a result, Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding, seeking a
determination that the debt is excepted from discharge in Defendant’s bankruptcy case pursuant to
§ 523(a)(2)(A).
Findings of Fact
There is no genuine dispute as to the following facts: 6
1. 	Plaintiff is an agency of the State of Oklahoma which operates under the Oklahoma
Employment Security Act of 1980 “to promote employment security by increasing opportunities
for placement through the maintenance of a system of public employment offices and to provide
through the accumulation of reserves for the payment of compensation to individuals with respect
to their unemployment.” 7
2. 	To receive unemployment insurance benefits, an individual must provide Plaintiff
with a weekly “statement of all material facts relating to unemployment; ability to work;
availability for work; . . . employment and earnings . . . .” 8
6 These facts were alleged by Plaintiff in the Motion, ECF No. 15. Defendant failed to
respond to the Motion. As such, these facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the pending
summary judgment motion. See Bankr. N.D. Okla. LR 7056-1(B).
7 Okla. Stat. tit. 40, §§ 1-101 to 9-104.
8 Id. § 2-203(B)
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 3 of 8

4
3. 	If an overpayment of benefits occurs, Plaintiff is required to send notice of the
determination to the individual, who may then file an appeal within twenty days after the date of
the mailing of the notice or, if the notice was not mailed, within twenty days after the date of the
delivery of the notice. 9
4. 	Defendant filed weekly claims with Plaintiff for unemployment insurance benefits
and certified that he was eligible to receive benefits for the weeks ending on September 1, 2018,
through December 1, 2018, for a total of fourteen weeks. 10
5. 	Relying on Defendant’s weekly claim filing certifications that he was unemployed
and available for work, Plaintiff issued Defendant unemployment insurance benefits in the amount
of $334.00 for the week ending on September 8, 2018, and in the amount of $394.00 per week for
the weeks ending on September 1, 2018, and September 15, 2018, through December 1, 2018. 11
6. 	In December 2019, Plaintiff conducted a routine audit which revealed that
Defendant had been employed by Hirecall Licensing, LLC from August 30, 2018, through
November 30, 2018. 12
7. 	On December 12, 2019, Michael Barker, Plaintiff’s Senior Fraud Investigator,
determined that Defendant committed fraud by repeatedly failing to disclose his employment when
certifying his weekly claims and concluded that Defendant had done so with “a willful intent to
withhold material and requested information from the commission.” 13
8. 	On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff issued a written determination finding it had
overpaid Defendant unemployment benefits in the amount of $5,456.00. The determination also
9 Id. § 2-616(A).
10 See Plf’s Ex. 15-3, 15-4.
11 See id.
12 See Plf’s Ex. 15-3, 15-4, 15-5.
13 See Plf’s Ex. 15-4 at 3.
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 4 of 8

5
assessed a penalty amount of $1,364.00, twenty-five percent of the principal, with interest of one
percent accruing per month on the unpaid principal amount. 14
9. 	The determination included language advising Defendant of his appeal rights which
he elected not to exercise. 15
10. 	On September 16, 2025, Defendant filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition in this
Court, Case Number 25-11352-T. 16
11. 	As of September 16, 2025, allowing for adjustments, set offs, and repayments, the
outstanding, overdue, and payable amount owed by Defendant to Plaintiff is the principal balance
of $4,002.00, plus accrued interest and penalties of $4,495.90, for a total of $8,497.90. 17
12. 	On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding. 18
13. 	Plaintiff filed the instant unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment on March 19,
2026. 19
To the extent the Conclusions of Law contain any items that should more appropriately be
considered Findings of Fact, they are incorporated herein by this reference.
Conclusions of Law
Exceptions to discharge pursuant to § 523 are to be construed narrowly with any doubts
resolved in the debtor’s favor. 20 Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt “for money,
property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—
14 See Plf’s Ex. 15-2. Plaintiff calculated the penalty and interest amounts in accordance
with Okla. Stat. tit. 40, § 2-613(1).
15 See Plf’s Ex. 15-2, 15-4 at 3, 4.
16 Case No. 25-11352, at ECF No. 1.
17 See Plf’s Ex. 15-3.
18 ECF No. 1.
19 ECF No. 15.
20 See In re Bloom, No. 22-1005, 2022 WL 2679049, at *5 (10th Cir. July 12, 2022); In re
Johnson, 477 B.R. 156, 168 (10th Cir. BAP 2012).
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 5 of 8

6
false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud[.]” To establish a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A)
for false pretenses or false representation, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence the following: “1) the debtor made a false representation; 2) the debtor made the
representation with the intent to deceive the creditor; 3) the creditor relied on the representation;
4) the creditor’s reliance was justifiable; and 5) the debtor’s representation caused the creditor to
sustain a loss.” 21 Thus, the debtor must have acted with subjective intent to deceive, which may
be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. 22 Importantly, “it is well-established questions
involving a defendant’s state of mind or intent are ordinarily not appropriately resolved on
summary judgment.” 23 However, there is no per se rule precluding summary judgment on the issue
when intent is an element of proof. 24
Plaintiff has satisfied all five elements of its § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. First, the uncontroverted
facts show Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff that he was unemployed and qualified to
receive benefits for the weeks ending on September 1, 2018, through December 1, 2018, despite
knowingly being employed by Hirecall Licensing, LLC. Second, Plaintiff’s determination found
Defendant, with willful intent, withheld material information for the purpose of receiving benefits,
a determination which Defendant failed to refute. Moreover, the facts establish that Defendant
21 Okla. Heritage Bank v. Ward (In re Ward), 589 B.R. 424, 428 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2018)
(citing Johnson v. Riebesell (In re Riebesell), 586 F.3d 782, 789 (10th Cir. 2009)); Scheideler v.
Berken, No. 16-cv-02310, 2017 WL 3315550, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2017); Grogan v. Garner,
498 U.S. 279, 287 (1991).
22 In re Johnson, 477 B.R. at 169; Skyline Air Ops, Inc. v. Conkle (In re Conkle), No. 23-
01053, 2024 WL 1460286, at *6 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2024).
23 In re Conkle, 2024 WL 1460286, at *6 (citing Tso v. Nevarez (In re Nevarez), 415 B.R.
540, 544 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2009)).
24 See Al Lado Cambio De Cheques, Inc. v. Reyes (In re Reyes), No. 19-01094, 2020 WL
4006376, at *4 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. July 15, 2020); Grassmann v. Brown (In re Brown), 570 B.R.
98, 109 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2017); Kansas v. Oliver (In re Oliver), 554 B.R. 493, 500 (Bankr. D.
Kan. 2016).
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 6 of 8

7
received $5,456.00 in benefits based on representations he knew were false, indicating that he
intended to deceive Plaintiff. 25 Third, Plaintiff issued Defendant benefits because it relied on his
false representations as to his employment status. Fourth, as indicated by the Oklahoma
legislature’s enactment of the Oklahoma Employment Security Act of 1980, Plaintiff’s primary
objective is to promote employment security and provide compensation for the unemployed.
Plaintiff’s 	reliance 	on 	self-reported 	information, 	while 	vulnerable 	to 	falsification, 	is 	not
unjustified, especially considering the penalty imposed for making false representations to obtain
benefits. Additionally, to ensure that those in need of assistance receive benefits quickly and
efficiently, Plaintiff must implement “an efficient distribution of the social benefits provided by
the state[,]” further justifying reliance on self-reported information. 26 Fifth, Plaintiff overpaid
Defendant benefits in the amount of $5,456.00 and, as of Plaintiff’s filing of the Motion, is owed
an outstanding principal balance of $4,002.00, sans penalty and accrued interest. Therefore,
Plaintiff suffered damages because of its reliance on Defendant’s false representations.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds there are no
genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this case. Even construing all facts and inferences in
favor of Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff has met its burden under § 523(a)(2)(A) to show its
debt is nondischargeable, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion is entered concurrently
herewith.
25 See, e.g., In re Oliver, 554 B.R. at 500-01; Morgan Cnty. Hous. Auth. v. Ketcham (In re
Ketcham), No. 04-7183, 2005 WL 2209231, at *3 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. July 5, 2005); Pub. Emp. Ret.
Sys. v. Gadus (In re Gadus), 145 B.R. 235, 238-39 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1992); Illinois v. Hatcher
(In re Hatcher), 111 B.R. 696, 700 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990).
26 In re Oliver, 554 B.R. at 502.
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Dated this 18th of May, 2026.
Case 25-01016-T Document 17 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 05/18/26 Page 8 of 8