The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit has ruled against Scott L. Fenstermaker, an attorney, in a case involving family disputes over inheritance and legal fees. The court determined that Fenstermaker's debts to his sister, Martha Czymmek, arising from three pre-petition sanctions awards, are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). This ruling has significant implications for Fenstermaker, who has been ordered to pay a total of $114,478.18 in attorney's fees and costs.

The case, identified as BAP No. EB 25-018, stems from a long-standing family conflict that began after their father's death in 2018. Fenstermaker and Czymmek, who are siblings, have been embroiled in litigation over their father's estate, which has led to multiple court sanctions against Fenstermaker for his actions during the legal proceedings. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision was made on October 27, 2026, following Fenstermaker's appeal of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in favor of Czymmek.

Background

The dispute between Fenstermaker and Czymmek began when their father revoked a will that had divided his estate equally among his three children. In 2016, he executed a new will that excluded Fenstermaker as a beneficiary and named Czymmek as the executrix. Fenstermaker filed a lawsuit in 2017 to invalidate the new will, but it was dismissed in 2018. Following their father's death, Czymmek sought to settle the estate based on the new will, and Fenstermaker's attempts to probate the revoked will were also denied.

Over the years, Czymmek filed motions for attorney's fees against Fenstermaker due to his repeated and unsuccessful legal actions. In May 2023, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered Fenstermaker to pay Czymmek $93,775.77 for her legal fees, citing that he acted in bad faith and his claims were frivolous. Fenstermaker's appeals of this decision were unsuccessful, leading Czymmek to pursue enforcement of the judgment in various jurisdictions, including New York and Maine.

The Ruling

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the lower court's summary judgment, ruling that Fenstermaker's debts to Czymmek from the sanctions awards were nondischargeable. The court stated, "The undisputed material facts supported the conclusion that the sanctions awards resulted from Fenstermaker's willful and malicious acts that injured her." The judges emphasized that the sanctions were based on Fenstermaker's actions, which were found to be in bad faith, aimed at harassing Czymmek and causing her unnecessary legal expenses.

The ruling highlighted that the bankruptcy court correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which prevents a party from re-litigating an issue that has already been judged on the merits in a final ruling. The court noted that Fenstermaker's multiple legal actions were deemed frivolous and without just cause, reinforcing the decision that his debts were not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Fenstermaker, who now faces substantial financial liability due to the court's determination. The decision reinforces the principle that debts resulting from willful and malicious injury, particularly in the context of bad faith litigation, can be deemed nondischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. This case serves as a cautionary tale for individuals involved in legal disputes, particularly those that may involve family matters, emphasizing the importance of acting in good faith and the potential consequences of frivolous litigation.

The ruling also underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards and the potential ramifications of failing to do so, particularly for legal professionals. Fenstermaker, who is currently under suspension, may face further scrutiny regarding his conduct as an attorney.

What's Next

Fenstermaker may seek to appeal the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision, although the likelihood of success remains uncertain given the thoroughness of the lower court's ruling. Additionally, Czymmek has filed a motion for damages and costs related to Fenstermaker's appeal, arguing that it is frivolous and part of a continuing pattern of bad faith litigation.