Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 553
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-96 (PTG/LRV)
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`JOHN FRANKLIN DARNELL,
`
`Appellant,
`
`V.
`
`CAROLINA WASINGER, et al.
`
`Appellees.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on pro se Appellant-Debtor John Franklin Darnell’s
`
`appeal of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s January 5,2024
`
`Order. At the time he filed for bankruptcy, Mr. Darnell sought to discharge two judgments that
`
`Appellees Carolina Wasinger and Maddalena Wasinger (collectively, “the Wasingers”) obtained
`
`against him for defamation in Fairfax County Circuit Court. The Wasingers sought an exception
`
`from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). In its January 5^'’ 2024 Order, the bankruptcy coirt
`
`declared the judgments were non-dischargeable.
`
`The parties have fully briefed this appeal.
`
`Because the record and legal arguments are fully set forth in the existing record, a hearing would
`
`not aid the decisional process. Therefore, the Court will decide this matter on the papers. For the
`
`reasons that follow, the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background and Proceedings in Fairfax Circuit Court (CL 202')-
`15460; CL 2020-15461)
`
`The following relevant facts were derived from the record in this case:
`
`Meghan Wasinger, the mother of Carolina and Maddelena, offered Mr. Darnell a job as a
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID# 554
`
`real estate agent on her team at a real estate company. At some point, Mr. Darnell moved to work
`
`for Meghan Wasinger at an independent brokerage she started.
`
`Subsequently, Mr. Darnell
`
`believed that he was cut out of two transactions which resulted in a loss of about $13,000 in
`
`compensation.
`
`On September 25,
`
`2020,
`
`Mr. Darnell began posting
`
`on
`
`the
`
`website,
`
`FairfaxUnderground.com, under several different screennames to obscure his identity. The parties
`
`stipulated that on that same date and later the following date, Mr. Darnell made several postings
`
`about Meghan Wasinger’s children: Carolina Wasinger,* Maddalena Wasinger,^ and Stephen
`
`Wasinger.^ Mr. Darnell stipulated that each of these posts were defamatory per se.
`
`On September 25, 2020, Mr. Darnell posted:
`
`Carolina Wasinger, of William & Mary class of’21 [,] was arrested on Sunday after
`a verbal altercation with a police officer that spun after a house party was shut
`down. Intoxicated Carolina didn’t comply with the officers[’] demands and instead
`became increasingly confrontational,] threatening to sue and leave William &
`Mary. The officer asked the young lady to calm down[,] and she didn’t comply.
`She became violent and Carolina Wasinger was booked on assault and batteiy at
`Virginia peninsula jail[.j
`
`^ On September 25, 2020, Mr. Darnell posted:
`
`Maddalena Wasinger of Fairfax Station[,] a recent Foxcroft ’20[,j grad was booked
`Tuesday on armed robbery and second degree manslaughter. Armed robbery
`happened in the Timberidge neighborhood in Fairfax Station. A white male about
`6’3 and a younger woman with masks approached an owner demanding $500. The
`white male brandished a hand gun [sic]. The owner by God[’]s miracle jumped on
`The white male got away in a newer white
`the gun and no one was injured.
`mustang[;] Maddalena Wasinger wasn’t able to get away and was booked in Lorton
`county jail. The white male is still on the run, if you know who the male [is,] we
`ask that you come forward.
`
`Mr. Darnell additionally posted: ‘T live in the Timberidge neighborhood[;] my neighbor
`Maddie Wasinger was one of the individuals involved.
`The
`next door was robbed.
`description above is the same I gave to police.”
`
`^ On September 26, 2020, Mr. Darnell posted: "Update on this situation, the person driving the
`white mustang was actually her brother[,] Stephen Wasinger. Both Maddalena and Stephen
`Wasinger are in custody at this point.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 555
`
`On October 6, 2020, Carolina Wasinger and Maddalena Wasinger filed civil actions, CL
`
`2020-15460 and CL 2020-15461, in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. The two cases
`
`were consolidated for trial, which was conducted on August 8, 2022.
`
`After the jury returned a
`
`verdict in favor of the Wasingers, the Fairfax Circuit Court entered a final order: (1) awarding
`
`Carolina Wasinger compensatory damages in the amount of $120,000 plus interest, and punitive
`
`damages in the amount of $180,000; and (2) awarding Maddalena Wasinger compensatory
`
`damages in the amount of $175,000 plus interest, and punitive damages in the amount of $210,000.
`
`Dkt. 2-2 at 87; Dkt. 2-4 at 65; see also Dkt. 2-1 at 10-12.
`
`B.
`
`Bankruptcy Litigation
`
`On January 11, 2023, Mr. Darnell filed a Voluntary Petition under Chapter 7 in the
`
`bankruptcy court.'' Dkt. 3-1 at 1; see also In re John Franklin Darnell, Case No. 23-10054 (Bankr.
`
`E.D. Va. Jan. 11, 2023). On March 29, 2023, the Wasingers timely filed their Complaint in the
`
`adversary proceeding, seeking a declaration that their judgments against Darnell be declared non-
`
`dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). Dkt. 13, In re John Franklin Darnell, No. 23-10054
`
`(Bankr. E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2023); Dkt. 1, Wasinger v. Darnell, Adv. No. 23-1012 (Bankr. E.D. Va.
`
`Mar. 29, 2023); see also Dkt. 2-2 at 90-97, Darnell v. Wasinger et ai. No. l:24-cv-96 (E.D. Va.
`
`Feb. 16, 2024).
`
`On May 31, 2023, the Wasingers moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2023, the
`
`Court held a hearing on the motion. On July 12, 2023, the bankruptcy court granted in part and
`
`denied in part the motion for summary judgment.
`
`Dkt. 27, Wasinger v. Darnell, No. 23-1012
`
`(Bankr. E.D. Va. Jul. 27, 2023).
`
`Specifically, the bankruptcy court held that Mr. Darnell made
`
`these statements and that they were defamatory, and recognized that the Fairfax County Circuit
`
`^ The Honorable Brian F. Kenney presided.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID# 556
`
`Court entered judgments against Mr. Darnell. Id. at 5. Thus, the only remaining issue for trial
`
`was
`
`whether Mr. Darnell made the statements willfully and maliciously for purposes of
`
`§ 523(a)(6). Id. at 7.
`
`On December 8, 2023, the bankruptcy court held a trial on the matter. Dkt. 59, Wasinger
`
`V. Darnell,'Ho. 23-1012 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2023). The Wasingers and Mr. Darnell were represented
`
`by counsel at trial.
`
`Mr. Darnell, however, chose not to appear at the trial or testify.
`
`At the
`
`conclusion of the trial, the bankruptcy court concluded that Mr. Darnell’s acts were willful and
`
`malicious.
`
`On January 5, 2024, the bankruptcy court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
`
`Law to supplement its ruling from the bench and entered a final order of judgment for Carolina
`
`and Maddalena Wasinger, declaring that their judgments were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C.
`
`§523(a)(6) because they arose from ''willful and malicious injury ... to another entity or to the
`
`property of another entity.
`
`Dkt. 2-3 at 39-46. First, the bankruptcy court concluded that Mr.
`
`Darnell ''intended to cause harm to [the Wasingers’] mother by harming her daughters.Id. at 43.
`
`Second, the banki'uptcy court reasoned that Mr. Darnell’s actions were willful since he admitted
`
`in his deposition in the Fairfax action that “he felt ‘ill will’ toward [the Wasingers’] mother” and
`
`“knew that the defamatory statements were not true” and that he “accus[ed the Wasingers] of
`
`committing crimes.” Id. at 44 (citing Parsons v. Parks (In re Parks), 91 F. App’x 817, 819 (4th
`
`Cir. 2003)). Third, the bankruptcy court found that Mr. Darnell acted with malice given that “he
`
`was angry with [the Wasingers’] mother[,] .
`
`.
`
`. knew to a certainty” that his statements were false,
`
`and “intended to hurt the mother by hurling the daughters.” Id. at 45 (citing E.L. Hamm & Assocs.,
`
`Inc. V. Sparrow (In re Sparrow), 306 B.R. 812, 838 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2003)).
`
`On January 19, 2024, Mr. Darnell timely appealed the bankruptcy court’s January 5, 2024
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID# 557
`
`Order. Dkt. 1.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Federal district courts are empowered to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and
`
`decrees issued by the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). When considering an appeal from
`
`the bankruptcy court, the district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear
`
`error and its legal conclusions de novo. Shin v. Lee, 550 F. Supp. 3d 313, 318 (E.D. Va. 2021)
`
`(citing Gold v. First Tenn. Bank Nat’I Ass’n (In re Taneja), 743 F.3d 423, 429 (4th Cir. 2014)).
`
`Mixed questions of law and fact are also reviewed de novo.
`
`Id. (citing Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Tessler (In re .JA. Jones), Inc., 492 F.3d 242, 249 (4th Cir. 2007)). According to the Supreme
`
`Court, “[a] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the
`
`reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
`
`has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (alteration in
`
`original) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
`
`At issue in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court emed in finding that Appellant’s
`
`actions were willful and malicious such that the defamation judgments against him from Fairfax
`
`County Circuit Court are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6).^ For the reasons stated
`
`^ Mr. Darnell also appears to challenge the bankruptcy court’s judgment based on the fact that “[a]t
`no point in time during the bankruptcy litigation was any discovery conducted by [the Wasingers]
`Dkt. 4 at 13. However, a review of the appellate record shows that discovery was conducted. See
`Dkt. 2-1 at 1-8. In addition, Mr. Darnell challenges the bankruptcy court’s judgment based on the
`Wasingers’ failure to call Mr. Darnell to testify at the bankruptcy proceedings. Dkt. 4 at 13. The
`Wasingers were the plaintiffs in the adversarial proceeding below, and it was their burden to
`establish that the debts are non-dischargeable. See Dkt. 2-1 at 1.; In re Sparrow, 306 B.R. 812,
`823 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2003) (“Under Bankruptcy Rule 4005, the plaintiff has the burden of proof
`to make a debt non-dischargeable.”). The Wasingers, however, were not required to call Mr.
`Darnell to testify because it is in their discretion to decide what evidence to present.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID# 558
`
`below, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the judgments were
`
`nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
`
`B.
`
`Whether Debt was Dischargeable Under 11 U,S,C. § 523(a)(6)^
`
`Chapter 7 bankruptcy allows for the discharge of debts in exchange for liquidating
`
`damages. Section 523(a)(6) provides that a debtor will not receive discharge from any debt “for
`
`w'illful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.”
`
`11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
`
`For a court to determine whether a debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6),
`
`the court must find that “(1) the debtor caused an injury; (2) the debtor’s actions were willful; and
`
`(3) that the debtor’s actions were malicious.
`
`Ocean Equity Grp. v. Wooten (In re Wooten), 423
`
`B.R. 108. 128 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2010) (quoting/nre5/wroM', 306 B.R. at 834). Under Bankruptcy
`
`Rule 4005, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to demonstrate a debt is non-dischargeable. In re
`
`Sparrow, 306 B.R. at 823. “Under
`
`523(a), the plaintiff must prove non-dischargeability by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.” Id. Here, Mr. Darnell does not dispute that he caused an injury
`
`but only argues that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that his actions were (1) willful and (2)
`
`malicious. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.
`
`(1) Whether Mr. Darnell’s Actions Were Willful
`
`For a debt to be nondischargeable, there must be “a deliberate or intentional injury, not
`
`^ Mr. Darnell cites Gonzalez v. Anthony (In re Anthony), 538 B.R. 145 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2015),
`Dkt. 4 at 12. The issue here is
`for the proposition that defamation judgments are dischargeable.
`not whether defamation judgments can be discharged but rather whether there was error in
`determining that the judgments were non-dischargeable here. Additionally, in In re Anthony, the
`court found that the defamation claim was dischargeable for several reasons, including that the
`statement was not a false statement about the plaintiff and not uttered with malice. 538 B.R. at
`156. In contrast, as discussed below, here, Mr. Darnell made the defamatory statements with
`knowledge of their falsity and admitted he made the statements because he was angry at the
`Wasingers’ mother and took it out on them. Dkt. 2-1 at 36, 52-53, 55.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID# 559
`
`merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.
`
`Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61
`
`(1998). In other words, a debtor must “intend the consequences of [his action], not simply, the act
`
`itself.
`
`Id. at 61-62 (internal quotations omitted). In the Fourth Circuit, an injury may be willful
`
`if “the debtor acted with 'substantial certainty [that] harm [would result] or a subjective motive to
`
`cause harm. ^99
`
`In re Parks, 91 F. App’x. 817, 819 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting
`
`In re Miller, 156 F.3d 598, 603 (5th Cir. 1998)).
`
`“In defamation cases, the true injury is not the damage to the creditor’s reputation; it is the
`
`publication of falsehoods about the creditor that led to the damaged reputation.
`
`In re Wooten,
`
`423 B.R. at 133 (quoting
`
`Inc. v. Russell (In re Russell), 262 B.R. 449, 454-55 (Bankr. N.D.
`
`Ind. 2001)). Here, it is clear that Mr. Darnell willfully published falsehoods about the Wasingers.
`
`Mr. Darnell intentionally posted the defamatory statements on the internet, thus publishing them.
`
`See Leask v. Robertson, 589 F. Supp. 3d 506, 528 (D.S.C. 2022) (finding that a blog post
`
`“published on the internet and available” satisfied the publication element for defamation under
`
`South Carolina law); Dkt. 2-1 at 14-17 (Mr. Darnell’s stipulation in Fairfax County Circuit Court).
`
`Indeed, Mr. Darnell does not contend that he accidentally posted the defamatory statements online.
`
`In addition, at his deposition for the trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court, Mr. Darnell admitted
`
`that he knew that the statements he posted were not true.
`
`Dkt. 2-1 at 52-53. Mr. Darnell also
`
`admitted that he felt “ill will” toward the Wasingers’ mother, and was frustrated with her and took
`
`it out on her daughters. Dkt. 2-1 at 36, 52, 55. The Court finds that these facts establish that Mr.
`
`Darnell intended to publish falsehoods about the Wasingers, thus willfully causing injury to the
`
`Wasingers.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court, in considering the same
`
`evidence, did not err in making the same finding.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID# 560
`
`(2) Whether Mr. Darnell’s Actions Were Malicious
`
`Malice[]’ .
`
`.
`
`. docs not mean the same thing in Section 523(a) that it often does in other
`
`contexts.
`
`Firs! Nat 7 Bank ofMd. v. Stanley (In re Stanley), 66 F.3d 664, 667 (4th Cir. 1995). “A
`
`debtor may act with malice even though he bears no subjective ill will toward, and does not
`
`specifically intend to injure, his creditor.” Id. '"The Fourth Circuit defines malice as an act causing
`
`injury without just cause or excuse.
`
`In re Wooten, 423 B.R. at 130 (citing Branch Banking & Tr.
`
`Co. ofVa. V. Powers (In re Powers), 227 B.R. 73, 73 (Bankr E.D. Va. 1998)).
`
`Implied malice
`
`“shown by the acts and conduct of the debtor in the context of their suirounding circumstances is
`
`sufficient under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).” St. Paid Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn (In re Vaughn),
`
`779 F.2d 1003, 1010 (4th Cir. 1985).
`
`Here, the Court finds that the record establishes that Mr. Darnell acted maliciously in
`
`making the defamatory statements.
`
`“To recover punitive damages in a defamation case, the
`
`plaintiff must prove actual malice by ‘clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] either
`
`knew the statements he made were false at the time he made them, or that he made them with a
`
`reckless disregard for their truth.
`
`Gov’t Micro Res., Inc. v. Jackson, 624 S.E.2d 63, 70 (Va.
`
`2006) (alteration in original) (first emphasis added) (quoting Ingles v. Dively, 435 S.E.2d 641, 646
`
`(Va. 1993)). At the trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court, the jury awarded punitive damages to
`
`the Wasingers. See Dkt. 2-2 at 87; Dkt. 2-4 at 65. Thus, thejury necessarily found that Mr. Darnell
`
`acted with malice.
`
`See Muse v. Day (In re Day), 409 B.R. 337, 344 (Bankr. D. Md. 2009)
`
`(concluding that jury’s finding of “constitutional malice” in state-court defamation action
`
`“collaterally estopped [debtor] from contesting that he acted maliciously, as required by Section
`
`523(a)(6)”).
`
`The malice standard under § 523(a)(6) is generally less stringent than malice
`
`standards in other contexts. See Hagan v. McNallen (In re McNallen), 62 F.3d 619, 625 (4th Cir.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID# 561
`
`1995) (‘The malice standard under § 523(a)(6) eschews ‘specific malice or some other strict
`
`standard of malice,’ and concludes that ‘[ijmplied malice, which may be shown by the acts and
`
`conduct of the debtor in the context of their surrounding circumstances, is sufficient under 11
`
`U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).’” (quoting In St. Paul Fire, 779 F.2d at 1010)). Thus, the jury’s finding of
`
`malice under a higher malice standard is sufficient to establish malice under the lower § 523(a)(6)
`
`standard.
`
`Even if the Fairfax County Circuit Court jury’s finding of malice cannot be imputed here,
`
`the Court still finds that Mr. Darnell acted with malice under the § 523(a)(6) standard.
`
`It is
`
`uncontested that Mr. Darnell’s actions caused injury, and he offers no just cause or excuse for his
`
`actions.
`
`In fact, Mr. Darnell stated in his deposition that he posted the defamatory statements
`
`because the Wasingers’ mother “couldn’t afford to pay [him].” Dkt. 2-1 at 52-53. Thus, the Court
`
`finds that Mr. Darnell’s actions were malicious, and the bankruptcy court did not err in so finding.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00096-PTG-LRV Document 13 Filed 03/27/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID#
`562
`
`111.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Mr. Darnell’s posting of the defamatory
`
`statements regarding the Wasingers was both willful and malicious. Thus, the Court finds that the
`
`bankruptcy court correctly ruled that the Final Orders in CL 202-15460 and CL 2020-15461—the
`
`defamationjudgments against Mr. Darnell—were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
`
`Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s January 5, 2024 Judgement Order is AFFIRMED.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`Entered this 27^‘^ day of March, 2025
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`Lm
`Patricia Tolliver Giles
`United States District Judge
`
`'' The Wasingers sought for the Court to apply the test from the Sixth Circuit, that “all a creditor
`judgment from discharge is that the debtor knew the
`needs to prove to except a defamation per
`facts which made his statements actionable: that they were false and published without privilege
`to a third party.” Roe v. Boland (In re Boland), 946 F.3d 335, 338 (6th Cir. 2020). Virginia la\y
`presumes that injury results from statements that are per se defamatory. Swengler v. ITT Corp. j
`Electro-Optical Prods. Div., 993 F.2d 1063, 1071 (4th Cir. 1993) (“[I]f a plaintiff establishes a'
`claim for defamation per se, Virginia law presumes that the plaintiff suffered actual damage to
`its reputation.”). As stated, Mr. Darnell stipulated that the statements he posted were defamatory
`per se, and, as discussed above, admitted that he knew such statements were false. Dkt. 2-1 at
`14, 16-17. The Court notes that if Boland were applied, these facts establish that the debts are
`non-dischargeable.
`
`10
`
`