Tow v. Henley (In re Henley)

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING: (1) PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DISCHARGE UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a); and (2) DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFFS, JERRY CAROOM AND MARY CAROOM PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362 (k)

[Adv. Docket Nos. 1 & 10]

JEFF BOHM, Chief Judge.

I. Introduction

It would be a gross understatement to characterize the dispute in this adversary proceeding as acrimonious. The Plaintiffs, *718 who are the Chapter 7 Trustee and the two largest creditors in the main case, assert that the Defendants, who are the Debtors, committed numerous fraudulent acts, and therefore should not receive their discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a) 1 (the § 727 Action). The Debtors vehemently deny that they have done anything to justify the denial of their discharge; and, as counter-plaintiffs, contend that the two creditors orchestrated their arrest by a swat team, thereby violating the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (k) (the § 362 Action).

The Court has decided to issue this Memorandum Opinion for three reasons. First, all too frequently this Court hears debtors blame their attorneys when challenges are made to the accuracy of the debtors’ Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. In this particular suit, the Debtors do exactly that. In issuing this opinion, the Court wants to emphasize the following tenet: the more time a debtor’s counsel spends personally meeting with the debtor, the more difficult it will be for the debtor to escape responsibility by pointing the finger at counsel.

Second, the Court issues this opinion to highlight the need for debtor’s counsel to give notice of the bankruptcy filing — both oral and -written — to any known creditors’ counsel as soon as the petition is filed. Failure to give immediate notice can result in harsh consequences to debtors whose creditors are willing to aggressively seek and collect the debts owed to them. That is exactly what happened here. The creditors and their attorney, not having received timely and sufficient notice of the filing of the Debtors’ petition, took no action to stop the enforcement of an arrest warrant that was issued in the wake of a civil court in Arkansas holding the Debtors in contempt.

Finally, this Court publishes this opinion to alert the bar of its position on an issue about which there is split authority. Specifically, some courts have held that creditors who assist the appropriate officials in taking criminal action against debtors in order to collect debts owed to them are in violation of the automatic stay. See In re Dovell, 311 B.R. 492, 494 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2004). Other courts have held that regardless of whether a creditor assists in a criminal matter concerning the debtor, there is no violation of the stay. See In re Bartel, 404 B.R. 584, 590 (1st Cir. BAP 2009). This Court adopts the latter position.

Based upon the entire record, the Court now makes the following written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 52, as incorporated into adversary proceedings by Fed. R. BanKR.P. 7052. 2 For the reasons set forth herein, the relief which the Plaintiffs seek is granted: the Debtors’ discharge will be denied; and the relief which the Debtors seek is denied in its entirety: no damages will be awarded to them because the creditors did not violate the automatic stay.

II. Findings op Fact

1. David and Belinda Henley are the debtors in this Chapter 7 case (the Debt *719 ors). Belinda Henley (Ms. Henley) is a licensed general contractor specializing in construction and. interior design. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 52:4-18]. She is licensed by the American Society of Quality Control, is recognized as a quality engineer by the American Society of Quality Control, and obtained a degree in industrial management with an emphasis in industrial engineering from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. [M]. Moreover, Ms. Henley has purchased between six and eight properties during her adult life. [Id. at 52:23-53:12], David Henley (Mr. Henley) holds a degree in business from Southern Arkansas State University. [Id. at 87:21-23].

2. The Debtors owned Henley Design & Construction, Incorporated (HDC, Inc.), a construction and design company in Hot Springs, Arkansas. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:13:54-11:14:04 a.m.]; [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:51:00-6:52:13 p.m.]. They also owned Aqua-Lock Waterproofing, Inc. (Aqua-Lock). [June 14, 2012 Tr. 98:25-99:9]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7].

3. Ms. Henley also operated an interior design business under the name of Henley Design. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:23:00-6:23:13 p.m.]. Ms. Henley also claimed to own a jewelry design company. [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:30:59-6:31:26 p.m.]. Mr. Henley also claimed to be in the business of buying old cars, repairing, and selling them. 3 [June 15, 2012 Tr. 42:21-25],

4. In December 2007, Jim Henley, Mr. Henley’s brother, signed and recorded a quitclaim deed conveying residential property located at 3035 Marion Anderson Road (the Anderson Property) to the Debtors. 4 [June 14, 2012 Tr. 58:8-11]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex.-No. 8, at 1-2].

5. On June 26, 2009, the Debtors submitted an asset/liability sheet (the Financial Statement) to Diamond Bank in which the Debtors listed the Anderson Property as their homestead. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 59:10-62:23]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7, at 1], To obtain a loan from Diamond Bank, the Debtors included the Anderson Property on the Financial Statement. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 62:19-23].

6. Jim Henley deeded the Anderson Property to the Debtors on the condition that they obtain financing to buy the Anderson Property from Diamond Bank. [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 10:46:16-10:48:49 a.m.]. On June 19, 2009, the Debtors submitted a loan application to Diamond Bank, not to obtain financing for the purchase of the Anderson Property, but to gain financing to buy other real property. See [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 24]. The loan application was for $79,000.00. [M]. In that loan application, the Debtors purported to already own the Anderson Property — they checked the box marked “OWN” in the section next to the address query. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 24].

*720 7. The Debtors lived on the Anderson Property from the spring of 2004 to June of 2010. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 63:5-10]. While living.on the Anderson Property, the Debtors made monthly payments to Jim Henley in the amount of $1,710.09 — the exact amount of the monthly payment under the note for which Jim Henley is liable; this note is secured by a mortgage on the Anderson Property. [Id. at 57:19-58:7]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 96].

8. The Financial Statement included the balance sheet for Aqua-Lock. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 98:25-99:9]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7]. As of May 31, 2009, the Financial Statement showed Aqua-Lock’s total value to be $548,685.00. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7, at 3]. The Debtors purchased Aqua-Lock for an amount between $62,000.00 and $68,000.00. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 100:6-9]. The other company owned by the Debtors was HDC, Inc. The Financial Statement did not include a separate balance sheet for HDC, Inc., but simply represented that HDC, Inc.’s total value was $187,000.00 as of June 26, 2009. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 7, at 2].

9. In June 2008, Jerry and Mary Ca-room (the Carooms) contracted with the Debtors to build a home at 148 Catalina Circle, Hot Springs, Arkansas (the Caroom Home). [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:14:53 a.m.].

10. On December 7, 2009, the Carooms filed a lawsuit (the Lawsuit) against the Debtors in the Garland County Circuit Court of the State of Arkansas, Civil Division (the Arkansas Court). [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-02]; [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 10:36:50-10:36:57 a.m.]. The Lawsuit was assigned No. CV-2009-1712M. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 31-32]. The Carooms filed suit based upon their disenchantment with the Debtors over the Debtors’ construction of the Caroom Home. In the Lawsuit, the Carooms alleged that the Debtors fraudulently overcharged them by padding invoices submitted to the Carooms for the construction of the Caroom Home. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 16, at 6].

11. The Debtors retained an attorney named Ray Baxter (Baxter), who subsequently filed an answer and counterclaim against the Carooms in the Lawsuit. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 53:22-54:2]; [Id. at 154:2-8]. Due to ensuing health problems, Baxter engaged D. Scott Hickam (Hickam) to assist him in representing the Debtors in the Lawsuit. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:18:29-11:19:29 a.m.].

12. The Debtors’ counterclaim in the Lawsuit asserted that the Carooms interfered with HDC, Inc.’s contractual relations. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:22:56-11:24:10 a.m.]. The Debtors further alleged that the Carooms contacted current HDC, Inc. clients and advised them to terminate their contracts as HDC, Inc. would soon be bankrupt. [Id. at 11:22:56-11:24:10 a.m.].

13. In March of 2010 — while the Lawsuit was pending — HDC, Inc. ceased operations, and the Debtors deeded 5 the *721 Anderson Property back to Jim Henley. 6 [June 14, 2012 Tr. 62:24-63:04],

14. In June of 2010, the Debtors relocated from Hot Springs, Arkansas to Houston, Texas. [Id. at 55:5-8]. The Debtors testified that their hostile relationship with the Carooms left them unable to gain or retain business in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and so they concluded that they needed to depart from that area. [Id. at 54:14-24]. They chose to move to Houston because Mr. Henley has family in the area, including his brothers and his mother (who has died since the Debtors moved to Houston). [M], The Debtors did not inform their counsel of record in the Lawsuit that they had moved to Houston. Nor did the Carooms know of their whereabouts at this time.

15. On September 27, 2010, the Arkansas Court held a hearing on the Carooms’ Motion for Summary Judgment. [Ca-rooms’ Ex. No. C-01, at 1], The Carooms appeared at this hearing with their attorney, J. Sky Tapp (Tapp). [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-04, at 1], Hickam appeared for the Debtors. [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-04, at 1], During this hearing, Hickam informed the Arkansas Court that he had been unable to get in touch with the Debtors. 7 [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-04, at 4].

16. On October 20, 2010, the Arkansas Court granted summary judgment in the Carooms’ favor (the Judgment). 8 [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 10, at 1]. The Arkansas Court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the Ca-rooms’ claims against the Debtors for breach of contract and fraud. [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-01]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 13, at 1], The Arkansas Court also ordered that the Debtors file a Schedule of Assets and Verified Affidavit of Assets. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 1]; [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-01, at 1-2]. On November 3, 2010, the Arkansas Court awarded $1,589,711.21 to the Ca-rooms in the Lawsuit, including $524,293.72 in punitive damages. [Adv. Doc. No. 1, at 2], The Judgment therefore was for $1,589,711.21.

17. Ms. Henley testified that she first learned of the Judgment in the Lawsuit when she was served at her Houston, Texas home on December 4, 2010. 9 [Tape *722 Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:30:15-11:30:43 a.m.]. The Debtors retained Q. Byrum Hurst (Hurst) with the objective of setting aside the Judgment. [Hurst Dep. 7:7-11]. Hurst is an attorney licensed in the State of Arkansas. [Id. at 6:19-7:2]. Hurst was unable, however, to convince the Arkansas Court to vacate its Judgment. 10 [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 11:82:41-11:32:50 a.m.].

18. On March 15, 2011, the Carooms filed another suit in the Arkansas Court, No. CV-2011-292-IV, against the Debtors to set aside a fraudulent transfer (the Fraudulent Transfer Suit). [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 19, at 5]; [Henleys’ Ex. No. 28, at 1]. The relief sought by the Carooms in the Fraudulent Transfer Suit requested that the Arkansas Court invalidate the transfers of various parcels of real property that the Debtors had transferred to Jim Henley. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 28],

19. On March 28, 2011, the Arkansas Court issued an Order of Body Attachment on the Debtors for contempt of court because the Debtors had failed to file a Schedule of Assets and Verified Affidavit of Assets as required by the Arkansas Court’s partial summary judgment. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 1]; [Carooms’ Ex. No. C-01, at 1-2],

20. On April 11, 2011, the Arkansas Court issued an order to set aside the Order of Body Attachment. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 3, at 1-2].

21. On April 13, 2011, the Arkansas Court issued its Second Amended Order of Body Attachment (the Body Attachment Order) because the Debtors had again failed to provide a Schedule of Assets or otherwise abide by the Arkansas Court’s order. 11 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 13]; [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 11:16:52-11:17:19 a.m.]. Hurst, thereafter, advised the Debtors to file for bankruptcy to stop the enforcement of the Body Attachment Order. [Hurst Dep. 8:11-9:11]. The Debtors then contacted Anis Damani (Damani), an attorney in Houston who had some — but by no means extensive — experience in representing consumer debtors. 12 [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 11:17:21-11:18:09 a.m.].

22. The Debtors worked up a list of assets to prepare for filing bankruptcy in Houston, Texas. [Id. at 11:43:34-11:44:21 a.m.]. The Debtors did not produce this list to this Court or to the Arkansas Court, and they discarded it after they filed their *723 bankruptcy petition. [Tape Recording, 6/15/2012 Trial at 11:43:34-11:44:21 a.m.].

23. On April 14, 2011, the Debtors met with Damani at his office. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 11:42:26 a.m.]. The Debtors retained Damani during this meeting. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 32], The Debtors told Damani that they needed to file bankruptcy as soon as possible. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 70:16-71:6]. The Debtors wanted to stop the execution of the Arkansas Court’s Judgment and Body Attachment Order. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:40:58-2:41:14 p.m.]. Damani told the Debtors that filing Chapter 7 would help them accomplish this objective. [Id.]. At that time, Damani was not aware that the Arkansas Court’s Judgment was based upon fraud committed by the Debtors. [M]. The Debtors brought the following documents to their meeting with Damani: a list of their assets, information regarding their real property, information on their lawsuits, and documents related to their counterclaims against the Carooms. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 12:17:37-12:19:06 p.m.]. This first meeting lasted a total of two hours. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:31:45-2:40:26 p.m.].

24. As already noted, Damani received his law license in July of 2010-five months before opening his own practice in December of 2010. [Tape Recording 6/26/2012, Trial at 10:27:29-10:28:26 a.m.]. At the time Damani represented the Debtors, he had never handled a business bankruptcy case, and he still does not handle business bankruptcy cases. [Id. at 10:28:26-10:28:31 a.m.]. Additionally, the Debtors were Damani’s third or fourth clients. [Id. at 10:27:29-10:28:26 a.m.]. Damani accepted the Debtors’ case, among other reasons, because the Debtors informed Damani that both HDC, Inc. and Aqua-Lock retained no value and were nonoperational. [Id. at 9:57:48-9:58:08 a.m.]; therefore, Damani assumed that he would not be dealing with business bankruptcy issues. 13

25. Between April 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011, Mr. Caroom continuously communicated with David Gunter (Officer Gun-ter). 14 [Debtors’ Ex. Nos. 27, at 24-25, 28-29, 131 & 133]. Officer Gunter is a seasoned Houston Police Department (HPD) officer presently assigned to the Homicide Division. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:19:46-1:20:59 p.m.]. He has worked in HPD’s Homicide Division for approximately two years. [Id. at 1:20:18-1:20:30 p.m.].

26. HPD’s Homicide Division ordinarily deals with investigations involving murders and shootings involving police. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 1:20:38-1:20:50 p.m.].

27. During Officer Gunter’s employment with HPD, HPD’s Internal Affairs Division has investigated Officer Gunter approximately seven times. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:23:06-1:23:32 p.m.]. Currently, HPD has relieved Officer Gunter of active duty. [Id. at 1:19:46 p.m.]. HPD is investigating bigamy allegations against him. [Id. at 11:36:32 a.m.].

*724 28. Officer Gunter first met Mr. Ca-room over five years ago after responding to a theft call. [Id. at 1:24:21-1:25:12 p.m.]; [April 3, 2012 Tr. 17:8-17], Officer Gunter continued to stay in touch with Mr. Caroom after completing his theft investigation. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:24:38-1:25:12 p.m.]. Indeed, when Officer Gunter married, he received a wedding gift from Mr. Caroom. [Id. at 1:25:50-1:25:51 p.m.]. During 2008’s Hurricane Ike, Mr. Caroom sent food to Officer Gunter and twenty-two other HPD officers who could not procure any food while working twenty-four-hour shifts. [April 3, 2012 Tr. 17:25-18:5].

29. On several occasions, Officer Gun-ter has stated to Assistant District Attorney Connie Spence (Spence), Officer Jude Vigil (Vigil), and other law enforcement personnel that Mr. Caroom is his uncle. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:26:08 p.m.]; [June 15, 2012 Tr. 105:8-16]. Moreover, prior to the Debtors’ arrest, Officer Gunter told Spence that Mr. Caroom offered to pay for his law school tuition should he ever decide to obtain a law degree. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:26:34-1:26:58 p.m.]; [Id. at 11:47:40-11:48:20 a.m.].

30. Spence is an Assistant District Attorney for Harris County, Texas in the Criminal Division. [Id. at 11:35:35— 11:35:52 a.m.]. She has held her position for twenty-three years. [Id.]. Spence worked with Officer Gunter prior to the Debtors’ arrests when Officer Gunter was an HPD officer in the Homicide Division. [Id. at 11:36:02 a.m.].

31. Vigil is a police officer with the HPD’s Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU) of the Criminal Intelligence Division. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 90:23-91:5]. The CIU supports various investigative divisions such as homicide, robbery, burglary, and theft, and helps obtain, analyze, and map communications data. [Id. at 91:12-91:17].

32. Between April 15 and April 18, 2011, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom continuously called and sent text messages to each other. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 24-25, 28-29,131 & 133]. 15

33. Before April 15, 2011, Mr. Caroom, in attempting to determine where the Debtors had relocated after departing Hot Springs, Arkansas, found the Facebook profile of one of the Debtors’ children. [April 3, 2012 Tr. 34:1-4], Mr. Caroom determined that the child attended Lamar High School in Houston, Texas because she was wearing a Lamar High School shirt in her Facebook profile picture. [Id.]. Following this discovery, Mr. Ca-room called Officer Gunter to investigate and enforce the Arkansas Court’s Body Attachment Order. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 3:19:05-3:20:39 p.m.].

34. At some point prior to April 15, 2011, Officer Gunter went to Lamar High School and spoke with an officer of the Houston Independent School District (HISD). [Id. at 2:17:16-2:17:56 p.m.]. The HISD officer confirmed to Officer Gunter that some of the Henley children attended Lamar High School. [Id. at 9:18:07-9:20:00 a.m.]; [Id. at 10:35:06-10:35:47 a.m.]; [Id. at 2:17:16-2:17:56 p.m.].

35. On April 15, 2011, soon after the Debtors discovered that Officer Gunter had spoken with an HISD officer at Lamar High School, the Debtors checked into a hotel. [Id. at 2:17:16-2:18:15 p.m.]; [Id. at 2:30:32-2:31:40 p.m.]. The Debtors then moved to different hotels between April 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011 to avoid detection by either the Carooms or Officer Gun-ter, and out of fear that they would be *725 arrested pursuant to the Arkansas Court’s Body Attachment Order. [Id. at 2:30:32-2:31:40 p.m.]. During this time, the Debtors prepared to file for bankruptcy. [Id.}.

36. On the morning of April 15, 2011, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom exchanged the following phone calls and text messages 16 :

• At 9:52 a.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted over four minutes. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 27, at 24].

• At 10:05 a.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Id. at 131].

37. On April 15, 2011, after talking with Officer Gunter, Mr. Caroom called his attorney, Tapp, at 11:58 a.m. and the call lasted over five minutes. [Id. at 24]. As already noted, Tapp is licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas, [June 12, 2012 Tr. 4:8-14], and he represented the Carooms in the Lawsuit. [Id. at 5:10-20].

38. On April 15, 2011, Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom at 1:07 p.m. and the call lasted for thirty-three seconds. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 27, at 25], Mr. Caroom then called Tapp five times between 1:08 p.m. and 1:10 p.m. [Id.}. Each call lasted between zero and seven seconds. [Id].

39. On April 15, 2011, a Garland County Sheriffs Officer entered the Body Attachment Order for David and Belinda Henley into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) at 1:11 p.m. and 1:19 p.m. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 5, at 7-12]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 29, at l]. 17 Shortly thereafter, Officer Gunter searched NCIC for existing warrants issued for the Debtors’ arrest. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 22, at 14]. Officer Gun-ter found warrants for felony fraud with bonds of $3,500.00 each for David and Belinda Henley. [Id.}.

40. On April 15, 2011 at 2:10 p.m., Mr. Caroom e-mailed a copy of the NCIC arrest warrants to Ms. Caroom. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 6]. Shortly thereafter at 3:33 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom; Mr. Caroom did not answer. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 27, at 25]. Mr. Caroom returned Officer Gunter’s phone call at 3:34 p.m. and the call lasted one minute and fifty-six seconds. [Id.}. At the same time, Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Ca-room. [Id. at 131]. 18

41. On April 15, 2011, the Debtors returned to Damani’s office to discuss the client questionnaire that Damani had previously given them to complete, and to obtain his assistance in filling out their *726 original Statement of Financial Affairs (SOFA) and Schedules, which would be filed once they filed their bankruptcy petition. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 12:17:46-12:18:00 p.m.]. While reviewing the SOFA, Ms. Henley claims to have underlined the following words in item 10 19 : “ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 3]; [June 14, 2012 Tr. 181:2-8]. She claims to have underlined these portions to ensure that she “[filled out the SOFA] perfectly correctly in respect of the Bankruptcy Court.” [June 14, 2012 Tr. 181:1-8]. Damani informed the Debtors that they were not required to disclose minor transactions conducted in the ordinary course of business that amounted to no more than “a couple of hundred dollars.” 20 [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 4:16:50^4:17:53 p.m.]. During the meeting, the Debtors did not inform Damani that Mr. Henley had owned a 2007 Men’s Rolex watch within the previous two years. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 72:18-23]. The Debtors also did not inform Damani that Ms. Henley was the business of jewelry design and that Mr. Henley was in the business of buying old cars, fixing them up, and selling them. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 4:17:58-4:18:17 p.m.]. 21 This second meeting lasted approximately two hours. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:31:45-2:40:26 p.m.].

*727 42.On April 16, 2011, the Debtors faxed Damani the following documents: (1) the agreement between the Debtors and Jim Henley for the purchase of certain property located on Airport Road in Hot Springs, Arkansas (the Airport Road Property); (2) a survey of the Airport Road Property; (3) a quitclaim deed executed on March 2, 2010 from the Debtors to Jim Henley conveying the Anderson Property and two rural lots located on Kathy Lane (the Lots); (4) a promissory note in the amount of $79,385.00 made payable to Diamond Bank; (5) bills of sale for a 2001 Harley Davidson motorcycle, an enclosed twenty-foot by eight-foot trailer, and an open sixteen-foot flat trailer; and (6) a copy of a cashier’s check from Jim Henley in the amount of $13,965.00, representing the price that Jim Henley paid to purchase the 2001 Harley Davidson motorcycle, the enclosed twenty-foot by eight-foot trailer, and the open sixteen-foot flat trailer. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 39]. The fax coversheet to Damani listed all of the items included in the fax except for (1) the cashier’s check from Jim Henley; and (2) the deed dated March 2, 2010 conveying the Anderson Property. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 39, at 1]. Although the Debtors informed Damani about the Anderson Property at their initial meeting with him, they never told Damani that Ms. Henley herself once owned the Anderson Property arising from an additional quitclaim transaction that took place in December of 2007. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 10:07:07-10:08:47 a.m.].

43. On the first page of the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition, in response to the section that requires the Debtors to list their first, middle, and last names, the Debtors listed their names as David Henley and Belinda Henley. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 1]. Ms. Henley’s middle name is Lenee. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:13:34-6:13:54 p.m.]. Although Dam-ani typed Ms. Henley’s first and last name onto the petition, Ms. Henley reviewed the document before Damani filed it on the Debtors’ behalf and did not request that Damani correct it to include her middle name. [Id.].

44. On the first page of the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition, in response to the section that requires the Debtors to disclose “All Other Names used by the Debtors] in the last 8 years,” the Debtors did not disclose HDC, Inc., or Aqua-Lock. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 1]. Additionally, the Debtors did not disclose that Mr. Henley had a business of buying old cars, fixing them up, and selling them. [Id. at 30]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 4-7]. Finally, the Debtors did not disclose that Ms. Henley had either a jewelry design business, or an interior design business, which she referred to as “Henley Design.” 22

45. In response to the Debtors’ original SOFA, item 1, “Income from employment *728 or operation of business ... received during the two years immediately preceding [the] calendar year [in which the Debtors filed bankruptcy],” the Debtors reported their income as $0.00 for the years of 2009 and 2010. 23 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No 1, at 30]. The Debtors further reported that they were currently preparing their tax returns for the years 2009 and 2010. [I'd].

46. In response to the Debtors’ original SOFA, item 2, entitled “Income other than from employment or operation of business ... received during the two years immediately preceding [the] calendar year [in which the Debtors filed bankruptcy],” the Debtors disclosed income received from Jim Henley in the amount of $21,000.00 ($3,500.00 monthly) and child support received from Ms. Henley’s ex-husband in the amount of $15,360.00 ($640.00 monthly). 24 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No 1, at 31]. The Debtors did not disclose the income received from their garage sales, their “in-house” sales, or Ms. Henley’s “designer” sales of personal property. [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 1, at 31]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 4-7].

47. In the Debtors’ original SOFA item 4, called “Suits and administrative proceedings, executions, garnishments and attachments,” the Debtors disclosed two suits: (1) Jerry H. Caroom, Jr. and Mary C. Caroom v. David Henley, Belinda Henley, and HDC, Inc. (No. CV-2009-1712-1) (i.e., the Lawsuit); and (2) Alice Murphy v. David Henley and Belinda Henley (the Murphy Small Claims Suit). 25 [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 31-32]. The Debtors did not disclose the Fraudulent Transfer Suit, which was filed on March 15, 2011 — 34 days prior to the filing of the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 19, at 5]; [Debtors’ *729 Ex. No. 28, at 1]; [June 14, 2012 Tr. 59:11-60:9].

48. Item 10 of the SOFA required that the Debtors disclose all transfers effectuated within two years prior to filing for bankruptcy that were not in the ordinary course of business. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 38]. In response to item 10,' entitled “Other transfers,” the Debtors disclosed the following: (1) the transfer of the Airport Road Property to Jim Henley; (2) the transfer' of the Lots to Jim Henley; (3) the transfer of the 2001 Harley Davidson motorcycle to Jim Henley; and (4) the transfers of a twenty-foot enclosed trailer and sixteen-foot open trailer to Jim Henley. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 33]. Although the Debtors also executed a transfer of the Anderson Property to Jim Henley by quitclaim deed within the previous two years, they did not disclose this transfer in response to item 10. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 33]; [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 9, at 1-2],

49. In their original “Schedule B — Personal Property,” in response to item 2, “Checking, savings or other financial accounts, certificates of deposit, or shares in banks, savings and loan, thrift, building and loan, and homestead associations, or credit unions, brokerage houses, or cooperatives,” the Debtors placed an “X” in the column marked “NONE.” [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 1, at 11]. Thus, the Debtors did not disclose the two bank accounts that they had when they filed their Chapter- 7 petition. See [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 35, at 2] (quoting Ms. Henley, who testified at the § 341 meeting of creditors that she had two bank accounts at the time of their bankruptcy filing).

50. In their original “Schedule B — Personal Property,” in response to item 13, “Stock and interest in incorporated and unincorporated businesses,” the Debtors marked an “X” in the column titled “NONE.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 13]. Thus, on the date of the filing of their bankruptcy petition, the Debtors did not disclose their ownership interest in HDC, Inc., Aqua-Lock, or Henley Design (i.e., Ms. Henley’s interior design proprietorship). [Id.]. 26

51. In their original “Schedule B — Personal Property,” in response to item 21, “Other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and rights to setoff claims,” the Debtors marked an “X” in the column marked “NONE.” [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 13]. Thus, the Debtors did not disclose the counterclaims which they filed against the Carooms in the Lawsuit. 27 [June 14, 2012 Tr. 35:li- *730 17]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 13].

52. In their original SOFA, in response to item 18, “Nature, location and name of business,” the Debtors disclosed the following corporations: (1) HDC, Inc.; and (2) Aqua-Lock, Inc. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 35]. The descriptions under “NATURE OF BUSINESS” were as follows: general contractor and waterproof-er. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 35], The Debtors did not disclose Mr. Henley’s car repair business and Ms. Henley’s jewelry design business. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 35]; [June 15, 2012 Tr. 42:21-43:3]. Moreover, the Debtors did not indicate under “NATURE OF BUSINESS” that both Mr. Henley’s car repair business and Ms. Henley’s jewelry design business were operated within HDC, Inc. 28 [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 35].

52. In their original SOFA, in response to item 19c, “List all firms or individuals who at the time of the commencement of this case were in possession of the books or account and records of the debtor. If any of the books of account and records are not available, explain,” the Debtors indicated that their “records were lost during recent move.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 36]. The records that the Debtors assert were lost were both business and personal records. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 38:1 — 13]. 29

54. In their original SOFA, in response to item 19d, “List all financial institutions, creditors and other parties, including mercantile and trade agencies, to whom a financial statement was issued by the Debt- or within two years immediately preceding the commencement of this case,” the Debtors marked the box entitled “NONE.” [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 36]. The Debtors did not disclose Diamond Bank, the financial institution to which they gave the Financial Statement, even though Ms. Henley had constant contact with Diamond Bank in early 2011 (i.e., prior to filing bankruptcy). [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:12:56-6:13:10 p.m., 6:18:01-6:18:15 p.m.]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7]. Moreover, Ms. Henley knew that Diamond Bank had a copy of the Financial Statement at the time the Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:12:19-6:12:39 p.m.].

55. On April 18, 2011, Mr. Caroom called Officer Gunter at 10:53 a.m., and the call lasted five seconds. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 27, at 28]. Officer Gunter then called Mr. Caroom at 10:55 a.m., and the call lasted forty-six seconds. [Id.]. Later that morning, Officer Gunter visited Vigil to discuss and draft the Debtors’ arrest warrants. *731 [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 2:08:50-2:10:31 p.m.].

56. On April 18, 2011, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom communicated by phone and text message while Officer Gunter visited Vigil. Officer Gunter and Mr. Ca-room exchanged the following phone calls and text messages 30 :

• At 11:16 a.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Hen-leys’ Ex. No. 27, at 133].

• At 11:19 a.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted one minute and eleven seconds. [Id. at 28].

• At 11:36 a.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted three minutes and twenty-eight seconds. [Id. at 28].

• At 11:46 a.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted one minute and twenty-three seconds. [Id.].

• At 11:49 a.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Id. at 133].

• At 11:56 a.m., Mr. Caroom sent a text message to Officer Gunter. [Id.].

• At 11:57 a.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Id.].

57. On April 18, 2011 at 11:50 a.m., Ms. Caroom forwarded each of the Debtors’ drivers’ licenses and other identification by text message to Mr. Caroom. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 7], At 11:54 a.m., Mr. Caroom then e-mailed the Debtors’ drivers’ licenses and other identification to Vigil at his HPD email address. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 8]. Between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., Officer Gunter went to the Harris County Criminal Courthouse to meet with Spence. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 2:11:00-2:11:54 p.m.]. There, Spence assisted Officer Gunter in preparing arrest warrants for the Debtors. [Id. at 2:11:54-2:12:14 p.m.]. Spence drafted the affidavit based on what Officer Gunter told her — a normal practice in the Harris County District Attorney Office. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 25]; [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 11:58:20-11:58:37 a.m.].

58. While Officer Gunter visited with Spence, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom communicated by phone call and text message 31 :

• At 12:02 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted for less than one minute. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 29].

• At 12:14 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted one minute and nine seconds. [Id.].

• At 12:53 p.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [/&].

• At 1:56 p.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Id. at 133].

59. On April 18, 2011, Officer Gunter presented Judge Vanessa Velasquez, a district judge of Harris County, Texas, with affidavits and arrest warrants for the Debtors, which issued at 2:38 p.m. [Hen-leys’ Ex. No. 10, at 2-3]. Judge Velasquez was presiding over the 183rd Criminal Court in Harris County. Subsequently, at 2:51 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Ca-room and the call lasted for one minute and twenty-six seconds. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 29]. Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom again at 3:30 p.m. and the call lasted less than one minute. [Id.].

60. Meanwhile, also on April 18, 2011, the Debtors returned to Damani’s office *732 for a third meeting. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 9]; [Henleys’ Ex. No. 10, at 2-3]. This meeting lasted between one to two hours, [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:31:45-2:40:26 p.m.]. During this meeting, the Debtors signed their Electronic Declaration declaring under penalty of perjury that they had read the original SOFA and Schedules, the voluntary petition, and the master mailing list (matrix). 32 [Debtors’ Ex. No. 43]. Damani then electronically filed the Debtors’ Chapter 7 petition in this Court at 4:53 p.m. on April 18, 2011 (the Petition Date). [Henleys’ Ex. No. 11, at 1].

61.Shortly after filing their petition, Ms. Henley telephoned Hurst to inform him of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing; she made this call at 5:03 p.m. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 24, at 2]; [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 2:20:39-2:21:39 p.m.]. Hurst advised Ms. Henley to e-mail him a copy of the bankruptcy case number, and informed her that he would call Tapp immediately. [Id. at 2:22:43-2:23:13 p.m.]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 12]. Hurst later called Ms. Henley at 6:34 p.m. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 12]. After speaking with Hurst, Ms. Henley testified that she was satisfied that Tapp had notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 2:23:20-2:23:37 p.m.]. The Court expressly finds that Ms. Henley’s belief was misplaced, and further finds that Tapp did not, in fact, receive notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing at any time on April 18, 2011.

62. On April 18, 2011, the Debtors also requested that Damani send Tapp and the Carooms’ Texas attorney, Keith Remels (Remels), 33 notification of their bankruptcy filing. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 2:22:40-2:22:59 p.m.]. Damani, however, did not notify Remels and Tapp of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing until April 19, 2011 at 5:44 p.m. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 27]; [B. Henley Dep. Ex. No. C — 13]; [Ca-rooms’ Ex. No. C-09]. Damani’s notification to both of these attorneys came in the form of a telefax; Damani never telephoned either Remels or Tapp to give them notice. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 27]; see also [B. Henley Dep. Ex. No. C~ 13]; [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 4:43:50-4:44:38 p.m.].

63. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Ms. Caroom and Nancy Pryor (Pryor), a Public Defender in Arkansas, communicated throughout the evening through text messages and phone conversations. [Hen-leys’ Ex. No. 23, at 57-58]; [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 5:23:31-5:24:04 p.m.]. Ms. Caroom and Pryor exchanged the following text messages and phone conversations: 34

• At 7:45 p.m., Pryor sent text messages to Ms. Caroom.

• At 7:55 p.m., Pryor sent two text messages to Ms. Caroom.

*733 • At 7:56 p.m., Ms. Caroom sent a text message to Pryor.

• At 7:58 p.m., Ms. Caroom called Pryor and the call lasted for seven minutes.

• At 8:04 p.m., Pryor sent a text message to Ms. Caroom.

• At 8:50 p.m., Pryor sent a text message to Ms. Caroom.

[Henleys’ Ex. No. 23, at 57-58].

64. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom talked over the phone for less than one minute at 7:59 p.m. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 29].

65. On the evening of April 18, 2011 at 8:30 p.m., Ms. Henley sent several text messages to Hurst. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 24, at 10]. The next morning, on April 19, 2011 at 8:46 a.m., Ms. Henley called Hurst and spoke with him for less than seven minutes. [Id. at 3],

66. On April 19, 2011 at 10:13 a.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted three minutes. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 29]. Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom again at 10:16 a.m. and the call lasted nine seconds. [Id.\

67. On April 19, 2011, Pryor and Ms. Caroom exchanged several phone calls and text messages between 12:01 p.m. and 12:16 p.m. [Id. at 6-7, 58-59]. 35

68. On April 19, 2011, at approximately 2:30 p.m., several HPD officers arrested the Debtors with the assistance of Officer Gunter. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 22, at 7]; [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 2:09:40-2:10:15 p.m.]. The HPD officers arrested the Debtors as they were exiting from a hotel in Houston, where they had been staying in an effort to minimize their chances of being taken into custody. Upon their arrests, Ms. Henley told the arresting officers that they had filed bankruptcy. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 2:37:35 p.m.]. Despite Ms. Henley’s informing the arresting officers that her husband and she had filed bankruptcy, HPD kept the Debtors in custody and transported them to jail. The Debtors then spent one night in incarceration. [Id. at 3:17:40-3:18:51 p.m.].

69. On April 19, 2011, Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom exchanged several phone calls and text messages shortly before and after the Debtors’ arrests. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 30]; [Id. at 133]. Officer Gunter and Mr. Caroom exchanged the following phone calls and text messages at the following times 36 :

• At 2:06 p.m., Officer Gunter sent two text messages to Mr. Caroom. [M].

• At 2:45 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted less than one minute. [Id. at 30].

• At 2:59 p.m., Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom and the call lasted less than one minute. [/<£].

• At 3:05 p.m., Officer Gunter sent a text message to Mr. Caroom. [Id. at 133].

70. While handcuffed and sitting in the squad car, Ms. Henley, using her cell phone, called Hurst’s office and left a message for Hurst, who was in a trial at the Garland County Courthouse in Hot Springs, Arkansas (the Hot Springs courthouse) to the effect that her husband and she had just been arrested. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 2:51:00-2:54:00 p.m.].

71. Immediately after the Debtors were handcuffed and placed into an HPD *734 squad car, Officer Gunter walked up to the squad car, and, using his cell phone camera, took photographs of the Debtors sitting handcuffed in the squad car. [Id. at 2:47:50-2:48:16 p.m.].

72. At 3:16 p.m. and 3:17 p.m., Officer Gunter sent to Mr. Caroom, by text message, pictures of the Debtors handcuffed in the back seat of the squad car. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 13]; [Henleys’ Ex. No. 14]. Mr. Caroom then forwarded the pictures of the Debtors to his friend, Chauncey Taylor, who the Carooms knew was in contact with Ms. Henley’s ex-husband. [Taylor Dep. 7:2-9], Mr. Taylor then sent the pictures of Ms. Henley to her ex-husband, Linn Gleghorn (Gleghorn), via Facebook. [Id. at 8:20-9:2]; [Gleghorn Dep. 9:25-10:3].

73. After Officer Gunter took the pictures of the Debtors, he got into a surveillance van with Vigil. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 109:12-16]. Vigil then drove Officer Gun-ter to a Ferrari dealership in Houston to meet with Mr. Caroom and one other HPD officer, whose name is Officer Eric Powell. [Id. at 113:1-22],

74. Mr. Caroom met Officer Gunter, Vigil, and Powell at the Ferrari dealership. [Id.]. Officer Gunter informed Mr. Caroom that the Debtors had told the officers, while being apprehended, that they should not be arrested because they had filed for bankruptcy. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 3:26:43-3:27:13 p.m.]. Mr. Caroom responded by stating that he needed to further investigate the veracity of the Debtors’ statement. [Id. at 3:19:58-3:20:39 p.m.].

75. On April 19, 2011, Officer Gunter called Mr. Caroom at 4:18 p.m. and at 4:38 p.m. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 27, at 30]. The first call lasted less than three minutes and the second called lasted less than two minutes. [M].

76. Hurst testified that on April 18, 2011, he informed Tapp of the Debtors’ intent to file bankruptcy. [Hurst Dep. 18:5-19:9]. Tapp, on the other hand, testified that Hurst did not inform him of the Debtors’ intent to file bankruptcy on April 18, 2011. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 13:3-16:20]. However, Tapp also testified that he had had conversations prior to April 18, 2011 where Hurst “suggested repeatedly” that the Debtors would be filing a bankruptcy petition. [Id. at 33:1-12]. Tapp further testified that Hurst made these suggestions prior to the Arkansas Court’s issuance of its Body Attachment Order on the Debtors. [Id. at 33:7-34:15]. This Court finds that, at most, Hurst mentioned to Tapp on April 18, 2011 that the Debtors would be filing a bankruptcy petition, but that it is more likely that any such conversation took place prior to April 18, 2011. The Court further finds that Hurst never informed Tapp on April 18, 2011 that the Debtors had in fact filed a bankruptcy petition on that day.

77. On April 19, 2011, Tapp was at the Hot Springs courthouse at various hearings unrelated to the Lawsuit. On April 19, 2011, Hurst was also at the Hot Springs courthouse at a trial unrelated to the Lawsuit. Hurst testified that he believes he saw Tapp at this courthouse on the morning of April 19, 2011, and told him that the Debtors had filed their Chapter 7 petition on the previous afternoon. [Hurst Dep. 21:13-22:15]. Tapp testified that he was at the Hot Springs courthouse on April 19, 2011, but that Hurst and he never spoke on that day, and that Hurst never told him that the Debtors had filed their Chapter 7 petition the previous day. 37 *735 This Court finds that Hurst did not in fact see Tapp at the Hot Springs courthouse on April 19, 2011, and further finds that Hurst did not verbally inform Tapp on that day that the Debtors had filed their Chapter 7 petition the previous day.

78. On April 19, 2011, while the Debtors were in jail in Houston, HPD Officer Barrera (Barrera) searched NCIC for additional warrants issued for the Debtors. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 22, at 12]. Barrera determined that no other warrants existed. [Id.]. Barrera obtained a warrant confirmation and sent a copy to the office of the Harris County District Clerk, along with a Fugitive From Justice Affidavit, for preparation of the Debtors’ extradition documents. [Id.].

79. Judge John Homer Wright of Division I in the Arkansas Court (Judge Wright) testified that on April 19, 2011, he was the presiding judge in a criminal jury trial for DTJI in which Hurst served as defense counsel. [Wright Dep. 7:28-8:3]. He stated that the trial lasted until 3:80 p.m. and that he departed the courthouse for home at approximately 4:00 p.m. [Id. at 16:6-16:8]. According to phone records, Judge Wright made a four minute phone call at 4:06 p.m. to Tapp’s law office; Judge Wright made this call on his cell phone. [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 6]. Judge Wright does not recall any additional information about this phone call, including whether he spoke with Tapp, or the reason for the call. [Wright Dep. 19:21-24:11], Judge Wright does not have any recollection of the substance of any conversations with Hurst or Tapp on April 19, 2011 [Id. at 20:17-21:18]. Judge Wright does recollect that he first definitively became aware of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing on the morning of April 20, 2011. [Id. at 8:22-8:25].

80.On April 19, 2011, at 4:36 p.m., Hurst, having returned to his office after completion of the DUI trial, filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in the Lawsuit pending in Judge Wright’s court. [Id. at 9:8-10]; [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 3], Hurst then faxed a copy of the Suggestion of Bankruptcy to Tapp, which arrived at approximately 4:52 p.m. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 21:1-6]. Damani also sent a similar fax to Tapp’s office at 5:44 p.m. [Tape Recording, 6/12/12 Trial at 3:44:15-3:46:00 p.m.]. Tapp, *736 however, who had also been at the Hot Springs courthouse throughout the day, did not return to his office after finishing his court hearings; therefore, he did not see and read the faxes which Hurst and Damani sent at 4:52 p.m. and 5:44 p.m. respectively. [Tape Recording, 7/13/12 Hearing at 10:42:00-10:47:00 a.m.].

81.Tapp testified that although Hurst claimed that they spoke before 9:00 a.m. on April 19, and that Hurst alerted Tapp of the Debtors’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, the two men in fact did not speak on that day. [Tape Recording, 7/13/12 Hearing at 10:32:00-10:34:00 a.m.]. Tapp also testified that even though Hurst filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy at 4:36 p.m. on April 19, 2011, Tapp did not actually see this Suggestion of Bankruptcy until the following morning — April 20, 2011. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 16:11-20]; [Hurst Dep. 28:24-29:1]; [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 3]. Nor did Tapp see either of the faxes from Damani or Hurst that arrived late in the day on April 19 until the morning of April 20, 2011. [Tape Recording, 6/12/12 Trial at 3:44:15-3:46:00 p.m.]. The Court finds that Tapp’s recollection is more credible than Hurst’s recollection; therefore, the Court finds that Hurst did not verbally inform Tapp on April 19, 2011 that the Debtors had filed their bankruptcy petition on April 18, 2011. Further, the Court finds that Tapp first became aware of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing when, on the morning of April 20, 2011, he arrived at his office and discovered the telefaxes that Hurst and Damani had sent in the early evening of April 19, 2011 [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 10:49:11-10:49:40 a.m.]; thus, the Court finds that Tapp did not receive notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing until the morning after the Debtors’ arrests. Moreover, the Court finds that Judge Wright first became aware of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing when, on the morning of April 20, 2011, he arrived in his chambers and discovered the Suggestion of Bankruptcy that Hurst had filed at 4:36 p.m. the previous day. [Wright Dep. 8:22-25],

82. Ms. Caroom testified she first learned of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing on April 20, 2011. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 5:21:07-5:21:35 p.m.]. She received notice of the bankruptcy filing through an e-mail message she received from Tapp’s office. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 5:21:07-5:21:35 p.m.].

83. On April 19, 2011, at 6:27 p.m., an Officer Ross (Ross) contacted John Henley, one of Mr. Henley’s brothers, to inform him that the Debtors were in jail, and that John Henley would need to pick up the Debtors’ children from school. [Hen-leys’ Ex. No. 22, at 9]. John Henley informed Ross that he would indeed pick up the Debtors’ children from school and take care of them until the Debtors were released from jail. [Id.].

84. On April 20, 2011, at approximately 8:00 a.m., Judge Wright arrived at his chambers, reviewed the Suggestion of Bankruptcy, and then immediately sent Tapp and Hurst a letter by telefax, plus a copy of Hurst’s Suggestion of Bankruptcy. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 17:16-18:6]; [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 4], Both Hurst and Tapp, who were at their respective law offices, received and reviewed Judge Wright’s te-lefax communication almost immediately after their respective offices received the fax. In the letter, Judge Wright informed Hurst that he (i.e., Hurst) needed to prepare an order for Judge Wright’s signature “staying further proceedings and lifting enforcement of the contempt order pending further action by the bankruptcy court.” [June 12, 2012 Tr. 16:11-20]; [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 4], Shortly thereafter, Tapp and Hurst went to Judge Wright’s chambers. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 17:16-18:6], Hurst presented Judge *737 Wright with the order that Judge Wright had requested in his letter; Judge Wright then signed this order. [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 5]. Tapp and Hurst visited with Judge Wright for approximately fifteen minutes to discuss the Suggestion of Bankruptcy. [June 12, 2012 Tr. 17:21-18:4], Judge Wright’s Order Lifting Enforcement of Contempt and Order to Stay was file stamped and docketed at 8:30 a.m. [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 5]. This order lifted the Body Attachment Order.

85. Once the Debtors were in jail, the Debtors obtained a Houston criminal defense attorney, Mike DeGuerin. [Henleys’ Ex. No. 22, at 12].

86. On the morning of April 20, 2011, Officer Barrera and an Officer Midyett transported the Debtors from the Houston City Jail to Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 10 before Judge Sherman Ross. [Id.]. Upon arrival, Judge Ross received a copy of the order lifting the Body Attachment Order signed by Judge Wright eariier in the morning. [Id.]. A release order and affidavit for dismissal were presented to Judge Ross, who then signed the dismissal, releasing both Debtors from jail on April 20, 2011 at approximately 1:00 p.m. [Tape Recording, 6/11/2012 Trial at 3:34:50-3:35:00 p.m.].

87. On May 8, 2011, the Debtors and Damani were scheduled to attend the § 341 meeting of creditors (meeting of creditors) in the Debtors’ Chapter 7 Case. 38 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 34], The Debtors did not appear; therefore, the Trustee continued the meeting until May 20, 2011. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 34]; [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 10:19:30-10:19:41 a.m.].

88. On May 20, 2011, the Debtors and Damani attended the continued meeting of creditors. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 35]. At the beginning of the meeting, the Trustee asked the Debtors if “each of [them had] read the Schedules and [SOFAs] that [were] filed in this case.” [Id. at 2], Both *738 Debtors replied, “Yes sir.” [Id.]. The Trustee then asked the Debtors if any changes, alterations or deletions needed to be made. [Id.]. Ms. Henley responded, “No Sir.” [Id.].

89. During the meeting of creditors, the Trustee asked the Debtors about the lien disclosed in “Schedule A — Real Property.” [Id. at 4], The Debtors insisted that the Lots were secured by a lien held by Diamond Bank. [M]. The Debtors did not disclose that the lien was in fact attached to the Anderson Property and not to the Lots. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012, Trial at 12:54:44-1:00:00 p.m.].

90. The Trustee also discovered a problem with the Debtors’ Schedules. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 35, at 2-3]. Specifically, the Debtors failed to disclose their bank accounts in their Schedules even though the Debtors had provided their bank statements to the Trustee. 39 [Id.].

91. Towards the end of the meeting of creditors, the Carooms’ attorney, Peter Johnson (Johnson), asked the Debtors about the sale of their jet skis. [Id. at 12]. When Johnson asked the Debtors the sale price of the skis, Ms. Henley began to respond “... we sold them for the value of what they ...” [Id]. Mr. Henley then interjected and answered, “To pay off the loan.” [Id.]. In fact, the Debtors did not disclose the amount for which they sold their jet skis until pressed at trial. 40 In addition, the Debtors never disclosed this transfer on their original or amended SOFA. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No 1, at 33]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No 2, at 4-6].

92. The Debtors sold their jet skis for approximately $20,500.00 in June of 2010— within one year of the Petition Date. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:54:40-6:55:57 p.m.]. The Debtors borrowed the money to purchase the jet skis with the intent of taking title in their names, rather than in the name of HDC, Inc. [Id. at 6:54:40-6:57:13 p.m.]. And, in fact, the titles for the jet skis were issued in the Debtors’ names. [Id. at 6:55:57-6:57:13 p.m.]. The Debtors did not disclose the sale of these jet skis in either their original or amended SOFA. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 33]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 4-6].

93. The Trustee continued the meeting of creditors to May 27, 2011. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 15-16].

94. Damani requested that the Debtors come to his office to address the concerns the Trustee raised during the meeting of creditors held on May 20, 2011. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 76:18-21], During that meeting, the Debtors informed Damani that then-daughters owned two cars — a Mazda Mia-ta and a Volkswagen Bug. [Id. at 76:4-14],

95. On May 25, 2011, Damani filed the amended Schedules on the Debtors’ behalf. [Id. at 80:16-18]. The Debtors did not sign an Electronic Declaration stating that they had reviewed these amended Schedules. [Id. at 80:19-21], They testified that they did not review these amended *739 Schedules before Damani filed them on their behalf. [Id. at 79:14-15]. However, the Debtors paid Damani an additional $500.00 to file the amended Schedules. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:44:35-2:44:56 p.m.]. The Court finds that Damani prepared the amended Schedules based upon information given to him, and statements made, by the Debtors during and after their meeting with him following the May 20 meeting of creditors. The Court further finds that the Debtors authorized Damani to file the amended Schedules.

96. The amendments to “Schedule A— Real Property” were as follows. First, the Debtors disclosed real property located at 1718 Nichols, Little Rock, Arkansas. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 5, at 1]. Second, the Lots, which were disclosed in the Debtors’ original Schedule A, were excluded from the Debtors’ amended Schedule A. Compare [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 10], with [Debtors’ Ex. No 99, at 1]. The amendments to “Schedule D — Creditors Holding Secured Claims” were as follows: first, the Debtors disclosed solely an outstanding loan from Diamond Bank secured by their personal vehicle (i.e., the 2008 Jeep Rubicon). [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 6, at 1], Second, the loan from Diamond Bank secured by the Lots, which was disclosed in the Debtors’ original Schedule D, was excluded from the Debtors’ amended Schedule D. Compare [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 17], with [Debtors’ Ex. No. 100, at 1], But, the Debtors amended “Schedule F — Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims” to disclose the loan from Diamond Bank secured by the Lots. 41 [Debtors’ Ex. No. 101, at 3].

97. On May 27, 2011, the Debtors attended the continued meeting of creditors. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 36]. Prior to this meeting, the Debtors completed their § 341(a) questionnaire. 42 [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 15]. On page three of the questionnaire, next to item 7, “I read, signed and understand the questions and information contained in my Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs and this written Sworn Testimony,” the Debtors checked the space marked “YES.” [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 15, at 3]; [June 14, 2012 Tr. 77:17-23]. On the same page of the questionnaire, next to item 8, “I personally signed my Bankruptcy Petition, Bankruptcy Schedules and Statement of Affairs, and Means Test Analysis prior to my attorney filing them with the Bankruptcy Court,” the Debtors checked the space marked “YES.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 15, at 3]; [June 14, 2012 Tr. 77:24-78:6]. On the last page of the Debtors’ questionnaire, both Debtors signed their names underneath the following language:

I have read the foregoing and understand the questions. If represented by an attorney, I have reviewed the foregoing with assistance of counsel. The answers to the questions are mine. The answers are based on my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

*740 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 15, at 5]; [June 14, 2012 Tr. 77:8-16]. At the top of the last page of the questionnaire, the following language was handwritten on the document: “changes have been made to schedules since filing. Trustee has notice.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 15, at 5]. The Court finds that this text was written on the document by Damani before the Debtors signed the questionnaire. The meeting of creditors was again continued until July 8, 2011. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 36, at 3].

98. On June 29, 2011, the Trustee’s attorney, Glenna Crews (Crews) sent a letter to the Debtors requesting documents concerning the Fraudulent Transfer Suit, the Anderson Property, the Lots, and the Airport Road Property. 43

99. On June 30, 2011, the Trustee filed a Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge and Dischargeability (the Trustee’s Motion). [Adv. Doc. No. 28]. In the Trustee’s Motion, the Trustee informed this Court that he was investigating several potentially fraudulent transfers, including the transfer of the Anderson Property 44 and the Debtors’ transfer of both real and personal property to Jim Henley, one of Mr. Henley’s brothers. [Adv. Doc. No. 28, at 2].

100. On July 11, 2011, Ms. Henley sent a letter to Crews in response to her June 29, 2011 letter. 45 [Debtors’ Ex. No. 56]. In the Debtors’ response, the Debtors addressed the transfer of the Anderson Property, the transfer of the Lots, the transfer of the Airport Road Property, the Fraudulent Transfer Suit, the cashier’s check that the Debtors received from Jim Henley in the amount of $13,965.00 for his purchase of the 2001 Harley Davidson and two trailers (one twenty-foot enclosed trailer and one sixteen-foot open trailer), the personal tax returns filed for the years 2009 and 2010, and two years of business and personal bank statements. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 53]. At no point in this letter did the Debtors discuss the other assets they purported to own in the Financial Statement.

101. On July 12, 2011, Jim Henley’s attorney, Timothy J. Henderson (Henderson), wrote a letter to Crews to discuss the Anderson Property and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the Anderson Property. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 58]. However, at no point in this letter did Henderson address the other assets included in the Financial Statement.

102. On July 13, 2011, Damani, on the Debtors’ behalf, filed an Objection to the Trustee’s Motion (the Objection). [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 11]. In the Objection, Damani addressed the transfer of the Anderson Property. [Id]. Damani further addressed the Trustee’s allegations that *741 the Debtors effectuated fraudulent transfers. [Id.]. Additionally, the Objection asserted that the Debtors supplied the Trustee with documents to prove the transfers of the assets disclosed in the original SOFA. [Id.]. The documentation that the Debtors produced, however, was only for the transfers disclosed in the Debtors’ original SOFA. 46 The Debtors did not produce documentation for the disposition of each and every asset described in the Financial Statement.

103. On July 28, 2011, Johnson, the attorney for the Carooms, filed a response in support of the Trustee’s Motion. [Adv. Doe. No. 36, at 1].

104. On August 2, 2011, this Court set a hearing for August 31, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. to consider the Trustee’s Motion. [Adv. Doc. No. 37],

105. On August 24, 2011, Damani received via fax a letter from Crews, requesting that the Debtors file amended Schedules immediately. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 20]. Crews had discovered, from reviewing the Financial Statement which she attached to her letter to Damani, that the Debtors had failed to disclose $2.0 million worth of assets in their Schedules and SOFA. 47 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 20]; [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 10:15:58-10:16:38 a.m.]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7]. The Carooms — not the Debtors — had provided the Financial Statement to Crews. 48 [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 4:35:41-4:36:01 p.m.]; [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No 20, at 1]. In the Financial Statement, the Debtors purported to have $2,032,620.00 worth of assets as of June 26, 2009. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 7, at 2], Moreover, in the Financial Statement, the Debtors also represented that the Anderson Property was their homestead. [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 10:46:16-10:48:49 a.m.]. Upon receiving Crews’ letter and the Financial Statement, Damani called the Debtors to his office to confront them about the Financial Statement and their failure to disclose to him all of the assets described therein. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 10:16:38-10:16:55 a.m.]; [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 7], The Debtors told Damani that they did not know that the SOFA and Schedules required them to disclose these assets. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 10:03:23-10:05:12 a.m.]; [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 7]. Damani explained to the Debtors that they had to amend their SOFA to disclose how they disposed of all of the assets described in the Financial Statement. 49 [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 10:03:23-10:05:12 a.m.]; [Ca- *742 room/Trustee Ex. No. 7]; [Caroom/Trus-tee Ex. No. 2],

106. On August 25, 2011, Damani and Ms. Henley met at his office and reviewed the Financial Statement line by line. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 5:39:16-5:40:16 p.m.]. Ms. Henley informed Damani that she would provide the Trustee, Crews, and Damani with a detailed letter explaining the disposition of assets described in the Financial Statement. [Id.].

107. After meeting with Damani, Ms. Henley wrote a letter giving detailed information about the assets shown on the Financial Statement. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62]; [Tape Recording, 6/14/2012 Trial at 5:20:37-5:21:01 p.m.]. In this letter, Ms. Henley explained that the Debtors were “forced to sell [the assets in the Financial Statement] in a down market to survive.” [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 1]. She further explained that the Debtors sold the assets in the Financial Statement “to pay lawyer fees, and [to] support [their] family.” 50 [Id.]. She also asserted that the Debtors “paid every subcontractor in [their] construction business in 2009 and 2010, which totaled] to over $100,000.00.” [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 1].

108. On August 29, 2011, Ms. Henley went to Damani’s office to hand deliver a copy of the letter she had written to Crews. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 5:40:16-5:41:07 p.m.]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62], She also mailed a copy of her letter to the Trustee and to Crews. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 5:40:16-5:41:07 p.m.]. Damani advised the Debtors that he was going to use all of the information he received from the Trustee and in Ms. Henley’s letter to Crews to amend and file the Debtors’ amended SOFA. [Id.].

109. In their written response to Crews, the Debtors disclosed that the following assets, 51 which appeared on the Financial Statement, were sold for the following amounts on the following dates by the Debtors prior to the Petition Date 52 :

• 2003 Dodge Ram Truck — Sold for $2,400.00 (December 2009)

• 1994 Toyota Runner Truck — Sold for $2,500.00 (2009)

• 1978 Jeep CJ7 — Sold for $2,000.00 (March 10, 2010)

*743 • 1979 Jeep Indian Cherokee — Sold for $3,500.00 (Approximately May 2010)

• 1984 Porsche — Sold for $5,500-$6,500.00 (May 2010)

• 1952 Ford Truck — Sold for $7,500.00 (May 2010)

• 2001 Harley Davidson — Sold for $10,915.00 (December 2010)

• 20-foot x 8-foot Enclosed Trailer— Sold for $2,450.00 (December 2010)

• 16-foot Open Trailer — Sold for $600.00 (December 2010)

• 2001 Polaris 500 — Sold for approximately $2,300.00 (June 2010)

• 2005 Honda 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,200.00 (April 2010)

• 2003 Yamaha 500 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,300.00 (May 2010)

• Can Am 4-Wheeler — Sold for $6,500.00 (June 2010)

• Craftsman Tractor- — Sold for $900.00 (June 2010)

• Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser — Sold for $8,000.00 (July 2010)

• 2006 Hot Springs Spa — Sold for $3,200.00 (2008)

• 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat 53 — Sold for $8,500.00 (April 2010)

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,500.00 (May 2010)

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,600.00 (May 2010)

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,200.00 (May 2010)

• 2.75 carat wedding ring — $5,200.00 (May 2010)

• 2007 Men’s Rolex Watch — Sold for $3,200.00 (March 2010)

• Various Furnishings — $10.00-$250.00 (May/June 2010)

• 2 lots on Kathy Lane and Marion Anderson (March 2010)

• 1 acre of commercial land on 70 West — Sold for $30,000.00 (March 2010)

[Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 4-7],

110. Of the assets discussed in Ms. Henley’s letter to Crews, the following were sold, either at garage sales, or at what Ms. Henley testified were “designer” sales, 54 by the Debtors within one year of the Petition Date 55 :

• 1984 Porsche — Sold for $5,500.00-$6,500.00 (May 2010)

• 1952 Ford Truck — Sold for $7,500.00 (May 2010)

• 2001 Polaris 500 — Sold for approximately $2,300.00 (June 2010)

• 2005 Honda 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,200.00 (April 2010)

• 2003 Yamaha 500 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,300.00 (May 2010)

• Can Am 4-Wheeler — Sold for $6,500.00 (June 2010)

• Craftsman Tractor — Sold for $900.00 (June 2010)

*744 • Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser — Sold for $8,000.00 (July 2010)

• 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat — Sold for $8,500.00 (April 2010)

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,500.00 (May 2010)

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,600.00 (May 2010)

• Silk Rug-Sold for $1,200.00 (May 2010)

• 2.75 carat wedding ring-$5,200.00 (May 2010)

• Various Furnishings — $10.00-$250.00 (May/June 2010)

[Id. at 4-6],

111. Ms. Henley attached advertising receipts to her letter to Crews. [Id. at 19-21]. The advertising receipts, dated May 20, 2010, June 3, 2010, and June 17, 2010, were for Friday and Saturday designer and garage sales that the Debtors held. 56 The assets advertised were miscellaneous home furnishings, bikes, toys, children and adult clothing, a lawnmower, an aquarium, a wheelchair, and a shower chair. [Id, at 19-21]. In the June 17, 2010 advertisement, the Debtors advertised the Friday and Saturday sales as “huge moving sale[s].” [Id. at 21].

112. In her letter to Crews, Ms. Henley also attached certain bills of sale evidencing the sales of some of the assets described in the letter that were sold within one year prior to the Henley’s Chapter 7 filing, namely: the 2001 Polaris 500; the Can Am 4-Wheeler; the Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser; and the 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat. [Id. at 16-17, 22-23].

113. Ms. Henley also attached a bill of sale evidencing the sale of the 1978 Jeep CJ7, which was sold within two years of the filing of the Debtors’ petition. [Id at 16].

114. The handwritten bills of sale that Ms. Henley submitted to Crews do not indicate that HDC, Inc. owned or sold any of the following assets: the 1978 Jeep CJ7; the 2001 Polaris 500; the Can Am 4-Wheeler; the Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser; and the 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat. [Id. at 15-17, 22-23]; [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:35:20-6:38:38 p.m.; 6:45:44-6:49:14 p.m.].

115. The handwritten bill of sale for the 1978 Jeep CJ7 lists David Henley as the seller. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 15]; [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:45:44-6:49:14 p.m.]. The handwritten bill of sale for the 2001 Polaris 500 lists David Henley as the seller. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 16]. The handwritten bill of sale for the Can Am 4-Wheeler lists David Henley as the seller. [Id at 17]. The handwritten bill of sale for the 1984 Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser lists David and Belinda Henley as the sellers. [Id at 22]. Finally, the handwritten bill of sale for the 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat also lists David and Belinda Henley as the sellers. [Id at 23].

116. Ms. Henley’s 2.75 carat diamond wedding ring was a personal item that the Debtors sold at one of their garage sales. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:31:00-6:31:30 p.m.]. This ring was not owned by HDC, Inc. or any other entity, but rather was owned by Ms. Henley. [Id at 6:31:00-6:31:30 p.m.].

117. On August 30, 2011, the day before the hearing on the Trustee’s Motion, Damani filed the Debtors’ amended SOFA. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at *745 4:19:00-4:20:26 p.m.]. The Debtors claim that they did not sign or review these amendments; however, the Debtors paid Damani an additional fee to file the amended SOFA. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 75:14-23]. Moreover, the assets disclosed in the amended SOFA are the same assets that Ms. Henley discussed in her letter to Crews. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 75:13-23]; Compare [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62, at 4-7], with [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 4-6].

118. On August 31, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., Damani appeared before this Court for the hearing on the Trustee’s Motion and disclosed to this Court that the Debtors had amended their SOFA. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 4:19:00-4:20:26 p.m.].

119. In their amended SOFA, in response to item 1, “Income from employment or operation of business,” the Debtors’ response was: “$0.00 2009 and 2010 tax returns are currently being prepared.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 1]. The Debtors, however, had already filed their personal tax returns and the tax returns for Aqua-Lock with the IRS on May 12, 2011. 57 [Debtors’ Ex. No. 53]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 81]. Therefore, this representation was false.

120. In their amended SOFA, in response to item 10, “Other Transfers,” the Debtors disclosed the following assets and information about the value that they received for each asset:

• 2003 Dodge Ram — value received $2,400.00 (December 2009)

• 1994 Toyota Runner Truck — value received $2,000.00 (2009)

• 1978 Jeep CJ7 — value received $2,000.00 (March 10, 2010)

• 1979 Jeep Indian Cherokee — value received $3,500.00 (Approximately May 2010)

• 2000 Mazda Miata — minor child’s car (September 2009)

• 1974 VW Bug — minor child’s car 58 (2009)

• 1984 Porsche — value received $5,500.00-$6,500.00 (May 2010)

• 1952 Ford Truck — value received $7,000.00-$7,500.00 (May 2010)

• 2001 Polaris 500 — value received $2,300.00 (June 2010)

• 2005 Honda 4-Wheeler — value received $2,200.00 (April 2010)

• 2003 Yamaha 500 4-Wheeler — value received $2,300.00 (May 2010)

• Can Am 4 Wheeler — -value received $6,500.00 (June 2010)

• Craftsman Tractor — value received $900.00 (June 2010)

• Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser — value received $8,000.00 (July 2010)

• 1995 VIP 20-foot Ski Boat — value received $8,500.00 (April 2010)

• Three Silk Rugs — value received $4,300.00 (May 2010)

• 2.75 carat wedding ring — value received $5,200.00 (May 2010)

*746 • 2007 Men’s Rolex Watch — value received $8,200.00 (March 2010)

• Miscellaneous furnishings — value received ranged from $10-$250.00 per item (May/June 2010)

• Open garage sale for mise small value items — value received approximately $4,000.00 (February 2011)

[Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 4-7].

121. In their amended SOFA, the Debtors’ response to item 18, “Nature, location and name of business,” remained unchanged. 59 [Id. at 8]; [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 35-36]. Mr. Henley’s car repair business was not disclosed in the Debtors’ amended SOFA or Schedules. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 8]; [June 15, 2012 Tr. 42:21-43:3]. Additionally, Ms. Henley’s jewelry design and interior design businesses were not disclosed. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 8].

122. In their amended SOFA, in response to item 19c, asking the Debtors to “List all firms or individuals who at the time of the commencement of this case were in possession of the books or account and records of the debtor. If any of the books of account and records are not available, explain,” the Debtors’ response remained the same. 60 [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 36]. The Debtors made no attempt to recover their lost personal and business records for Aqua-Lock and HDC, Inc.

123. In their amended SOFA, in response to item 19d, “List financial institutions, creditors, and other parties, including mercantile and trade agencies, to whom a financial statement was issued by the Debtor within two years immediately preceding the commencement of this case,” the Debtors again filled in the box by marking “NONE.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 8]. This representation was false, as the Debtors had, in fact, provided the Financial Statement to Diamond Bank on June 26, 2009, which was within two years prior to the Petition Date.

124. The Debtors never filed an amended “Schedule B — Personal Property,” 61 to disclose the two bank accounts that the Debtors had on the Petition Date in response to item 2. See [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 35, at 2]. The Debtors also never amended their response to item 13, “Stock and interest in incorporated and unincorporated businesses.” 62 Thus, the Debtors did not disclose their ownership interest in HDC, Inc., Henley Design or Aqua-Lock in their Schedules. [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 13]. The Debtors also did not amend their response to item 21, “Other contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including tax refunds, counterclaims of the debtor, and rights to setoff claims.” 63 Thus, the Debtors did not dis *747 close their pre-petition counterclaims against the Carooms pending in the Lawsuit in Arkansas.

125. Damani became concerned over both the Debtors’ veracity and the complexity of their case. [Tape Recording, 6/26/2012 Trial at 2:38:07-2:89:00 p.m.]; [Id. at 10:26:34-10:27:20 a.m.]. He, therefore, sent the Debtors an e-mail informing them that he wanted to withdraw from representing them and advising them to find substitute counsel. [Debtors’ Ex. No. 66, at 2].

126. On September 29, 2011, Damani filed an Emergency Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Debtors. [Adv. Doc. No. 49, at 1]. On October 3, 2011, this Court denied Damani’s Emergency Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for failure to give notice to the creditors and the Trustee pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 9013-1. [Adv. Doc. No. 50]. On October 24, 2011, Damani filed a Motion to Substitute Bankruptcy Counsel on behalf of the Debtors. [Adv. Doc. No. 53]. Damani informed this Court that the Debtors had retained Leonard H. Simon (Simon), a seasoned bankruptcy attorney at the Houston law firm of Pendergraft & Simon, LLP. [Id. at 2]. Damani’s Motion to Substitute Bankruptcy Counsel was agreed to by Simon. [Id. at 3]. On November 3, 2011, this Court granted Damani’s Motion. [Adv. Doc. No. 54]. Simon thereafter became counsel of record for the Debtors in place of Damani. [Id.].

127. On August 30, 2011, the Carooms and the Trustee filed the following pleading: “Complaint of Rodney Tow, Trustee, Joined by Creditors Jerry and Mary Ca-room, Objecting to the Discharge of the Debtors under 11 U.S.C. § 727 ; and Jerry and Mary Caroom’s Objection to Discharge of Debts under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 (a)(2) and 523(a)(4)” (the Complaint). [Adv. Doc. No. 1]. On September 30, 2011, the Debtors filed the following pleading: “Defendants David Henley and Belinda Henley’s Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and Counterclaim Against Jerry Caroom and Mary Caroom” (the Answer). [Adv. Doc. No. 10]. The counterclaims alleged by the Debtors included: (1) violation of the automatic stay; (2) abuse of process; (3) malicious prosecution; and (4) defamation.

128. On October 7, 2011, the Carooms filed the following pleading: “Plaintiffs’ Jerry and Mary Caroom’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims,” as well as an answer to the Debtors’ counterclaims. [Adv. Doc. Nos. 11 & 12].

129. On December 20, 2011 at 10:30 a.m., this Court held a hearing and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ Jerry and Mary Caroom’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims. The Court dismissed, without prejudice, the counterclaims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation. [Tape Recording, 12/20/2011 Hearing at 10:36:07-10:44:13 a.m.]. The Court ruled that these post-petition state law causes of action should be tried in the Harris County District Court, not the bankruptcy court. However, this Court did not dismiss the counterclaim regarding the alleged violation of the automatic stay by the Carooms, as this cause of action is governed by an express provision of the Code, namely § 362(k). [Adv. Doc. No. 22],

130. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an “Amended Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Section 727 Objections to Discharge for False Oaths.” [Adv. Doc. No. 76]. On June 1, 2012, the Debtors filed their Response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Section 727 Objections to Discharge for *748 False Oaths (the Response). [Adv. Doc. No. 82],

131. In a four-page order, the Court denied the Amended Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (the Summary Judgment Order). [Adv. Doc. No. 100].

132. On June 11, 2012, the Court began trial on the § 362 Action. On June 14, 2012, the Court began trial on the § 727 Action. On June 26, 2012, in the § 727 Action the Court heard the Debtors’ oral motion for a directed verdict; it was subsequently denied. [Adv. Doc. No. 113]. Thereafter, the Debtors put on their casein-chief in the § 727 Action.

133. After hearing closing arguments on both the § 727 Action and the § 362 Action, the Court took both matters under advisement.

134. On July 3, 2012, the Debtors filed their Expedited Motion For Entry of Order Directing J. Sky Tapp to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Sanctioned and Punished for Committing Perjury (the Tapp Show Cause Motion). [Adv. Doc. No. 122], On July 11, 2012, the Carooms filed a response in opposition thereto, and on July 13, 2012, this Court heard arguments on the Tapp Show Cause Motion. The Court denied the Tapp Show Cause Motion on July 20, 2012. [Adv. Doc. Nos. 146 & 150].

III. Credibility of Witnesses

A. Witnesses Who Testified During That Portion of the Trial Regarding the § 727(a) Action

Five witnesses testified during the trial on the § 727(a) Action: (1) Belinda Henley, Debtor/Defendant; (2) David Henley, Debtor/Defendant; (3) Jim Henley, the brother of David Henley; (4) Anis Damani, former Chapter 7 counsel for the Debtors; and (5) Rodney Tow, the Chapter 7 Trustee/Plaintiff. Set forth below are the Court’s findings regarding the credibility of these witnesses.

Rodney Tow (Chapter 7 Trustee/Plaintiff)

Among other issues, the Trustee testified concerning the following: the oaths made by the Debtors at the meeting of creditors; the records produced in the Debtors’ Chapter 7 case; the assets excluded from the Debtors’ Schedules; and the inaccurate information provided in the SOFA. The Court finds the Trustee to be a very credible witness, and gives substantial weight to his testimony.

Jim Henley (Brother/Brother in-law of the Debtors)

Jim Henley, who is a very successful and sophisticated entrepreneur, testified primarily on issues regarding the Anderson Property. Jim Henley is also closely related to the Debtors — he is David Henley’s brother. His relationship to the Debtors is an important factor in this Court’s credibility determination. While Jim Henley directly answered most of the questions posed by all parties, he was careful to ensure that his testimony and responses would not harm the Debtors’ case, as the following Q & A between Jim Henley and Peter Johnson (counsel for the Carooms) demonstrates:

JOHNSON: Mr. Henley, the payments on the $305,000.00 mortgage were made from the rental payments of an exact same amount sent to you by your brother and your sister-in-law; isn’t that true?

JIM HENLEY: The payments on the mortgage came from my checking account to Summit Bank.

JOHNSON: And you received deposits in your checking account in an exact amount from your brother and your sister-in-law each month as well, didn’t you?

JIM HENLEY: I’ve testified to that sir.

*749 JOHNSON: Okay. An then you have the property listed for $695,000.00 for sale, and did you have any agreement with them that you would split the profit on that property that you made — that you would make?

JIM HENLEY: Again, this — we never anticipated that you would be asking us this question. Our agreement was between brothers and we had not discussed a disposing of the house. So I had no agreement with him on the funds.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 235:14-236:5].

Due to Jim Henley’s relationship to the Debtors, the Court finds that Jim Henley, although credible, was also very careful not to give testimony that could damage the Debtors’ case-in-chief. Accordingly, this Court finds Jim Henley to be a credible, but practiced witness. This Court, therefore, gives some — but not substantial — weight to his testimony.

Anis Damani (Former Counsel to the Debtors)

Among other issues, Anis Damani testified on issues concerning the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing, the preparation and the filing of the Debtors’ Schedules and SOFA, the events and communications that occurred at the Debtors’ meeting of creditors, and the issues surrounding the Debtors’ Financial Statement. While Damani proved himself to be a somewhat unorganized and inexperienced attorney, this Court finds that Damani is, nevertheless, very credible; he answered most of the questions posed to him forthrightly, even if certain answers embarrassed him. 64 [Finding of Fact No. 42]. Therefore, this Court gives substantial weight to his testimony, and to the extent that his testimony contradicted the testimony of either or both of the Debtors, the Court gives substantially more weight to his testimony than to the testimony of the Debtors.

Belinda Henley (Debtor)

Belinda Henley (Ms. Henley) is a licensed general contractor specializing in construction and interior design. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 52:4-18]. She is licensed by the American Society of Quality Control, is recognized as a quality engineer by the American Society of Quality Control, and obtained a degree in industrial management, with an emphasis in industrial engineering, from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. [Finding of Fact No. 1]. *750 Because she is sophisticated, well-educated and capable of understanding complex scientific and business concepts, it is quite logical to infer that she also appreciates the difference between truths and lies. See In re Graham, 199 B.R. 157, 159-60 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1996); see also In re W. World Funding, Inc., 52 B.R. 743, 753 (Bankr.D.Nev.1985) (noting that the court may determine whether a witness can discern the difference between truth and lies).

During trial of the § 727 Action, Ms. Henley testified on two separate occasions, once as an adverse witness in the Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, and second during the Debtors’ case-in-chief. Both times, she frequently answered questions evasively and ambiguously. Even when the questions required only simple answers, Ms. Henley’s responses required the Trustee’s, Carooms’, and even her own counsel to ask follow-up questions to obtain clarity and coherence for the record.

For example, when Ms. Henley was asked, by her own counsel, Simon, whether the Debtors maintained any cash in their two bank accounts on the Petition Date, she evaded the question posed, responding: “I disclosed all banking information.” [June 14, 2012 Tr. 70:14-22]. Because Ms. Henley answered many of her questions in this manner, this particular response prompted the Court to address Ms. Henley directly:

THE COURT: Just answer the question.

MS. HENLEY: Oh.

THE COURT: You need to focus on the question that’s asked of you, ma’am.

MS. HENLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: I’m not going to tolerate you wandering off in [sic] tangent. It’s a simple question: Did you have any money in those bank accounts? Yes or no?

MS. HENLEY: Okay. I’d have to see the statement to answer that honestly.

[Id. at 70:23-71:8].

Indeed, throughout the trial, Ms. Henley frequently failed to answer the question that was asked, or made self-serving statements unresponsive to the question that was posed. The following four exchanges illustrate this behavior:

Example 1: Here, Ms. Henley attempts to avoid admitting that her husband and she failed to disclose that they gave the Financial Statement to Diamond Bank. They should have made this disclosure in response to item 19d of the SOFA:

JOHNSON: Now I want to look at the next question here and would read that question into the record?

(Counsel for the you Carooms)

MS. HENLEY: D?

JOHNSON: Yes.

MS. HENLEY: List all financial institutions, creditors and other parties, including mercantile and trade agencies, to whom a financial statement was issued by the debtor within two years immediately preceding the commencement of this case.

JOHNSON: And how did you answer that?

MS. HENLEY I answered “NONE.”

JOHNSON: Ok, and if we go back to exhibit 7 [i.e., the Financial Statement] that we just visited here ... at page 2 at the bottom tell the Court when that is dated.

MS. HENLEY: It’s dated June 26, 2009.

JOHNSON: Is that within two years before you filed your bankruptcy proceeding?

MS. HENLEY: Yes.

JOHNSON: And you didn’t put that on the Schedules in response to question *751 # 19 on your Statement of Financial Affairs, did you?

MS. HENLEY: No, I did not have a copy.

COURT: Wait a minute. That’s not the question. The question is “Did you list it?” The question is not, “Did you have a copy?” The question was, “Did you list the financial institutions to which you gave exhibit 7?”

MS. HENLEY: No.

[Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:15:15— 6:18:17 p.m.].

Example 2: After admitting that she and Mr. Henley “remodeled” the Anderson Property, Ms. Henley was ambiguous about those improvements.

JOHNSON: And how much money did you spend remodeling that home, Ms. Henley?

(the Carooms’ counsel)

MS. HENLEY: Jim Henley remodeled the home.

JOHNSON: Jim Henley? Was he living in Arkansas at that time?

MS. HENLEY: No.

THE COURT: Hold on a minute. How much money was spent on it? You didn’t answer that question.

MS. HENLEY: Um. How much money did I spend on it?

JOHNSON: How much money was spent to improve the home, regardless of who spent the money?

MS. HENLEY: Oh, I don’t know.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 50:8-14],

Example 3:

JOHNSON: I’m showing you now Exhibit Henley 28. Do you see that?

MS. HENLEY: Yes, I do.

JOHNSON: Okay. And that is a second complaint against you and your husband, and also Mr. Jim Henley, isn’t that correct?

MS. HENLEY: Yes, it is.

JOHNSON: Okay. And that has a number, a case number at the top that’s identified as CV-2011-292 IV; is that correct?

MS. HENLEY: Yes.

JOHNSON: Okay. Did you — when did you become aware that this was a second lawsuit against you?

MS. HENLEY: I was never served this document.

JOHNSON: Did Mr. Hirsh [sic] tell you that—

THE COURT: Hold on a minute. That’s not quite the question he asked you, Ms. Henley.

MS. HENLEY: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: When did you become aware of this lawsuit, not when you were served, when the lawsuit was served on you. Your answer to that would be never. The question is when did you become aware of this?

MS. HENLEY: Probably in the summer, probably May of 2011, June, it was after our bankruptcy. I’m perfectly sure of that. It was after our bankruptcy.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 60:9-61:5].

Example

JOHNSON: Okay. Well, let’s look at Trustee/Caroom Exhibit 2. This is the amendment that Mr. Damani filed for you back in August 30 of 2011, correct?

MS. HENLEY: That this is the Statement of Financial Affairs?

JOHNSON: Right, that’s what it says on there, Statement of Financial Affairs amended, do you agree?

MS. HENLEY: Yes, I did not sign that.

JOHNSON: Well, move to strike the last part of that.

*752 THE COURT: Sustained.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 66:11-20].

The Court finds that, consistently, Ms. Henley gave testimony that she believed would aid the Debtors’ case, rather than testimony that was both responsive and true.

In addition to her evasive and nonre-sponsive answers, Ms. Henley’s testimony frequently contradicted itself on important issues, as the example below demonstrates.

MURRAY: How did you conclude the amount of money you earned in those businesses?

(Trustee’s counsel)

MS. HENLEY: Just by keeping a notepad and writing those — those totals down as we bought and sold items, very informal.

MURRAY: Those notepads weren’t among those items that were lost in the move?

MS. HENLEY: I do not have those. There are records of checks as well that are recordings of that that we used.

MURRAY: To be clear, for your 2009 tax return you used a notepad that you didn’t have in Arkansas but you did have in Houston?

MS. HENLEY: Urn ... any of the items that we would’ve gone through that we would’ve listed out that we would’ve sold we would’ve listed those and we would’ve gone through our check account and we would’ve listed all those checks so any of those items that were bought and sold yes.

MURRAY: Move to strike. Nonre-sponsive.

COURT: Sustained.

MURRAY: I’ll re-ask my question. Is it your testimony that your 2009 tax return, that to fill out that form you would’ve relied on a notepad that you didn’t have in Arkansas but did have in Houston?

MS. HENLEY: I would’ve relied on several sources.

MURRAY: I asked about the notepad. Did you rely on the notepad to fill out your 2009 tax return?

MS. HENLEY: I don’t remember.

MURRAY: I thought just a second ago you said that that’s how you knew how much money you made from your business and that that’s how you filled out your tax return.

MS. HENLEY: That’s how I would keep a record as we would sell things. I would write them down like the informal like the handwritten bills of sales.

MURRAY: So for sales in 2009 those were written down in a notepad?

MS. HENLEY: I would have a copy of those bills of sale I do not have a notepad that actually has each one of those listed out.

MURRAY: So did you use a notepad to fill out your 2009 tax return or not?

MS. HENLEY: What notepad are you referring to?

MURRAY: The one you brought up in response to my first question.

MS. HENLEY: Urn ... no. Not a not a specific notepad that has every item listed in there. No. That’s how we’d keep a record of when we’re selling items.

MURRAY: So there is no notepad?

MS. HENLEY: No.

[Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 5:51:05-5:53:45 p.m.]. Thus, in under three minutes of sworn scrutiny, Ms. Henley managed to both create and deny the existence of this notepad.

Ms. Henley also contradicted her testimony regarding the qualification requirements for the Anderson Property loan. Ms. Henley initially testified as follows:

*753 MURRAY: And you testified previously that this was an Asset List you prepared in connection with an application for a loan; isn’t that right?

MS. HENLEY: Yes.

MURRAY: And among the assets that you list as being owned by you are a personal home at 3035 Marian [sic] Anderson [i.e., the Anderson Property]. Do you see that at the bottom of the first page?

MS. HENLEY: Yes, I do.

MURRAY: If I understood your attorney’s opening argument correctly, it’s your position that you did not own the home at that time; is that right?

MS. HENLEY: Yes.

MURRAY: So can you explain to me why you were telling the bank that you did own, but you’re telling the Court now that [you] didn’t?

MS. HENLEY: Yes.

MURRAY: Please explain.

MS. HENLEY: Okay. We — it was a condition with Jim Henley. He quit-claimed the house to us and our end of the agreement was obviously to get financing ...

MS. HENLEY: Okay. So the — when he quitclaimed the house to us, it was for us to get financing for it ...

[June 14, 2012 Tr. 59:10-60:23] (emphasis added). Later, Ms. Henley changed her story, claiming the quitclaim deed was unnecessary for financing:

MURRAY: And the Marian [sic] Anderson house [i.e., the Anderson Property] — and I don’t think we disagree, I’m just trying to clarify your testimony. It was that your understanding was you needed to get the title quitclaimed to you first and then you would use that to apply for the loan?

MS. HENLEY: No. I’m not understanding, I guess, what you’re saying. Maybe you can say it to me one more time. You’re not wanting me to discuss—

MURRAY: No.

MS. HENLEY: — just the application. Okay.

MURRAY: No. No.

MR. SIMON: I’m going to object.

MURRAY: I’m trying to be careful with the questions.

MS. HENLEY: Okay.

THE COURT: Ms. Henley, it’s only your understanding that before you could apply for a loan you needed to have the Quitclaim Deed executed so you and your husband had title to the property?

MS. HENLEY Before I applied for the loan did I need the Quitclaim Deed? My mind is going blank. I’m sorry. I’m trying to process this. Before I applied for the loan did I need a Quitclaim Deed? No.

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Murray, she has answered your question. You can ask the next question please.

MURRAY: Thank you.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 41:1-42:4] (emphasis added).

Ms. Henley also narrated answers to questions that called for simple “yes” or “no” answers, and she did so in an effort to shift responsibility away from her husband and herself. For example, when asked a straightforward question about lost business records, Ms. Henley, rather than answering “yes” or “no”, gave a response that insinuated that the U.S. Postal Service was responsible for the loss of the records (although the Debtors introduced no documentary evidence to which Ms. Henley referred):

MURRAY: On your original Schedules you indicated that business records related to Aqua Lock and Henley Design and Construction were lost in the move; is that correct?

*754 MS. HENLEY: There were some records lost on shipments that were made to us from — my daughter, Christina, shipped us boxes of all of our documents and those were lost. And then when we received them they were in new boxes and not all the documents were in those, and it’s documented through the U.S. Postal Service.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 37:23-38:6],

In sum, there are simply too many discrepancies, contradictions, misrepresentations, and self-serving statements that Ms. Henley has made under oath. The Court therefore finds that Ms. Henley is not credible, and gives very little weight to her testimony in the § 727 Action.

David Henley (Debtor)

David Henley (Mr. Henley) holds a degree in business from Southern Arkansas State University. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 87:21-23]; [Finding of Fact No. 1]. He co-owned and operated HDC, Inc. with Ms. Henley. [Finding of Fact No. 2], He also worked with the subcontractors for HDC, Inc. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 87:24-88:2], Mr. Henley is a sophisticated person. Given his background, it is also reasonable for the Court to infer that Mr. Henley can tell the difference between truth and lies. See In re W. World Funding, Inc., 52 B.R. at 753 .

During trial, Mr. Henley attempted to shield himself from any inaccuracies by claiming that Ms. Henley handled all of the documentation, as evidenced by the Q & A between counsel for the Carooms and Mr. Henley:

JOHNSON: And so you would be probably the more competent one to do these kinds of Schedules because, in fact, you have a degree in finance don’t you?

MR. HENLEY: I have a degree in business, but my wife did handle all the documentation and she filled out every document on that.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 139:24-140:3],

Mr. Henley also gave evasive answers to the most direct questions:

JOHNSON: Did you ever take an accounting course in college with that course in — that degree in business?

MR. HENLEY: I believe I had Accounting 1.

JOHNSON: Okay. And do you know what a balance sheet is?

MR. HENLEY: I do.

JOHNSON: Is that what this [i.e., the Financial Statement] is?

MR. HENLEY: I’m not a professional accountant.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 170:6-12],

Mr. Henley’s testimony also conflicted with his wife’s testimony. For example, Ms. Henley told the Trustee at the meeting of creditors held on May 20, 2011 that the Debtors had two bank accounts open on the Petition Date. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 64:12-65:3]. Yet, on June 15, 2012, the following exchange occurred between Mr. Henley and counsel for the Carooms:

JOHNSON: Mr. Henley, when you filed bankruptcy, did you have any bank accounts open?

MR. HENLEY: When I filed bankruptcy?

JOHNSON: Yes, on April 18, 2011.

MR. HENLEY: I did not.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 145:21-25] (emphasis added). 65

*755 In addition, Mr. Henley’s testimony regarding the sale of a 2.75 carat wedding ring and 2007 Men’s Rolex watch conflicted with the dates reported in the Debtors’ amended SOFA filed on August 30, 2011. Originally, Mr. Henley swore under oath that the Debtors sold the both the Rolex and the wedding ring at a garage sale held in May 2010. Yet, in his testimony at trial he contradicted this date:

JOHNSON: Okay. And when we look at the page that is being shown here, it talks about other transfers, and under those other transfers I want you to look on page 5 of Caroom/Trustee Exhibit, and on the same question and at the very bottom of this page it talks about — it talks about in May of 2010 a 2.75 carat wedding right that was sold for $5200. Do you see that?

MR. HENLEY: Yes, sir, I do.

JOHNSON: And was that sold at that same [garage] sale that you just discussed in your testimony?

MR. HENLEY: That’s correct.

JOHNSON: Okay. Now I want to move now to the next page on this same exhibit, and at the top of that it says a 2007 men’s Rolex watch was sold for $3200 in March of 2010; is that the sale you just discussed in your testimony?

MR. HENLEY: That is correct.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 162:11-163:3] (emphasis added).

Mr. Henley was also nonresponsive and evasive particularly when it came to the issue of owning the Anderson Property, as reflected by the following Q & A that he had with counsel for the Carooms:

JOHNSON: There you go. Now take a look, if you would — all right. You have Exhibit 24 [i.e., the loan application] in front of you?

MR. HENLEY: Uh-huh.

JOHNSON: All right. Looking at the middle of that document, and it says— it has an address on here, correct?

MR. HENLEY: That is correct.

JOHNSON: Okay. And then it asks you — it asks over here — if I can read that, if I can read the writing here— own or rent. And you’re telling me that you think that does not apply to the home that you live in?

MR. HENLEY: One, I did not fill this out. 66

JOHNSON: That’s not the question.

MR. HENLEY: Ask me again.

JOHNSON: Is your testimony that that — checking that box does not apply to the home you were living in?

MR. HENLEY: No, we were applying for a loan on the land.

JOHNSON: Did you own that land that you were applying for the loan on?

MR. HENLEY: I did own that land.

JOHNSON: So this — -but your testimony is that when you filled this out, or whoever filled it out before you signed it, when it says rent or own and you check own, that meant that that wasn’t the place you were living, but it was some piece of property that you were borrowing money on?

MR. HENLEY: You’ll have to ask me that question again because that was a double — in my opinion, I did not—

*756 [June 15, 2012 Tr. 167:3-168:3]. In fact, Mr. Henley continued to evade Johnson’s questions:

JOHNSON: Mr. Henley, the Exhibit Number 7, Caroom/Trustee 7 that we’re looking at on the screen, at the bottom of that first page it says, “Personal home, 3035 Marian [sic] Anderson, $975,000,” and it follows up on the next page with a description of the property. Do you see that?

MR. HENLEY: Uh-huh.

JOHNSON: Is it your testimony—

THE COURT: We need a yes or no.

MR. HENLEY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right.

JOHNSON: Is it your testimony that you were not telling the recipient of that Financial Statement that you owned that home?

MR. HENLEY: This is not the same— no.

JOHNSON: That’s not the question I asked.

MR. HENLEY: I’m sorry. Ask me the question again.

JOHNSON: Are you telling the recipient of this Financial Statement in Trustee 07 that you owned this home?

MR. HENLEY: I do not own this home.

JOHNSON: That’s not my question. My question is, in this Financial Statement on the board in Exhibit Trustee 07, when you describe the Marian [sic] Anderson Road property on there as personal home, is it your testimony that you’re not claiming that that’s your personal home that you own?

MR. HENLEY: I’m claiming it’s not my home.

JOHNSON: That’s what you’re claiming in this Statement?

MR. HENLEY: I was asked — we went in to apply for a loan and this is not this. This is for two parcels of land. We applied for a loan on the house. We went in and spoke to Sharon Delgado (i.e., the loan officer at Diamond Bank), and Sharon Delgado gave us a list of items that we must get done to be able to purchase the home. One of them was to get a quitclaim deed from Jim Henley, a second one was that she was going to check our credit scores, and which you brought up earlier and it showed a bunch of tax liens on mine, and she said, “you must clear all that up.” And a third one was we needed to get our taxes pulled together.

JOHNSON: Objection, non-responsive—

THE COURT: I’ll sustain. I’ll sustain.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 168:11-169:25].

When Mr. Henley recognized that he could no longer avoid providing evasive or nonresponsive answers, he resorted to responding “I don’t know:”

JOHNSON: Do you understand that when you tell creditors on a balance sheet about assets and liabilities, you’re putting your assets and your liabilities on there?

MR. HENLEY: I don’t know.

JOHNSON: I mean if you didn’t own 3035 Marian [sic] Anderson [i.e., the Anderson Property], why would you put it on here as one of your assets in this balance sheet?

MR. HENLEY: I don’t know.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 170:13-20].

However, when Mr. Henley was asked a question, the answer to which he believed would benefit him, he responded directly, as evidenced by the following Q & A that he had with his own trial counsel:

SIMON: Were you — when you placed this piece of property on this Financial Statement, were you acting under the advice of your banker?

MR. HENLEY: Yes.

*757 SIMON: Okay. And did you believe that you were doing anything wrong or improper by listing this property on this balance sheet?

MR. HENLEY: Absolutely not. She asked us to.

[June 15, 2012 Tr. 171:1-8].

In sum, there are simply too many discrepancies, contradictions, misrepresentations, and self-serving statements that Mr. Henley has made under oath. The Court therefore finds that Mr. Henley is not credible, and gives very little weight to his testimony.

B. Witnesses Who Testified During That Portion of the Trial Regarding the § 362(k) Action

Twelve witnesses testified during the trial on the § 362(k) Action: (1) Belinda Henley, Debtor/Counter-plaintiff; (2) David Henley, Debtor/Counter-plaintiff; (3) Jerry Caroom, Creditor/Counter-defendant; (4) Mary Caroom, Creditor/Counter-defendant; (5) J. Sky Tapp, Arkansas counsel for the Carooms; (6) Keith Re-méis, Houston, Texas counsel for the Ca-rooms in Harris County District Court; (7) David Gunter, Houston Police Department Officer; (8) Connie Spence, Assistant Harris County District Attorney; (9) Royee Henley, Mr. Henley’s Sister-In-Law; (10) Jude Vigil, Houston Police Department Officer; (11) Q. Byrum Hurst, Arkansas counsel for the Henleys; and (12) The Honorable John H. Wright, the presiding Judge in the Lawsuit in Arkansas. Set forth below are the Court’s findings concerning the credibility of these witnesses. 67

Belinda Henley (Debtor/Counter-plaintiff)

As already set forth above, the Court finds Ms. Henley to lack credibility with respect to her testimony in the § 727 Action. With respect to the § 362 Action, however, the Court finds Ms. Henley to be more credible. Her testimony in the § 362 Action to a large extent concerned her recollection of the actions which the police officers took to arrest her husband and her, and the miserable hours they spent thereafter in jail. See [Finding of Fact No. 68]. Considering the circumstances of her arrest, the Court finds that Ms. Henley was truthful in this respect. The Court gives considerable weight to her testimony on these issues.

David Henley (Debtor/Counter-Plaintiff)

As already set forth above, the Court finds Mr. Henley to lack credibility with respect to his testimony in the § 727 Action. With respect to the § 362 Action, however, the Court finds Mr. Henley to be more credible. His testimony in the § 362 Action to some extent concerned his recollection of the actions which the police officers took to arrest his wife and him, and their resulting incarceration. See [Finding of Fact No. 68]. Considering the circumstances of his arrest, the Court finds that *758 Mr. Henley was truthful in this respect. The Court gives considerable weight to his testimony on these issues.

Jerry Caroom (Mr. Caroom/Creditor)

Mr. Caroom is a very successful and sophisticated businessman. He owns companies in Arkansas and Texas. Because he is a well-educated person who is capable of understanding business concepts, it is logical to infer that he understands the difference between truths and lies. See In re Graham, 199 B.R. at 159-60 ; see also In re W. World Funding, Inc., 52 B.R. at 753 (noting that the Court may determine whether a witness can discern the difference between truth and lies).

Mr. Caroom and his wife contracted with the Debtors to build the Caroom Home. [Finding of Fact No. 9], Mr. Ca-room and his wife subsequently filed the Lawsuit against the Debtors in an Arkansas Court. As a result of the Debtors’ failure to comply with an order of the Arkansas Court, that Court issued the Body Attachment Order for contempt. [Finding of Fact Nos. 19 & 21]. The Debtors’ counterclaim arises from Mr. Ca-room’s involvement in the Debtors’ arrests after the Body Attachment Order was issued.

At trial, Mr. Caroom testified as an adverse witness during the Debtors’ case-in-chief. During his testimony, he answered some questions evasively and ambiguously. For certain questions requiring only simple answers, Mr. Caroom’s responses required that the Debtors’ counsel, Simon, ask follow-up questions to determine Mr. Caroom’s relationship with Officer Gunter and involvement in the Debtors’ arrests, as well as Mr. Caroom’s knowledge of the Debtors’ bankruptcy.

For example, before trial, Mr. Caroom’s counsel, Johnson, verified Officer Gunter’s phone number on Mr. Caroom’s phone records. [April 3, 2012 Tr. 7:23-8:14], However, when asked at trial about telephone conversations between Mr. Caroom and Officer Gunter on April 18, 2011 at 10:52 a.m., Mr. Caroom responded that he was unsure that the phone number represented on the phone records was, in fact, Officer Gunter’s number. [Id. at 6:7-8:14], Thus, to confirm Officer Gunter’s telephone number at trial, Simon had to request that Mr. Caroom take his cell phone out and read the numbers saved under Officer Gunter’s name in on the record. [Id. at 8:17-10:15]. It was not until after this exercise that Mr. Caroom conceded that a number listed on his phone record was, in fact, Officer Gun-ter’s phone number. [Id.].

As another example of Mr. Caroom’s less than stellar credibility is the Q & A he had with counsel for the Debtors about the photographs that he received from Officer Gunter of the Debtors sitting handcuffed in the squad car immediately after their arrest. Mr. Caroom conceded that he received these photographs from Officer Gunter, but then very slowly and cautiously answered the following questions:

SIMON: Why did you send [the pictures received from Officer Gunter] to Chauncey Taylor?

MR. CAROOM: ...

[Twelve second pause]

Uh, friends of the family knew, were asking, they were interested, they were interested in what we were doing.

SIMON: That was a friend of Belinda Henley’s ex-husband, correct?

MR. CAROOM: I don’t know.

[Tape Recording, 4/03/2012 Hearing at 1:23:50-1:24:36 p.m.].

It is noteworthy that Mr. Caroom did not directly respond to why he sent the photographs to Chauncey Taylor. Mr. Ca-room tried to evade answering Simon’s direct question by slowly concocting the *759 answer that “friends of the family ... were interested in what we were doing,” and then stating that he does not know that Chauncey Taylor is a friend of Ms. Henley’s ex-husband. The Court does not believe one word of Mr. Caroom’s testimony. Rather, the Court finds that Mr. Ca-room knew exactly why he sent the pictures to Chauncey Taylor. He knew that Chauncey Taylor was a friend of Ms. Henley’s ex-husband, Linn Gleghorn, and that Taylor would forward those pictures to Gleghorn — and that is exactly what happened. [Finding of Fact No. 72], And, that is exactly what Mr. Caroom wanted; namely, to create disharmony between Ms. Henley and her ex-husband. 68

The above examples underscore that Mr. Caroom’s credibility — at least on certain issues — is no better than the credibility of the Debtors during their testimony in the § 727 Action.

On the other hand, Mr. Caroom was credible on certain key points. For example, he testified that he first learned that the Debtors could have filed bankruptcy when he met Officer Gunter, Officer Vigil and another HPD officer at the Ferrari dealership on the afternoon of April 19, 2011 (shortly after the arrest of the Debtors). 69 He heard one of these individuals say that Ms. Henley, when being arrested, stated that they had filed for bankruptcy the previous day. Mr. Caroom continued by testifying that he did not trust the Henleys, and wanted to investigate to see if what Ms. Henley said was, in fact, true. - [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 3:26:43-3:27:13 p.m.]. He then testified that he thereafter attempted to contact his counsel, and subsequently, definitively learned on April 20, 2011 that the Debtors had filed a bankruptcy petition on April 18, 2011.

In sum, given all of Mr. Caroom’s testimony, the Court finds him to be credible on some issues and not credible on others; overall, the Court gives some weight to his testimony.

Mary Caroom (Ms. Caroom/Creditor)

Ms. Caroom is a licensed attorney in the State of Arkansas. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 5:20:19-5:20:21 p.m.]. In 2003, she clerked for a federal judge. [Id. at 5:20:22-5:20:23 p.m.]. Although she is currently unemployed, Ms Caroom has previous experience working in a commercial law office. [Id. at 5:20:34-5:20:38 p.m.]. There is no question that she under *760 stands the difference between truths and lies.

At trial, Ms. Caroom testified about her knowledge of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing and arrests, as well as her involvement in the Debtors’ arrests. The Court finds Ms. Caroom to be very credible on all issues about which she testified. There are no examples of evasion or inconsistencies. Accordingly, the Court gives substantial weight to her testimony.

J. Sky Tapp (Arkansas Counsel for the Carooms)

J. Sky Tapp (Tapp) is licensed to practice law in the State of Arkansas. [Finding of Fact No. 37]. He represents the Carooms against the Debtors in the Lawsuit in Arkansas. [Id.]. On June 12, 2012, Tapp testified in this Court primarily about his knowledge of the Lawsuit and his communications with Q. Byrum Hurst; the Debtors’ counsel in Arkansas; the intent of the Debtors to file for bankruptcy; and about the actual filing of the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition. [Finding of Fact Nos. 76, 77 & 81]. Tapp was consistently clear and credible. He stated that he had conversations with Hurst prior to April 18, 2011, in which Hurst suggested the Debtors would be filing a bankruptcy petition. [Id.]. However, in one instance, Tapp’s testimony directly conflicted with Hurst. Tapp stated that Hurst did not inform him of the Debtors’ actual bankruptcy filing on April 19, 2011, whereas Hurst testified that he believed that he verbally informed Tapp of the filing on that date. [Finding of Fact No. 77]. The Court finds that Tapp is more credible than Hurst on this point, and therefore finds that Hurst did not inform Tapp on April 19, 2011 that the Debtors had filed their Chapter 7 petition the previous afternoon.

The Court makes this finding for the following reasons. First, Tapp was very convincing in the testimony he gave that he did not see or confer with Hurst on April 19, 2011 [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 3:34:54-3:37:20 p.m.]; whereas Hurst was somewhat equivocal in his testimony. Second, the Debtors’ contention that Judge Wright conferred with Tapp on the afternoon of April 19, 2011 about the Debtors’ filing is mere speculation; the Debtors have not been able to prove this assertion to this Court’s satisfaction. According to phone records, on April 19, 2011 at 4:06 p.m., Judge Wright called Sky Tapp’s office from his cell phone. This call lasted approximately four minutes. [Wright Dep. Ex. No. 6]. There is no evidence that this phone call related to the Debtors or the Carooms; rather, Judge Wright testified that he has known Tapp since the 7th grade, and that Tapp is one of the “most active attorneys in this community,” with many cases in Wright’s division. [Wright Dep. 7:7-9, 11:22-23]. In fact, no one remembers the topic of the phone call, or even if Wright spoke to Tapp directly. [Id. at 19:21-23:17].

Yet even assuming this phone call related directly to the Debtors and their bankruptcy petition, this phone call occurred an hour and half after the Debtors’ arrests. [Finding of Fact No. 68]. This communication does not demonstrate that Tapp had notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy petition prior to the Debtors’ arrests. The earliest evidence of Hurst giving notice to Tapp remains the April 19, 2011 4:52 p.m. fax from Hurst, which Tapp read the next morning. [Finding of Fact No. 80],

Finally, this Court wants to emphasize that it believes that Tapp is a very credible witness despite the incorrect testimony that he gave on one point when he testified on June 12, 2012. On that date, he testified that there was no way that Hurst could have verbally informed him on April 19, 2011 of the Debtors’ bankruptcy fifing. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 3:34:54r-3:37:20 p.m. & 3:58:39-3:59:39 *761 p.m.]. He was very firm in testifying that such communication could not have occurred because he testified that on April 19, 2011, he was in a hearing at a courthouse in Malvern, Arkansas — which is approximately thirty miles from the Hot Springs courthouse where Judge Wright sits and where Hurst was trying a case in Judge Wright’s court on that day. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 3:35:05— 3:36:00 p.m.]; [Hurst Dep. 20:21-22:18]. After Tapp gave this testimony, counsel for the Debtors — through a thorough investigation that he conducted — learned that Tapp was, in fact, not in Malvern, Arkansas on April 19, 2011, but rather at the Hot Springs courthouse. [Adv. Doc. No. 122]. Counsel for the Debtors thus filed a motion to show cause why Tapp should not be sanctioned and punished for committing perjury. [M].

On July 13, 2012, this Court held a hearing on this motion. Tapp was the only witness; and thirteen exhibits were introduced for demonstrative purposes only. The Court listened carefully to Tapp explain why the testimony he gave on June 12, 2012 — i.e., that he was in Malvern, Arkansas on April 19, 2011 — was incorrect. Tapp very credibly testified that in preparing for the testimony that he knew he would be giving on June 12, 2012, he relied too heavily upon the information that Karen Copelin, his secretary/paralegal, had provided to him. [Tape Recording, 7/13/2012 Trial at 11:34:01-11:34:54 a.m.]. She had, unfortunately, informed him that on April 19, 2011 he was in Malvern at a hearing when, in fact, this hearing took place on March 9, 2011. Tapp testified that she simply erred in giving him this information, and that he relied upon it in initially testifying before this Court that he was in Malvern on April 19, 2011 and that therefore Hurst could not possibly have spoken with him on that day. [Id. at 10:27:21-10:30:50 a.m.]. Tapp acknowledged that he should have done a more thorough job himself to prepare for his initial testimony and that his failure to do so was the fundamental reason for the inaccurate testimony that he gave about being in Malvern, Arkansas on April 19, 2011.

As set forth in this Court’s order of July 20, 2012 denying the Debtors’ motion to sanction and punish Tapp, the Court found that Tapp’s testimony was very credible and gave substantial weight to it. [Adv. Doc. No. 146]. Tapp’s sloppiness on this one point by no means equates to any intent to mislead this Court; nor does it undermine his testimony on other issues about which he testified. Indeed, at the July 13 hearing, Tapp strongly reiterated that aside from this one mistake, he stood by all of his other testimony that he gave on June 12, 2012 — including his testimony that Hurst never verbally informed him at the Hot Springs courthouse on April 19, 2011 that the Debtors had filed their bankruptcy petition the previous afternoon. [Tape Recording, 7/13/2012 Trial at 10:45:57-10:49:41 a.m.]. The Court finds that Tapp was forthright in his testimony and gives it substantial weight.

Keith Remels (Houston Counsel for the Carooms and Mr. Caroom’s company, X-tra Light)

Keith Remels (Remels) is licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. While he has primarily represented X-tra Light, he has been representing the Carooms in the lawsuit that they filed in Houston, Harris County, Texas to domesticate the Judgment issued by Judge Wright in Arkansas. [Finding of Fact No. 62 n. 30]. His testimony was fairly brief and primarily concerned his pre-petition attempts to serve process on the Debtors regarding the Harris County suit. He testified that the Debtors were evading service of process. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 10:48:44-10:50:15 a.m.]. Remels also gave testimony to the effect that on April 19, *762 2011, sometime after 5:00 p.m., he received Damani’s telefax informing him that the Debtors had filed a bankruptcy petition on April 18, 2011. [Tape Recording, 6/13/2012 Trial at 10:48:44-10:50:15 a.m.]. The Court finds that Remels is a credible witness and gives substantial weight to his testimony.

David Gunter (Houston Police Department Officer)

David Gunter (Officer Gunter) is a seasoned Houston Police Department (HPD) officer presently assigned to the homicide division. [Finding of Fact No. 25]. Officer Gunter is college educated and has a Bachelors of Science in criminal justice. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:21:22-1:21:54 p.m.]. He has worked within HPD’s homicide division for approximately two years. [Finding of Fact No. 25]. Throughout Officer Gunter’s employment with the HPD, the Internal Affairs Division has investigated him approximately seven times. [Finding of Fact No. 27], Officer Gunter is currently relieved of active duty. [Id]. HPD is also currently investigating bigamy allegations against him. [Id.].

The Court finds that some of the testimony that Officer Gunter gave is credible. For example, the Court has no doubt that Officer Gunter’s description of the steps he took to facilitate the issuance of the arrest warrant is accurate. See [Finding of Fact Nos. 57, 58 & 59]. The Court also has no doubt that Officer Gunter’s description of how the Debtors were arrested is accurate. [Finding of Fact No. 68].

Nevertheless, the Court does not find Officer Gunter to be a totally credible witness. For example, when asked why he took photographs of the Debtors being arrested and placed into the squad car, Officer Gunter stated that his boss at HPD wanted proof of the arrest. See [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 2:27:30-2:28:35 p.m.]. The Court has some doubts about this testimony; a mere phone call from Officer Gunter to his superior ought to have sufficed. But even more questionable is Officer Gunter’s response to the question of why he sent the photographs to Mr. Caroom instead of his superior. His response was that he made a mistake and that he meant to send these photographs to his boss. [Id.]. The Court simply does not believe Officer Gunter on this point. HPD officers are not so sloppy that they send photographs of persons being arrested to private citizens unaffiliated with HPD. Moreover, Officer Gunter had received gifts from Mr. Caroom in the past and referred to Mr. Caroom as “his uncle.” [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 1:26:08-1:26:58 p.m.]. Indeed, Mr. Caroom had promised Officer Gunter that he would help him pay for his future education. [Id.]. And, perhaps most telling, just a few minutes after the Debtors were arrested, Officer Gunter met with Mr. Caroom at a Ferrari dealership in Houston; and a few hours later, Officer Gunter had dinner with Mr. Caroom in Galveston. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 113:1-22]; [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 2:33:00-2:35:00 p.m.]. All of these facts underscore the close friendship that Officer Gunter has with Mr. Caroom— which in turn reflects a desire on Officer Gunter’s part to assist Mr. Caroom in meeting the Carooms’ objectives of having the Debtors arrested. Thus, the Court finds that Officer Gunter deliberately sent the photographs to Mr. Caroom and that, therefore, Officer Gunter did not tell the truth when he testified that he sent the photographs to Mr. Caroom by mistake.

All in all, the Court finds that Officer Gunter’s testimony is accurate on some points, and inaccurate on others. Overall, the Court gives some weight to his testimony.

Connie Spence (Harris County Assistant District Attorney)

Connie Spence is an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) for Harris County, Texas *763 in the Criminal Division. [Finding of Fact No. 30]. She has been an ADA in the criminal division for twenty-three years. [Id.]. Spence worked on cases with Officer Gunter prior to the Debtors’ arrest while has was an HPD officer in the homicide division. [Id.]. At trial, Spence testified to her indirect involvement in the Debtors’ arrests, and that she relied on information provided by Officer Gunter to draft the necessary affidavits. [Finding of Fact No. 57], She also testified that: (1) Officer Gunter is presently suspended due to allegations that he has committed bigamy; and (1) Officer Gunter had told her in the past that he had an uncle (i.e., Mr. Ca-room) who had told him that he would pay for Officer Gunter’s law school education. [Finding of Fact No. 29],

Additionally, with respect to the arrest warrant, Spence testified that on the morning of April 19, 2011, Officer Gunter came into her office and told her that his uncle had a lawsuit against the Debtors in Arkansas based on fraud; that the court in Arkansas had held the Debtors in contempt; and that this suit had become a criminal matter due to the Debtors’ failure to abide by the Arkansas Court’s order to turn over financial information. [Tape Recording, 6/12/2012 Trial at 11:41:50-11:43:15 a.m.]. Spence also testified that after listening to Officer Gunter, she concluded that the Lawsuit was in a civil court, and that it was unusual for a warrant to be issued under these circumstances. [Id. at 11:45:00-11:47:15 a.m.]. Nevertheless, she testified that she proceeded to prepare the appropriate documentation to facilitate the issuance of arrest warrants. [Id. at 11:36:39-11:40:50 a.m.].

This Court finds Spence to be credible on all issues about which she testified. The Court, therefore, gives substantial weight to her testimony.

Royce Ann Henley (Mr. Henley’s Sister-In-Law)

Royce Ann Henley is Mr. Henley’s sister-in-law. She is married to Mr. Henley’s brother, John Henley. Her testimony was brief. It primarily concerned her knowledge of the events leading to the Debtors’ arrest. The Court finds Royce Ann Henley to be a credible witness on these particular issues. Accordingly, the Court gives substantial weight to her testimony.

Jude Vigil (Houston Police Department Officer)

Jude Vigil (Vigil) is a veteran HPD officer having served for approximately nineteen years. Currently he works with HPD’s Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU) of the Criminal Intelligence Division. [Finding of Fact No. 31]. Vigil’s involvement in the Debtors’ arrest was in his official capacity as an HPD officer. [Finding of Fact Nos. 55-57 & 73-74], The Court finds that Vigil was a credible witness on all issues about which he testified. Accordingly, the Court gives substantial weight to his testimony.

Q. Byrum Hurst (Arkansas Counsel for the Henleys)

Q. Byrum Hurst (Hurst) is a licensed attorney in the State of Arkansas. [Finding of Fact No. 17]. Hurst represented the Debtors in the Lawsuit in Arkansas against the Carooms. [Id.]. Hurst’s testimony regarding his communication with Tapp is key to the Debtors’ counterclaim that the Carooms violated the automatic stay. The Court has both read the transcript of Hurst’s deposition as well as seen and listened to the video tape of this deposition. While the Court believes that Hurst is an honest individual, the Court also believes that his recollection of his communications with Tapp is off the mark. Indeed, Hurst’s answer to the question posed to him by the Carooms’ attorney convinces this Court that his ability to *764 recall is simply not as good as Tapp’s recollection. When asked as to whether Tapp was present at a conversation that Hurst believes occurred on April 19, 2011, during which Hurst thinks he disclosed the Debtors’ filing of their bankruptcy petition, Hurst responded as follows:

You know the time periods are somewhat vague. I remember that I had a conversation with Judge Wright. I can recall Judge Wright — we talked about the bankruptcy. I think I told him that I had a bankruptcy number, but I didn’t have a Stay Order, and I know at one point in time he called Sky (i.e., Tapp) is my recollection, with me standing there. And then I don’t remember if Sky came over to the courthouse or not. It seems like we were in the office sometime, but I you know.

[Hurst Dep. 29:16-24], Thus, on the issue as to whether Hurst verbally informed Tapp at the Hot Springs courthouse on April 19, 2011 that the Debtors had filed a bankruptcy petition the previous day, the Court finds that Hurst’s testimony is not very credible and gives significantly less weight to this testimony than to Tapp’s testimony. On this issue, the Court finds that the testimony of Tapp on April 19, 2011 is very credible, and therefore the Court gives substantial weight to his testimony.

Overall, based on the tentativeness of Hurst’s testimony, this Court finds him a credible witness only on some issues about which he testified. Accordingly, the Court gives only some weight to his testimony.

The Honorable John H. Wright (Arkansas Judge in the Lawsuit)

The Honorable John H. Wright (Judge Wright) is a Circuit Judge in Garland County, Arkansas. Judge Wright presided over the Lawsuit between the Carooms and the Debtors. [Wright Dep. 5:5-10]. In his deposition testimony, 70 Judge Wright stated that he does not specifically recollect speaking to either Hurst or Tapp on April 19, 2011 about the Debtors’ bankruptcy. [Wright Dep. 8:4-19 & 12:1-21], What he does remember is that on April 19, 2011, he conducted a DUI trial in which Hurst represented the defendant; that the trial was completed at approximately 3:30 p.m.; and that Judge Wright soon thereafter departed the courthouse for home. Wright Dep. 16:6-11 & 17:24-18:14]. He also testified that he became aware of the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing when he arrived at his chambers on the morning of April 20, 2012; and that he must have learned about the filing by reading the Suggestion of Bankruptcy that Hurst had filed at 4:36 p.m. on April 19, 2011 (i.e., this Suggestion of Bankruptcy was filed by Hurst, or someone in his office, the previous afternoon approximately one hour after the DUI trial over which Judge Wright had presided and in which Hurst had appeared). Further, Judge Wright testified that upon learning of the Debtors’ bankruptcy, he sent a fax letter to Tapp and Hurst in which he stated, “I have received a suggestion of bankruptcy which was filed yesterday. I am attaching a copy for Mr. Tapp. Mr. Hurst should prepare an Order staying further proceedings and lifting enforcement of the contempt order pending further action by the bankruptcy court.” Wright Dep. 9:11-10:4]. Further, Judge Wright testified that Hurst quickly presented such an order, which Judge Wright signed and which was entered on the dock *765 et in the Lawsuit at 8:30 a.m. on April 20, 2011. [Wright Dep. 11:1-15].

The Court finds Judge Wright’s testimony to be very credible and gives substantial weight to his testimony.

IV. Conclusions of Law

A. Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 (b) and 157(a). The particular disputes in this adversary proceeding are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(A), (C), (I), and (O), and the general “catch-all” language of 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2). See In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir.1999) (“[A] proceeding is core under § 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.”); De Montaigu v. Ginther (In re Ginther Trusts), Adv. No. 06-3556, 2006 WL 3805670 , at *19 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. Dec. 22, 2006) (holding that an “[ajdversary [p]roeeeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2) even though the laundry list of core proceedings under § 157(b)(2) does not specifically name this particular circumstance”). Venue of this adversary proceeding in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409 (a).

B. Constitutional Authority to Sign a Final Order

Having concluded that this Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding, this Court nevertheless notes that Stem v. Marshall sets forth certain limitations on the constitutional authority of bankruptcy courts to enter final orders. — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594 , 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). Therefore, this Court has a duty to inquire constantly into its constitutional authority to enter a final order for any matter brought before this Court.

The Court concludes that the facts in the pending suit are distinguishable from those in Stem, and that therefore this Court has the authority to enter a final judgment. In Stem, the debtor filed a counterclaim based solely on state law, and the resolution of this counterclaim did not resolve the validity, or invalidity, of the claim held by the defendant. — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594 , 180 L.Ed.2d 475 . Here, Rodney Tow, the Chapter 7 Trustee, (the Trustee) and two of the Debtors’ creditors (the Carooms) filed a complaint under § 727, a cause of action unique to the Code. They request that this Court issue a judgment denying the Debtors’ discharge. The Debtors, in their counterclaim, also filed a complaint under an explicit bankruptcy statute — § 362(k) — asking that this Court find that the Carooms violated the automatic stay. This suit and countersuit are, therefore, based solely on express provisions of the Code. More importantly, the requested relief — that the Debtors be barred from receiving a discharge, and that the Carooms be found in violation of the automatic stay — is unique to the Code. Such relief is not possible to obtain under state law. As a result, this Court concludes that Stem is inapposite, and this Court is constitutionally authorized to enter a final judgment regarding the disputes at bar.

C.The Plaintiffs 71 Have Demonstrated by a Preponderance of the Evidence that the Debtors are not Entitled to a Discharge.

Discharge is a privilege conditioned on the debtor’s truthfulness; it is permitted when a debtor complies with the Bank *766 ruptcy Code by presenting himself honestly and fully to the Trustee and this Court. In re Gartner, 326 B.R. 357, 377 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005) (citing In re Juzwiak, 89 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir.1996)). The Debtors here have consistently refused to be completely truthful. Instead, their deception extends well beyond the reasonable possibility of honest oversight. The Debtors’ omissions and misrepresentations are simply too great to justify discharge.

A bankruptcy court may deny a debtor’s discharge only if the plaintiff can show a violation of § 727(a) by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Womble, 289 B.R. 836, 844 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2003) (reaffirming use of a preponderance of evidence standard to prove each of the elements within § 727). Establishing the elements of just one sub-section of § 727(a) is sufficient to deny the Debtors’ discharge. In re Moseman, 436 B.R. 398, 405 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.2010). Indeed, a finding of only a single debtor omission or misrepresentation is necessary. Id. (“[T]he Court must grant a discharge to a Chapter 7 debtor unless one or more of the specific grounds for denial of a discharge listed in paragraphs (1) through (12) of § 727(a) is proven to exist.”). Here, as discussed below, there is ample evidence to support denial of the Debtors’ discharge under any one of the following subsections: § 727(a)(4)(A); § 727(a)(4)(D); § 727(a)(3); § 727(a)(5); and § 727(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiffs’ Objection to Discharge of the Debtors is, therefore, sustained.

1. The Debtors’ Discharge is Barred by § 727(a) (Ip) (A) for Knowingly and Fraudulently Making A False Oath

Debtors filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition are continually and affirmatively required to disclose all of the following: (a) a list of creditors; (b) a schedule of assets, liabilities, current income, and current expenditures; and (c) a statement of financial affairs. In re Gartner, 326 B.R. at 367 (citing In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 208 (5th Cir.1999)). These records must be complete and reliable. Id. at 367. A false statement or omission on the Schedules or SOFA, or a false statement made by the debtor during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings may, then, constitute a false oath and bar the debtor’s discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A). Under this section, discharge is denied when, “the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case — made a false oath or account.” 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(4)(A). The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the debtor’s sworn deception, and a successful objection requires proof that (1) the statement was made under oath; (2) the statement was false; (3) the debtor knew the statement was false; (4) the statement was made with fraudulent intent to deceive; and (5) the statement materially related to the bankruptcy case. In re Gartner, 326 B.R. at 367 (citing In re Beaubouef 966 F.2d 174 , 178 (5th Cir.1992)).

When the Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition, they were not only required to bare themselves and their finances to this Court, the Trustee, and their creditors, but they were also required to swear to the accuracy of their representations. Indeed, the Debtors swore to their accuracy of their disclosures on multiple occasions. First, the Debtors were required to read and review the Schedules and SOFA before filing these documents. In both their original and amended SOFA and Schedules the Debtors swore, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the information contained therein. 72 The Debtors also swore to the *767 truth of their representations at their meeting of creditors. There, the Debtors completed the § 341(a) questionnaire, 73 a document used during this meeting. Next to item 7, which reads, “I read, signed and understand the questions and information contained in my Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs and this written Sworn Testimony,” the Debtors checked the space marked “YES.” [Finding of Fact No. 97]. Second, on the same page of the questionnaire and next to item 8, which reads, “I personally signed my Bankruptcy Petition, Bankruptcy Schedules and Statement of Affairs, and Means Test Analysis prior to my attorney filing them with the Bankruptcy Court,” the Debtors again swore: “YES.” [Id.]. Third, on the last page of the Debtors’ questionnaire, both Debtors signed their names below the following language:

I have read the foregoing and understand the questions. If represented by an attorney, I have reviewed the foregoing with assistance of counsel. The answers to the questions are mine. The answers are based on my personal knowledge and are true and correct.

mi

Finally, the Debtors swore orally. During the meeting of creditors, the Trustee confirmed with the Debtors that no additional changes needed to be made to their SOFA or Schedules. [Finding of Fact No. 88]. Then during trial, the Debtors’ counsel expressly admitted that the Debtors do not disavow their original Schedules and SOFA. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 4:40:10-4:40:51 p.m.]. Thus, at a minimum, each of the four representations and omissions discussed in separate subsections below satisfies the first Beaubouef element: all were made by the Debtors under oath. The Court now turns to the remaining elements required by Beatobouef. 74

i. The Debtors Omitted Transfers of Several Assets in Their Statement of Financial Affairs, Thereby Violating § 727(a)(1)(A)

a. The Debtors Knowingly Omitted Material Assets

Any debtor who files a bankruptcy petition must disclose his assets and any transfers thereof. This information, detailed in the SOFA, is vital to the administration of the Debtors’ bankruptcy estate. Item 10 of the SOFA requires the Debtors to “list all other property, other than property transferred in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor, transferred either absolutely or as security within two years immediately preceding the commencement of this case.” [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No. 1, at 33]. In addition to spending at least five hours with her counsel, [Finding of Fact Nos. 23, 41 & 60], Ms. Henley also testified that she underlined this language when discussing the document with Damani, underscoring her appreciation of both the question and the materiality of the request. [Finding of *768 Fact No. 41]. Nevertheless, in the Debtors’ original SOFA, the Debtors disclosed only four 75 transfers — with Jim Henley (i.e., Mr. Henley’s brother) acting as transferee in each instance. [Finding of Fact No. 48]. Only after (1) the Carooms provided the Trustee with the Financial Statement; (2) the Trustee’s counsel sent a letter and the Financial Statement to Damani asking for an explanation as to why the Debtors failed to disclose the assets on the Financial Statement; and (3) Damani himself confronted the Debtors with the Financial Statement did the Debtors write an explanation of the disposition of the following undisclosed assets:

• 2003 Dodge Ram Truck — Sold for $2,400.00

• 1994 Toyota Runner Truck — Sold for $2,500.00

• 1978 Jeep CJ7 — Sold for $2,000.00

• 1979 Jeep Indian Cherokee — Sold for $3,500.00

• 1984 Porsche — Sold for $5,500— $6,500.00

• 1952 Ford Truck — Sold for $7,500.00

• 2001 Harley Davidson — Sold for $10,915.00

• 2001 Polaris 500 — Sold for approximately $2,300.00

• 2005 Honda 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,200.00

• 2003 Yamaha 500 4-Wheeler — Sold for $2,300.00

• Can Am 4-Wheeler — Sold for $6,500.00

• Craftsman Tractor — Sold for $900.00

• Chris Craft Cabin Cruiser — Sold for $8,000.00

• 1995 VIP 20 — foot Ski Boat — Sold for $8,500.00 76

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,500.00

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,600.00

• Silk Rug — Sold for $1,200.00

• 2.75 carat wedding ring — Sold for $5,200.00

• 2007 Men’s Rolex Watch — Sold for $3,200.00

• Various Furnishings — Sold for $10.00 — $250.00

[Finding of Fact Nos. 105 & 109]. It was then that the Debtors finally authorized Damani to file an amended SOFA. [Finding of Fact Nos. 105, 108, & 117]. It strains credulity that the Debtors would fail to appreciate the significance of over $78,000 worth of asset sales, particularly after spending such a lengthy amount of time with their counsel. [Finding of Fact Nos. 23, 41 & 60]. Rather, this Court finds that the Debtors falsely failed to disclose assets material to their bankruptcy case, thereby satisfying the second and fifth Beaubouef elements. In re Beau-bouef, 966 F.2d at 178.

b. The Debtors’ Omission of these Assets was Intentionally Fraudulent

The Debtors claim that they did not disclose these asset sales in response to item 10 because these assets were sold in the ordinary course of HDC, Inc.’s business, and therefore their non-disclosure was not an intentional omission. The Court rejects both contentions: that the omission was unintentional, and that the assets were sold in the ordinary course of HDC, Inc.’s business. Indeed, the evi *769 dence suggests that the Debtors conjured up this explanation as a trial strategy. For example, in response to item 18, “Nature, location and name of business,” on the Debtors’ original and amended SOFAs, the Debtors disclosed both HDC, Inc. and Aqua-Lock. [Finding of Fact No. 52]. However, underneath the section entitled “NATURE OF BUSINESS,” the Debtors described HDC, Inc. as a “General contractor” and Aqua-Lock as a “waterproof-er.” [Id.]. Neither of these descriptions encompasses selling jewelry, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or silk rugs. In fact, the Debtors never even mentioned jewelry, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or silk rugs anywhere in the “NATURE OF BUSINESS” section of the SOFA. [Id.]. Nor is the interior design business, which Ms. Henley claimed was yet another business she operated, disclosed in the SOFA. [Tape Recording, 6/27/2012 Trial at 6:23:00-6:23:13 p.m.]. The Debtors only disclosed their jewelry, car-flipping and interior design businesses at trial in an effort to convince this Court that: (1) they sold the jewelry, cars, trucks, motorcycles, and silk rugs in the ordinary course of business; and (2) therefore, they did not need to disclose the disposition of these assets. See [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:22:50-6:23:35 p.m.]. This tactic will not work. The Debtors’ failure to disclose these businesses was not unintentional; rather, it was deliberate. They did not want the Carooms&emdash; who, it must be remembered, are creditors&emdash;or any one else for that matter to know that they had sold all of these assets; and they assuredly did not want the Ca-rooms to know that they had spent the sale proceeds without paying a dime to the Carooms. Thus, their statements at trial were nothing more than an ad hoc explanation for their failure to disclose sales of assets that generated tens of thousands of dollars.

Additionally, the Debtors claim that HDC, Inc. owned and sold the missing personal assets in the ordinary course of its business. 77 [Finding of Fact Nos. 109 n. 51 & 110 n. 53]. To determine if a transaction is within the ordinary course of business, bankruptcy courts in the Fifth Circuit have considered objective industry standards as well as the prior course of dealings undertaken by the parties. See Mossay v. Hailwood Petroleum, Inc., No. 3:96-CV-2898-P, 1997 WL 222921 , at *4-5, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16553 , at *15-16 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 28, 1997); Estate of SPW Corp. v. A.P.V. Equipment, Inc. (In re SPW Corp.), 96 B.R. 683, 686 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1989). The subjective factors taken into account when determining which transfers are “ordinary” include the timing of the transactions, the circumstances under which the transfer was made, the amount that was paid in the *770 transaction, and the manner of payment. In re SPW Corp., 96 B.R. at 687 .

Applying these factors, there are several reasons to question the Debtors’ “ordinary course of business” assertion in this case. First, the undisclosed sales of the assets occurred directly out of the Debtors’ home garage just before they relocated to Houston. [Finding of Fact No. 111]. Second, at trial, Ms. Henley testified that HDC, Inc. owned all of the assets sold at these various sales. [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:22:50-6:23:35 p.m.]. Yet, HDC, Inc. was in the general contracting business, and these assets were entirely unrelated to general contracting. [Finding of Fact No. 109]; [Debtors’ Ex. No. 62], There is no evidence that HDC, Inc. dealt in silk rugs, for instance.

The Debtors would have this Court believe that Ms. Henley was in the jewelry business and that Mr. Henley was in the car/truck/motorcycle flipping business&emdash; and that these businesses were in effect divisions of HDC, Inc. [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:22:50-6:23:35 p.m.]. This explanation is yet another disingenuous story invented to justify the Debtors’ failure to disclose the numerous sales of the jewelry, cars, trucks, and motorcycles. It will not work.

Ms. Henley has never been a jewelry designer or owner of a jewelry sales business. See Schmidt v. Cantu (In re Cantu), No. 08-70260, 2011 WL 672336 , at *8-9 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2011) (finding that the debtors were not jewelry dealers despite the size (i.e., $134,575.00 in jewelry sales) and frequency of their jewelry sales two years before their bankruptcy filing). In fact, Ms. Henley only claims to have ever sold two jewelry items: the 2.75 carat wedding ring and the Men’s Rolex watch. [June 15, 2012 Tr. 72:18-23]; [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial, at 6:30:59-6:31:26 p.m.]. Additionally, both of these sales were “private,” rather than through established “channels of distribution.” See [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial, at 6:30:59-6:31:26 p.m.]; In re G.S. Distrib., 331 B.R. 552, 559 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2005) (holding that private sales of over $5 million in jewelry did not meet the ordinary course of business test as the Debtor had limited jewelry industry experience, no other experience in private sales, and no business plan for this “private sales program”). As such, the Court does not find that the sale of the 2.75 carat wedding ring and Rolex watch were within the ordinary course of her business.

Furthermore, Mr. Henley never testified that he was a car salesman. In fact, the testimony concerning Mr. Henley’s business&emdash;which came solely from Ms. Henley [Tape Recording, 6/27/12 Trial at 6:44:56-6:49:34 p.m.]&emdash;suggests that Mr. Henley flipped cars (and perhaps trucks and motorcycles) as a hobby. [June 14, 2012 Tr. 181:24-182:7]. Moreover, even assuming the truth of Ms. Henley’s story, Mr. Henley’s vehicle-flipping income should have been reported in response to item 2, “Income other than from employment or operation of business.” [Caroom/Trustee Ex. No. 2, at 2], It was not. [Finding of Fact No. 46]. Instead, the Debtors disclosed only the income received from Jim Henley in the amount of $21,000.00 ($3,500.00 monthly) and the child support received from Ms. Henley’s ex-husband in the amount of $15,360.00 ($640.00 monthly). [M]-

Additionally, all of these assets were sold within a three month span, with the Debtors admitting that they conducted these sales prior to their move from Hot Springs, Arkansas to Houston, Texas. In fact, one of the Debtors’ advertisements promoted a “moving sale.” [Finding of Fact No. Ill], A moving sale is not within the ordinary course of business, and “going out of business” seems, by any “indus *771 try standards” definition, outside the everyday course. See Mossay v. Hallwood Petroleum, Inc., 1997 WL 222921 , at *4-5, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16553 , at *15-16; In re Berman, 100 B.R. 640, 648 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1989) (concluding that the debt- or’s “Clearance Sale,” advertisements, as well as his store’s subsequent closure, indicated that the debtor’s sales were outside the ordinary course of business). Even accepting the Debtors’ “ordinary course of business” explanation for the non-disclosure, any of the income generated from the sales of these assets sold should have been disclosed in response to item 1, “Income from employment or operation of business ... received during the two years immediately preceding [the] calendar year [in which the Debtors filed bankruptcy].” [Finding of Fact No. 45]. Instead, the Debtors reported their income as $0.00 for the years of 2009 and 2010. [Ca-room/Trustee Ex. No 1, at 80].

Finally, at trial, Ms. Henley claimed that HDC, Inc. not only owned the twenty omitted assets, but also the two trailers disclosed in the original SOFA. [Finding of Fact Nos. 48 & 109]. It strains credulity that in their original SOFA, the Debtors would choose to include some, but not all, of the assets belonging to HDC, Inc. The Court, therefore, finds that the Debtors did not sell these items in the ordinary course of business, and their failure to disclose the sales of the assets in response to item 10 in the original SOFA constitutes a knowing and intentional false oath, satisfying the third and fourth elements under Beaubouef. Thus, as all of the elements of Beaubouef are met, this omission violated § 727(a)(4)(A).

c. The Debtors’ Defenses to § 727(a)(4)(A) Fail

During closing arguments, counsel for the Debtors argued that they received insufficient notice of the § 727(a) claims before trial. This Court does not agree. There has been no surprise or insufficient pleading that would warrant dismissal of these claims. See In re Cooper, 399 B.R. 637, 645 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2009) (citing FED. R. BANKR. P. 7009(b)). 78 In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs plead a § 727 violation, claiming that, “[t]he original response to question # 10 in the Statement of Financial Affairs filed by the Debtors ... once more conspicuously [failed] to list ... assets Debtors, by their own admission in unfiled documents, owned within the two years prior to filing of the case.” [Adv. Doc. No. 1, at 4]; [Finding of Fact No. 127]. Attached to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs also included a list of assets prepared by the Debtors, the sales of which were not disclosed in the original SOFA. [Adv. Doc. No. 1, Ex. B, at 29-30].

The Debtors themselves responded to this allegation in the Response that they filed to the Plaintiffs’ Amended Joint Motion for Summary Judgment. [Adv. Doc. No. 82]; see [Finding of Fact No. 130], There, in a section entitled “Section 727(a)(4),” the Debtors categorically admitted the first two Beaubeouf elements: that their statements and omissions were made under oath, and that they materially related to the bankruptcy case. [Id. at 5]. While the Debtors contested the other Beaubouef factors, none of the Debtors’ arguments related to the insufficiency of the pleadings. [Id. at 5-9]. Indeed, in the Answer, the Debtors admitted “that their *772 original response to Question No. 10 on the Statement of Financial Affairs did not list their former residence located at 3035 Marion Anderson Road and that it did not disclose the transfer of certain other items of personal property.” [Adv. Doc. No. 10, at 3] (emphasis added). The emphasized language shows that the Debtors knew very well that the Plaintiffs had raised the issue about their failure to disclose the sales of the various personal property assets described in the Financial Statement.

Moreover, in the Summary Judgment Order, this Court put the Debtors on further notice of these issues. [Finding of Fact No. 130]. The Court specifically recognized that a material issue existed regarding this knowing and fraudulent “omission of $69,800 worth of [new] assets.” 79 [Adv. Doe. No. 100, at 3]. Accordingly, the Court finds the Debtors’ closing argument defense to be meritless.

In sum, all of the elements of Beaubouef are met; the Debtors intentionally failed to disclose numerous transfers of their assets, all of which materially relate to their bankruptcy case and were effectuated within two years prior to the Petition Date, see [Finding of Fact No. 120]. Accordingly, for this separate and independent reason, the Court will deny the Debtors’ their discharge.

ii. The Debtors Failed to Disclose the Transfer of the Anderson Property in Violation of § 727(a) (k) (A)

a. Omission of the Anderson Property was a Knowing False Oath

In addition to the Debtors’ failure to disclose the sales of the above-described personal property in response to item 10, the Debtors also failed to disclose a real property transfer within the same item of their SOFA. See [Finding of Fact No. 48], Nowhere in their response to item 10, or in fact anywhere in their SOFA, did the Debtors mention or disclose the conveyance of the Anderson Property to Jim Henley. [Id.]. Instead, in their original SOFA, the Debtors disclosed only four transfers, leaving out the Anderson Property transfer entirely. This omission not only constitutes an affirmative “false statement] that the undisclosed information did not exist,” but also relates materially to their bankruptcy case, thereby satisfying the second and fifth Beaubouef elements. In re Gartner, 326 B.R. at 367 (internal citation omitted); see also In re Beaubouef, 966 F.2d at 178 (requiring that the debtor make a false oath that materially relates to the bankruptcy case to violate § 727(a)(2)(A)).

Nevertheless, the Debtors argue that the third prong of the Beaubouef test fails. [Adv. Doc. No. 82, at 5-6]. 80 The Debtors *773 claim that they did not knowingly omit a permanent transfer of the Anderson Property. They believed the transfer was merely “conditional.” [7d]. This argument is nonsensical. [Adv. Doc. No. 139, at 8]. The December 2007 deed effectuating the transfer does not contain any language that would suggest that the conveyance was conditional. Rather, its language unequivocally reflects that the transfer was unconditional:

That I James B. Henley, an unmarried person, GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid by DAVID HENLEY AND BELINDA HENLEY, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety, GRANTEES, do hereby grant, convey and quitclaim unto said Grantees, and unto their heirs and assigns forever, all of my right, title, equity and estate in and to the following ... subject to any existing easement and restrictions of record, if any. To have and to hold the same unto the said Grantees, and unto their heirs and assigns forever, with all tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging.

[Finding of Fact No. 4 n. 5] (emphasis added).

Moreover, the fact that the Debtors deeded the Anderson Property back to Jim Henley when they failed to qualify for financing contradicts this “conditional” assertion. Rather, the reason the Debtors deeded the Anderson Property back to Jim Henley was precisely because they believed that the December 2007 deed effectuated an unconditional — rather than conditional — transfer. See [Finding of Fact No. 13]. This belief, therefore, rendered the item 10 omission of the Anderson Property a known falsity, in violation of the third Beaubouef prong. In re Beaubouef, 966 F.2d at 178 (denying the debtor’s discharge, in part, because the debtor made a knowingly false statement),

b. The Debtors Omitted the Anderson Property Conveyance with Fraudulent Intent

The Debtors also dispute the existence of fraudulent intent under the fourth prong of Beaubouef [Adv. Doc. No. 82, at 5-9]. This Court finds otherwise. “Fraudulent intent may be shown by a reckless disregard for the truth.” See id.; see also In re Cline, No. 09-45977-DML-7, 2010 WL 3944997 , at *4 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. Oct. 6, 2010) (“The existence of more than one falsehood, together with [the Debtors’] failure to take advantage of the opportunity to clear up all inconsistencies and omissions when [they] filed their amended Schedules, constitute^] a reckless indifference to the truth and, therefore, the requisite intent to deceive.”). Here, the Debtors had an opportunity to clear up this and other omissions after the meeting of creditors held on May 20, 2011. 81 [Finding of Fact No. 94]. The only amendments made to the SOFA, how *774 ever, were those brought to light during that meeting. [Finding of Fact Nos. 95 & 96]. By refusing to disclose the transfer of the Anderson Property to Jim Henley on their amended SOFA, the Debtors intentionally deceived the Plaintiffs.

Moreover, the Debtors stood to reap a windfall from this non-disclosure, and by failing to disclose the Anderson Property transfer in their Schedules and SOFA, the Debtors essentially hid this asset from their creditors and the Trustee. See Love v. Tyson, 677 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir.2012). As such, the Debtors’ omissions act to shift the burden of proof. It is up to the Debtors to demonstrate that the non-disclosure of the Anderson Property from the Schedules and SOFA was inadvertent. Id. Stated differently, the Debtors’ fraudulent intent to conceal the Anderson Property transfer from their creditors in their Schedules or SOFA is “self-evident.” Id. (stating that the “motivation sub-element is almost always met if a debtor fails to disclose a claim or possible claim to the bankruptcy court. Motivation in this context is self-evident because of potential financial benefit resulting from nondisclosure.”). 82 The Debtors have failed to demonstrate that their omission of the Anderson Property transfer was inadvertent. Accordingly, denial of the Debtors’ discharge is justified under § 727(a)(4)(A) as each of the elements of Beaubouef are met.

c. The Debtors’ Defense Fails

As a defense, the Debtors assert that the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs fails to properly allege this cause of action and violates the particularity requirements for pleadings alleging fraud under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See In re Cooper, 399 B.R. at 645 (citing FED. R. BANKR. P. 7009(b)). This Court disagrees. The Court finds that the Complaint specifically alleges not only § 727(a)(4)(A) as a cause of action justifying denial of discharge, but also refers extensively to the Anderson Property. [Adv. Doc. No. 1, at 3-5, 7-8]. In Background Fact No. 10, the Complaint states as follows: “[The] home with the address 3035 Marion Anderson Road, Hot Springs, AR 71913 [i.e., the Anderson Property] is not listed in either Schedule ... The Debtors’ response to SOFA Question # 10 describes only the transfer of vacant lots.” [Id. at 2-3]. The Debtors addressed these issues in both the Answer, where they admitted “that their original response to Question No. 10 on the Statement of Financial Affairs did not list their former residence located at 3035 Marion Anderson Road and that it did not disclose the transfer of certain other items of personal property,” [Adv. Doc. No. 10, at 3], as well as the Response. There, the Debtors discussed the Anderson Property in an entire section, entitled: “Section 727(a)(4).” [Adv. Doc. No. 82, at 5-9].

Moreover, in the Summary Judgment Order, this Court cited “

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.