in light of the Court’s decision on the proper willfulness standard. In this regard, Margulies argues that his actions were motivated by economic benefit — that is, arriving punctually at an important business meeting — and cannot therefore be deemed malicious. (Margu-lies Br. 25-26). To be sure, in cases where a debtor seeks profit or some other benefit, “ ‘the underlying conduct, however deplorable, would not give rise to liability under § 523(a)(6) in the absence of some additional, aggravating conduct on the part of the debtor of sufficient gravity to warrant an inference of actual malice under the Second Circuit decision in [Stelluti], ’ ” In re Rouette, No. 13-20250(ASD), 2014 WL 2708312, at *9 (Bankr.D.Conn. June 12, 2014) (quoting In re Luppino, 221 B.R. at 700); see also id. (<HOLDING>). Here, the Bankruptcy Court made no factual
holding that a debtors  522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home holding that the guarantor of debtors loan is a creditor by virtue of his right to reimbursement from debtor holding that coast guard was not required to mark wreck but once it chose to do so it had duty to use due care holding that debtors actions were not willful where there was a creditor which the debtor chose to pay first and thought that it was in his financial interest to do so holding creditor does not have to prove it investigated debtors creditworthiness if debtor does not claim the card was preapproved and debtor was insolvent at the time