11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(5) requires a factual inquiry into whether a divorce debt is in the nature of support; the divorce order’s label alone does not decide dischargeability.

Springer · filed 2026-05-27(a)(5)

This label does not preclude the Court from determining whether the obligation is non- dischargeable. Rather, the Court must independently evaluate the nature and dischargeability of the debt under federal bankruptcy law.

Section 523(a)(5) does not except a claimed child support debt from discharge when the child has not been acknowledged, born of a legal marriage, or the subject of a paternity determination.

Furlong v. Missouri, Division of Family Services (In Re Furlong) · filed 1993-06-17(a)(5)

Child support, on the other hand, may not always require a decree as such, but a party cannot be responsible for child support unless the child is acknowledged, or the child is the product of a legal marriage, or there has been a determination of paternity. In this instance, none of these conditions precedent have been met.

Section 523 does not allow a debtor to discharge child support or income tax obligations.

In Re the Marriage of Craib · filed 1994-09-22

The Bankruptcy Act at 11 U.S.C. I 523 does not allow a debtor to discharge obligations for child support or for income taxes, the obligations we are concerned with in this appeal.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts debts in the nature of child and spousal support from discharge.

In re Ball · filed 1995-05-09(a)(5)

However, all of the state court remedies available to her continue to exist despite the discharge of the debtor under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debts in the nature of child and spousal support are nondischargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes future child support obligations nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Cohen v. New Jersey, Division of State Lottery (In Re Tsiolas) · filed 1999-07-14(a)(5)

Moreover, Defendant has an adequate remedy at law through the bankruptcy process as Debt- or’s obligation to pay future child support payments to Defendant is not dischargea-ble in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) (1999).

Section 523(a)(5) keeps alimony obligations nondischargeable when a later judgment reduces past, present, and future payments to a lump sum.

Swate v. Hartwell · filed 1996-11-21(a)(5)

Because the final judgment merely reduced to a lump-sum the nondischargeable alimony obligations of the earlier Agreement Incident to Divorce, the issues in both bankruptcy proceedings were the same and Swate is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue.

Section 523(a)(5) makes domestic support obligations nondischargeable, including attorney’s fee awards that are in the nature of support.

Rugiero v. Dinardo · filed 2012-10-10(a)(5)

The awards are ... domestic support obligations, the exception to the automatic stay applies and the debts are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes the support portion of a divorce award nondischargeable, even when the award also divides marital property.

Joseph L LaSpina · filed 2020-01-03(a)(5)

Additionally, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) renders debts incurred for a domestic support obligation nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) or (a)(15) makes attorney’s fees owed to a former spouse from divorce proceedings nondischargeable.

Jackson v. Feldman · filed 2024-05-09(a)(5), (a)(15)

Accordingly, the portion of Jackson’s Summary Judgment Motion seeking a ruling that the Attorney’s Fees are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (a)(15) is granted.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) keeps child support debts nondischargeable when assigned to a state or federal entity, regardless of the reason for the assignment.

Hardin v. South Carolina Department of Social Services (In re Hardin) · filed 2001-01-29(a)(5)(A)

Thus, a child support obligation may not be discharged even if the obligation is assigned, so long as the assignment is to a state or federal entity. The dischargeability is not limited by the reasons for the assignment to the government agency.

The 1981 amendment to Section 523(a)(5)(A) applies prospectively; child support debt assigned to a state remains dischargeable when the bankruptcy petition was filed before August 13, 1981.

Heldt v. STATE OF SD-BROOKINGS COUNTY · filed 1982-01-07(a)(5)(A)

In light of the foregoing principles of law, this Bankruptcy Court holds Section 2334 of Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, applies prospectively and does not affect the rights of parties in bankruptcies filed prior to August 13, 1981, the effective date of the amendment. Furthermore, Debtors’ child support debt which was assigned to the State is dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A).

Child support remains nondischargeable when assigned to the state solely for collection and the former spouse and children retain the right to receive payment.

Beggin v. Beggin (In Re Beggin) · filed 1982-03-31(a)(5)(A)

Rather, the Court finds that the non-assistance assignment is more analogous to the direct support situation than to the welfare assignment situation and that a holding of nondischargeability in this instance is more in keeping with Congressional policies concerning child support.

Section 523(a)(5)’s 1981 amendment making support payments assigned to a state nondischargeable does not apply to bankruptcy petitions filed before August 13, 1981.

Iowa State Dept. of Social Services v. Morris (In Re Morris) · filed 1982-07-13(a)(5)

The Court, having found that the Debtor’s bankruptcy petition was filed prior to the effective date of the amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), further finds that the law to be applied in the instant case is the law in effect prior to August 13, 1981. That law discharged debts for alimony, support, or maintenance payments that had been assigned by a debtor’s ex-spouse to any person or entity, including a governmental unit.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not make a counsel-fee award dischargeable merely because a spouse assigns it to her attorney.

Brodsky, Greenblatt & Renehan, Chartered v. Daumit (In Re Daumit) · filed 1982-10-05(a)(5)(A)

Moreover, although the counsel fees awarded defendant’s ex-wife have been assigned to plaintiff, they nevertheless remain non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A).

The 1981 amendment to § 523(a)(5), which makes certain assigned child support debts nondischargeable, does not apply to bankruptcy petitions filed before August 13, 1981.

Idaho, Department of Health & Welfare v. Reynolds (In re Reynolds) · filed 1982-12-14(a)(5)

Thus, a reading of the Act and a study of its history leaves no possibility of concluding that the Act is to be applied to those who filed petitions for bankruptcy prior to August 13,1981.

Section 523(a)(5) makes an assumed debt to a third-party creditor nondischargeable when the obligation is actually in the nature of support.

Brown v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1983-03-29(a)(5)

The Court therefore finds that Mr. Brown’s assumption of the debt to Associates was in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support, and thus is not discharge-able.

Section 523(a)(5)(A)'s assignment exception applies when a spouse expressly assigns a support debt for consideration; directing payment to the spouse's attorney does not itself constitute an assignment.

Benz v. Benz (In re Benz) · filed 1983-03-29(a)(5)(A)

The assignment exception should only be applied when the debtor’s spouse expressly assigns the debt, for consideration, to another entity. Here there has been no express assignment.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) applies according to the law in effect when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Ahrendt v. Waukesha County Social Services Department (In Re Ahrendt) · filed 1983-03-21(a)(5)(A)

More recently, a series of bankruptcy court decisions have uniformly held that the law to be applied is the law in effect at the time the bankruptcy case is commenced — the ... date the petition is filed. ... This court believes the reasoning found in these latter cases is correct and elects to follow them.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a mortgage obligation from discharge when paying it supports a former spouse by preserving her residence.

Long v. Taylor (In re Taylor) · filed 1983-08-17(a)(5)

Clearly, the obligation serves a support function by providing for the preservation of Long’s personal residence, and is, therefore, non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(5).

The 1981 amendment to § 523(a)(5)(A) applies to debtors who had not received a discharge by August 13, 1981, making assigned alimony and child support debts nondischargeable.

Hudson County Welfare Department v. Roedel (In Re Roedel) · filed 1983-07-07(a)(5)(A)

In this case, the court is convinced that Congress intended to draw the line at August 13,1981, and to apply the amended § 523(a)(5)(A) to all debtors who had not received discharges as of that date.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not limit the separate exception for child support obligations assigned to a state to debts arising from a separation agreement, divorce decree, or property settlement.

Esposito v. Connecticut (In Re Esposito) · filed 1983-07-20(a)(5)(A)

The effect of the amendment, for the purposes of these proceedings, was to add to the exceptions to discharge provided by Code section 523(a), an additional exception—to wit, debts which are child support obligations assigned to the State under 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26).

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debtor’s obligation to pay a mortgage debt nondischargeable when the obligation provides support for a former spouse and child.

Miller v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1983-11-03(a)(5)

For the reasons hereinafter given, we agree with the plaintiff and find the debt in question to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not make a child support debt dischargeable when the right to support belongs to the child and no assignment to the custodial parent’s bankruptcy trustee occurred.

Zimmerman v. Starnes · filed 1984-01-13(a)(5)(A)

It follows that no “assignment” of the debt by operation of law to the trustee could have occurred, and therefore 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A) is inapplicable. The Court therefore determines that, based on the facts presented on appeal, Starnes’ debt for back child support is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A).

Section 523(a)(5)(A) excepts child support assigned to a state under Social Security Act § 402(a)(26) from discharge, including support that becomes due after the assignment.

In the Matter of Hulbert Eugene Stovall, A/K/A Gene Stovall, Bankrupt-Appellant · filed 1983-11-28(a)(5)(A)

In In Re Wilson, 29 B.R. 254 (Bkrtcy.D.Kansas 1983), the bankruptcy court held, as we do here, that ... the state law that assigned all rights to support to a state agency was an assignment pursuant to § 602(a)(26) and that the full amount owed to the state pursuant to such an assignment is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(5) makes an agreement to pay joint marital debts nondischargeable to the extent it provides support for a spouse or children.

Yamada v. Yamada (In re Yamada) · filed 1984-02-13(a)(5)

Pursuant to this section, debts resulting from an agreement by the debtor to hold the debtor’s spouse harmless on joint debts, to the extent that the agreement is in payment of alimony, maintenance, or support of the spouse and children will be held nondischargeable.

The 1981 amendment to § 523(a)(5)(A) applies to pending bankruptcy cases and makes child support obligations assigned to a state as a condition of assistance nondischargeable.

State of Idaho, Department of Health & Welfare v. Reynolds · filed 1984-02-28(a)(5)(A)

Upon consideration of the parties, the nature of their rights, and the impact of the amendment to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(5)(A) upon those rights, we cannot say that application of the amendment to actions pending at the time of the amendment would cause such "manifest injustice" as to compel an exception to the rule that a court applies the law in effect on the date of decision. ... The debtors' child support obligations were not dischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5)(A) as amended.

Section 523(a)(5)(A)'s 1981 amendment makes child support assigned to a state as a condition of AFDC assistance nondischargeable in cases pending when the amendment took effect, if discharge had not yet been decided.

Idaho v. Reynolds · filed 1984-02-28(a)(5)(A)

Upon consideration of the parties, the nature of their rights, and the impact of the amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A) upon those rights, we cannot say that application of the amendment to actions pending at the time of the amendment would cause such “manifest injustice” as to compel an exception to the rule that a court applies the law in effect on the date of decision. ... The debtors’ child support obligations were not dischargeable under § 523(a)(5)(A) as amended.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts an assumed marital debt from discharge when it was intended as support and actually serves that purpose.

Holland v. Holland (In Re Holland) · filed 1984-10-10(a)(5)

The amount of money evidenced by the balance of $2,026.64 owed to Texas Commerce Bank, secured by certificate of title lien on the automobile, should be excepted from the debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) makes an assumed mortgage debt nondischargeable when the obligation provides necessary support for a former spouse and child and is not manifestly unreasonable in amount.

Wright v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1985-01-29(a)(5)

That is, the assumption of a debt secured by a mortgage on the residence inhabited by the ex-wife and child in her custody does have the effect of providing necessary support “to insure that the daily needs of the former spouse and any children of the marriage are satisfied.” ... Accordingly, we find the issues in favor of plaintiff and hold that the defendant’s obligation arising from the Barclay’s American debt is nondischargeable.

The 1981 amendment to § 523(a)(5)(A) makes child support debts assigned to a state agency nondischargeable in cases filed after the amendment took effect.

Petty v. County of Santa Clara (In re Petty) · filed 1986-02-10(a)(5)(A)

It appears that while there may have been some controversy concerning this issue for cases pending at the time of the enactment of the 1981 amendment, it is clear that cases filed prospectively were to be governed by the amended law.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not control the dischargeability of child support obligations arising from AFDC benefits when § 456(b) of the Social Security Act makes the debt nondischargeable.

McLean v. Virginia Department of Social Services (In Re McLean) · filed 1986-04-03(a)(5)(A)

Even though the debt established as owing to the Department of Social Services may not squarely fit within § 523(a)(5), the debt is nondischargeable under § 456(b) of the Social Security Act, because with regard to child support obligations arising out of the receipt of AFDC benefits, § 523(a)(5)(A) is not the controlling statutory provision.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not treat a custodial parent’s death or the substitution of her estate representative as an assignment of accrued child support belonging to the children.

Reed v. Prettyman (In Re Prettyman) · filed 1990-08-06(a)(5)(A)

Since the back child support did not belong to Marsha Peck, neither her death, nor the opening of an estate for her, nor the substitution of Everett Reed as party petitioner in the divorce proceeding operated as an assignment by law of the unpaid child support. Thus, the child support judgment is NOT DISCHARGED by this bankruptcy proceeding but Marsha Peek’s personal representative has no interest therein, and any substitute party in the divorce proceeding has no interest, unless said party is the representative of the children or at least one of them.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not treat a court order directing support payments to a former spouse’s creditors as an assignment of the support debt when the former spouse retains the right to enforce it.

Overton v. Horner (In Re Horner) · filed 1991-04-12(a)(5)(A)

In other words, where, as here, the trial court orders the husband, as part of his support and maintenance obligation to his wife, to make certain payments directly to the creditors, we hold that there has been no assignment within the meaning of § 523(a)(5)(A).

Section 523(a)(5) keeps delinquent child support nondischargeable when the claim is assigned to a county agency.

Mickelson v. Leser (In re Leser) · filed 1991-08-01(a)(5)

The assignment of a claim for delinquent child support to a county agency does not render the obligation dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) keeps delinquent child support nondischargeable when the claim is assigned to a county agency.

In Re Leser · filed 1991-09-17(a)(5)

The assignment of a claim for delinquent child support to a county agency does not render the obligation dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes mortgage and life insurance obligations nondischargeable when they were intended as support rather than a property settlement.

Pierce v. Pierce (In Re Pierce) · filed 1992-05-19(a)(5)

The Court finds that at the time of the agreement, the parties intended the mortgage payments to constitute support. ... The insurance was intended to be a substitute in the event of the loss of those support elements. ... ORDERED that the debt to Martha Pierce is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a support debt from discharge when the state paid the expense or holds an assigned claim, even though the debt is owed to the state rather than the spouse or child.

Livengood v. Idaho ex rel. Department of Health & Welfare, Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (In re Livengood) · filed 1993-08-05(a)(5)

Regardless of whether the debt is paid by the State in the first instance or is an assigned claim, in either instance, the claim of the State would fall within the exclusion of dischargeability afforded by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). The fact the claim exists in behalf of a third party, other than the spouse or the child, does not preclude the nondischargeable character of the claim.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) excepts assigned past child support owed to a spouse or child from discharge, but does not except a county’s separate reimbursement claim.

Browning v. County of Stanislaus (In Re Browning) · filed 1993-10-12(a)(5)(A)

In summary, the court determines that to the extent the County establishes a debt for past child support owed to and assigned by Ms. Laird or Jessica, it was not discharged and is determined nondischargeable under section 656(b) and section 523(a)(5)(A).

Section 523(a)(5) makes marital debt and expenses of enforcing a support order nondischargeable when they are intended to serve a support function.

Cross v. Cross (In Re Cross) · filed 1994-09-15(a)(5)

It would take a severely strained reading of the court’s recitation of its findings to conclude that the obligations for attorney’s fees, transportation costs, and marital indebtedness were intended to serve as anything other than a support function.

Section 523(a)(5) makes child support debt nondischargeable.

People v. Gruntz · filed 1994-10-19(a)(5)

Child support is not a dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not discharge a child support debt for pregnancy and birth medical expenses assigned to a state.

Kidd v. Clermont County Child Support Enforcement Agency (In Re Kidd) · filed 1995-02-14(a)(5)(A)

Based upon the foregoing, we hold that Kidd is not entitled to the relief sought in the complaint, and the $2,000.00 owing for payment of past medical expenses is not dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not make child support debt dischargeable when the recipient enters a contingency fee arrangement for its collection rather than assigning the debt.

Smith v. Child Support Enforcement (In Re Smith) · filed 1995-04-13(a)(5)(A)

In sum, the court finds that Ms. Rayl’s intent was not to effect the type of assignment anticipated by § 523(a)(5)(A), but simply to enter into what is essentially a contingency fee arrangement with CSE.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts genuine child support debts from discharge even when assigned to a state or political subdivision.

In Re Ward · filed 1995-04-19(a)(5)

Finally, and most persuasively to this Court, the Bankruptcy Code on its face clearly indicates that child support debts are dischargeable only in two limited circumstances, where the debt, denominated as child support, is in fact not such, or, where the debt is assigned to an entity other than a governmental entity. There has been no dispute by Mr. Ward of the former, that is, this obligation is indeed in the character and nature of child support. Furthermore, the transfer of the right to recover this obligation was transferred to the a political subdivision of the State of Alaska and in due course the State of Alabama. Therefore, under the clear language of the Code, this obligation is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) permits discharge of a county’s AFDC reimbursement debt when the assignment transferred no accrued support right owed to the debtor’s spouse or children.

In Re Dale H. Visness, Debtor. Dale H. Visness v. Contra Costa County Contra Costa County District Attorney · filed 1995-06-12(a)(5)

Correspondingly, Mr. Visness’s obligation to the County did not derive from a debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor. ... Such a debt is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) does not except a state’s direct child support reimbursement claim from discharge when no support obligation owed to a spouse or child was assigned to the state.

Saafir v. Kansas Department of Social Services (In Re Saafir) · filed 1996-02-07(a)(5)(A)

I therefore conclude that the plaintiffs obligation to the Kansas DSRS is not excepted from discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(5)(A), because the support obligation was directly owed to the Kansas DSRS pursuant to the reimbursement statute.

Section 523(a)(5) makes arrearage child support nondischargeable.

In Re Harrison · filed 1996-09-27(a)(5)

Since 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) precludes the discharge of arrear-age child support, however, the discharge debtor received on January 24, 1996, did not affect the state court judgment.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts arrears of maintenance or support from a bankruptcy discharge.

Terio v. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota · filed 1996-12-02(a)(5)

The judgments which formed the basis of the instant turnover proceeding were entered on arrears of maintenance or support which were owed by the appellant to the petitioner. These debts were not discharged by the appellant’s discharge in bankruptcy (see, 11 USC § 523 [a] [5]; In re Brody, 3 F3d 35 [2d Cir 1993] ), and the automatic bankruptcy stay did not operate to bar the turnover proceeding (see, Terio v Terio, 93 Civ 4378 [SD NY; Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, dated Mar. 16, 1994] , adopted by order dated Apr. 11, 1994, affd for reasons stated 52 F3d 310 [2d Cir 1995]; see also, In re Altchek, 124 Bankr 944).

Section 523(a)(5) makes child-support debts nondischargeable, and a state court may determine whether a debt is for child support.

Rosen v. Lantis · filed 1997-04-02(a)(5)

Among the nondisehargable debts is a debt for child support. Id. § 523(a)(5). ... A state court of general jurisdiction would have jurisdiction to determine the discharge-ability of an alleged debt for child support.

Section 523(a)(18) covers debts owed to a state for child support when they are enforceable under Title IV-D, but does not cover charges for care that fail to qualify for that enforcement.

Illinois Department of Children & Family Services v. Spinks (In Re Spinks) · filed 1999-05-10(a)(18)

For this reason, the Court finds that the debtors’ obligation to the Department to repay charges incurred for the “care and training” of their children from December 1992 through May 1993 does not come within the discharge exception of § 523(a)(18). Therefore, this debt is dis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 in the debtors’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts past-due child support from a bankruptcy discharge.

Christian v. Christian, No. Fa78-0224263 (Jul. 11, 1999) · filed 1999-07-11(a)(5)

The arrearage claimed here is for past due child support, hence clearly falls under the 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5) exception to the discharge.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts debts to a former spouse from discharge when they function as alimony, maintenance, or support.

Beyer v. Beyer, No. Fa98 0075862 (Jul. 11, 2000) · filed 2000-07-11(a)(5)

This court has been asked to decide, in the context of a motion for contempt, whether the defendant's obligation to pay his former wife an amount equal to the cost of her automobile insurance over a two-year period and to reimburse her for federal income taxes that he owed but the IRS seized from her tax refund are debts in the nature of alimony, support or maintenance and thus nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(5). This court finds that pursuant to federal bankruptcy law, both debts are in the nature of alimony, support, or maintenance and are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) makes child support debt assigned to a governmental unit under the AFDC program nondischargeable.

Roy v. Regional Child Support Enforcement Unit (In Re Roy) · filed 2004-07-02(a)(5)(A)

The Court finds that the AFDC benefits paid to Lyn Roy were for child support and that Lyn Roy assigned her right to receive child support from Debtor Craig Roy to a governmental unit as a condition of receiving benefits under the AFDC program. Accordingly, all the elements for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5)(A) have been satisfied and the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes a debt nondischargeable as support only when the party seeking that result proves the debt was intended as support.

FL Dept. of Revenue v. Omine · filed 2007-05-11(a)(5)

In light of Omine’s testimony that supported a dischargeability determination and the lack of evidence presented by the Florida DOR, the district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s finding that the Hawaii debt was not in the nature of support, and was therefore dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes child support debt nondischargeable but does not shield a creditor from the discharge injunction after its allowed claim has been fully paid.

In Re Diaz · filed 2009-09-30(a)(5)

A child support debt is nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(5), but Section 523(a)(5) does not insulate Respondents from the discharge injunction.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts child-support debts from Chapter 13 discharge.

Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Diaz · filed 2011-07-27(a)(5)

Section 523(a)(5) specifically lists a debt for child support as an exception to discharge.

Under the pre-BAPCPA version of § 523(a)(5), assigning a child support obligation to a state does not make it dischargeable.

In re Owsley · filed 2013-05-29(a)(5)

Accordingly, the Debtors’ argument that Ms. White’s assignment of the child support obligation removed the non-dischargeability protections of § 523(a)(5) is without merit.

Section 523(a)(5) did not treat the putative awards for the children’s law guardian, a forensic psychologist, and custody counsel as support obligations in this case.

Gorelik v. Gorelik · filed 2011-10-19(a)(5)

Elena Gorelik, through counsel, appeals from the judgment dismissing her appeal from a bankruptcy court order declaring that any putative judgment or award in Appellant’s favor and against Appellee Gennady Gorelik regarding fees incurred as a result of (1) the appointment of a law guardian to represent the parties’ children, (2) the appointment of a forensic psychologist to evaluate the parties’ children, and (3) legal representation of Appellant in the dispute over custody of the parties’ children (collectively, the “custody litigation fees”), would not constitute “support” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), and thus would be dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). ... Having conducted an independent review of the record and case law in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum decision and order.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition; an omission alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Christman v. Farina · filed 2023-07-18(a)(2)(B)

A “statement in writing” respecting the debtor’s “financial condition” which the debtor “caused to be made or published” is required. Such a writing does not exist here and Christman fails to prove a claim under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a materially false written financial statement; an omitted liability is not material when it was unlikely to influence the creditor’s lending decision.

Colombo Bank, F.S.B. v. Sharp · filed 2008-05-05(a)(2)(B)

The omission of the Signet mortgage was not a material falsity. Although a third mortgage would have diminished the value of the collateral and depleted the available sources for repayment, under the circumstances of this case, the relatively small Signet loan was not likely to have influenced the Bank’s decision.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that a written financial statement was materially false; unusually large receivables alone do not establish falsity.

Investment Capital, Inc. v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 2007-11-09(a)(2)(B)

But even if we accept that some entries on the list were not typical of Joblotter’s general receivables, that alone does not suggest that those entries were false, let alone materially so. Accordingly, the bankruptcy judge’s determination that Fischer failed to carry its burden of proof with regard to the alleged material falsity of the list of accounts receivable is correct.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a written statement about financial condition; a creditor that fails to check references or investigate claimed assets may not satisfy that requirement.

Alside Supply Center v. Kromar (In re Kromar) · filed 2001-02-21(a)(2)(B)

For several of the same reasons, Alside has not established the elements of § 523(a)(2)(B) by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Reasonable reliance does not exist where a creditor neglects to check references, makes unfounded assumptions about ownership of assets, performs no due diligence, does not investigate the credit history of the principals of a small business, and does not require binding security agreements to collateralize its interest.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)’s intent to deceive requirement is satisfied when a debtor knows a financial statement is false or recklessly disregards its truth.

Agribank, FCB v. Webb (In Re Webb) · filed 2000-12-18(a)(2)(B)

Knowledge of the falsity of the information or reckless disregard for the truth of the information satisfies the intent element of section 523(a)(2)(B), and mere unsupported assertions of honest intent do not overcome the natural inferences derived from the admitted facts.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a false financial statement to except a debt from discharge; reliance is unreasonable when the creditor knows the statement is false.

Deutsche Financial Services Corp. v. Osborne (In Re Osborne) · filed 2000-11-17(a)(2)(B)

There was no reasonable reliance on the false financial statement after DFS found it was false and nevertheless proceeded with closing the loan facility.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the creditor reasonably relied on the debtor’s false statement about financial condition and that the debtor intended to deceive.

Oakwood Deposit Bank v. Porter (In re Porter) · filed 2000-10-25(a)(2)(B)

In particular, it is the position of the Court that a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether, for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B), the Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the Defendant’s misstatements concerning his ownership/possession of the snowmobile, and whether the Defendant made his false statements regarding the snowmobile with the intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2) excludes statements about a debtor’s financial condition from subdivision (A), and requires such statements to be in writing to support nondischargeability under subdivision (B).

MBNA Consumer Services, Inc. v. Jackson (In Re Jackson) · filed 2000-08-30(a)(2)

Inherently, income is a critical aspect of a debtor’s financial condition. Thus, this court is satisfied that Jackson’s representations were statements “respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.” Accordingly, Jackson’s fraud is not actionable under subdivision 2(A) of section 523(a). However, because these statements were oral and not in writing, the plaintiff possesses no cause of action under subdivision 2(B) of this section.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) does not generally require a creditor to investigate a debtor’s financial statements, but investigation may be prudent when the creditor doubts their truth.

Shaw Steel, Inc v. Morris, Hewlett E. · filed 2000-08-11(a)(2)(B)(iii)

While we understand that the concept of reasonable reliance does not generally require creditors to conduct an investigation prior to entering into agreements with prospective debtors, such a precaution could be the ordinarily prudent choice in circumstances where the creditor admits that it does not believe the representations made by the prospective debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) generally does not require a creditor to investigate a debtor’s financial representations, but reliance may be unreasonable when the creditor doubts they are true and does not investigate.

In Re Hewlett E. Morris, Jr., A/K/A H. Edward Morris, Debtor-Appellee · filed 2000-08-11(a)(2)(B)(iii)

While we understand that the concept of reasonable reliance does not generally require creditors to conduct an investigation prior to entering into agreements with prospective debtors, such a precaution could be the ordinarily prudent choice in circumstances where the creditor admits that it does not believe the representations made by the prospective debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not treat an inaccurate asset valuation in a financial statement as materially false when the valuation has a foundation.

Benjelloun v. Robbins (In Re Robbins) · filed 1995-01-09(a)(2)(B)

An opinion of asset valuation in a financial statement falls outside section 523(a)(2)(B), despite the opinion’s inaccuracy, so long as there is a foundation for the opinion.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor used a materially false written statement about financial condition, that the creditor reasonably relied on it, and that the debtor intended to deceive.

Westbank v. Grossman (In Re Grossman) · filed 1994-11-17(a)(2)(B)

However, Plaintiffs failed to prove the remaining elements required by § 523(a)(2)(B) by a preponderance of the evidence: that the financial statement was materially false; that the Banks actually and reasonably relied on the financial statement; and that Grossman submitted the financial statement to the Plaintiffs with the intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; a debt remains dischargeable when the evidence supports a finding of neither intent to deceive nor gross recklessness.

In Re Thomas Norman Brock and Kathleen Brock, Debtors. Glen Eagle Marketing, Inc. v. Thomas Norman Brock and Kathleen Br · filed 1994-10-31(a)(2)(B)(iv)

Item (iv) in Section 523(a)(2)(B) is at issue in this case. The party seeking an exception from discharge in bankruptcy under Sec. 523(a)(2) has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Based on the foregoing information the bankruptcy court held Brock neither intended to deceive Glen Eagle, nor acted with gross recklessness by signing the financial statement. ... After a review of the record we find there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, we find no error warranting reversal.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor with a written financial statement.

In Re Arthur R. Miller and Janet E. Miller, Debtors. Equitable Bank v. Arthur R. Miller, and Janet E. Miller · filed 1994-12-05(a)(2)(B)

Consequently, for all of the above reasons, we hold that the district court erred in reversing the bankruptcy court’s finding that the Millers lacked the requisite intent to deceive under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can apply to an unsigned financial statement that the debtor adopted.

Riggs National Bank of Washington v. Ross (In Re Ross) · filed 1994-08-30(a)(2)(B)

Unlike 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), § 523(a)(2)(B) requires that the false statement be in writing and must be written,, signed or be adopted by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor to prove reasonable reliance on the debtor’s representations; a creditor cannot rely on a financial statement it received after approving the loan.

AVCO Financial Services of Billings, One v. Sullivan (In Re Sullivan) · filed 1990-02-23(a)(2)

As such, AVCO did not “reasonably rely” on the Debtor/Defendant’s financial statements. Therefore, Count II cannot be sustained based on AVCO’s failure to sustain its burden of proof under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) permits a creditor to rely on a debtor’s collateral valuations without further inquiry when their longstanding, trusted relationship makes that reliance reasonable.

In the Matter of Roxolana Harasymiw, Debtor. Selfreliance Federal Credit Union, Cross-Appellant v. Roxolana Harasymiw, C · filed 1990-03-08(a)(2)(B)

The record in this case establishes that Harasymiw was a trusted, long-time, and high-ranking employee of Selfreliance. ... Under the particular circumstances present in this case the credit union could have reasonably relied on any of the valuations given by Harasymiw without extensive inquiry.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor reasonably extends credit in reliance on a materially false written financial statement made with intent to deceive.

Dellson, Inc. v. Pretner (In Re Pretner) · filed 1990-02-15(a)(2)(B)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the plaintiff has proved a cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(B), and is entitled to judgment for the balance due under the February 3, 1986 promissory note, plus interest and costs. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the claim by Dellson, Inc. is declared to be nondischargeable.

Reasonable reliance on a written financial statement is assessed case by case; possible warning signs do not necessarily defeat it.

In re Bonnett · filed 1990-02-13(a)(2)(B)(iii)

We believe that even if the Banks' comparison of the financial statements should have raised "red flags," the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in determining the Banks proved, by clear and convincing evidence, they reasonably relied on that comparison.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a false written financial statement to prove reasonable reliance on that statement.

Roster Corp. v. Fisackerly (In Re Fisackerly) · filed 1990-02-23(a)(2)(B)(iii)

After an evaluation of all of the evidence in this case, this Court does not find clear and convincing evidence that the creditor reasonably relied upon the false financial statements.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor to prove objectively reasonable reliance on a financial statement and actual reliance in which the statement was a substantial factor in extending credit.

Dominion Bank v. Wingo (In Re Wingo) · filed 1990-03-12(a)(2)(B)(iii)

As I view the issue, there are two separate tests which the creditor must meet to satisfy § 523(a)(2)(B) (iii). First, the creditor must prove reasonable reliance which I view as being an objective standard. (Is the financial statement one upon which an ordinary bank in the trade would rely.) Secondly, the creditor must prove that he did, in fact, rely on the financial statement. This, I view as a subjective standard. To meet the subjective standard, the burden of persuasion lies with the creditor to prove that the financial statement was a substantial factor in its decision to extend the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a lender to investigate beyond its customary credit review to reasonably rely on a written financial statement when nothing suggests it is false.

Putnam County National Bank of Carmel v. Hough (In Re Hough) · filed 1990-03-14(a)(2)(B)(iii)

When a bank follows its customary business practice of relying on a credit report and visits the site of specified real estate, as well as relies on the information listed by a debtor in a written financial statement before approving a loan, it should not be ruled that the bank’s reliance was unreasonable, especially when there were no facts to put the bank on notice that the information was false.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove reasonable and detrimental reliance on a written financial statement to except a debt from discharge.

Horowitz Finance Corp. v. Hall (In Re Hall) · filed 1990-01-11(a)(2)(B)

In addition to its being reasonable, the reliance by the creditor must be detrimental in order for the debt arising out of that reliance to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires reasonable creditor reliance on a written financial statement, assessed case by case.

In re Bonnett · filed 1989-12-20(a)(2)(B)(iii)

The reasonableness of a creditor’s reliance should be determined on a case by case basis.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)’s reliance element can be satisfied by partial reliance on a false financial statement.

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Sutherlin · filed 1989-12-14(a)(2)(B)

In order to satisfy the reliance factor in Section 523, a creditor must rely on the false financial statement. Its reliance, however, need not be total; even partial reliance on such a statement is sufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to show reasonable reliance on a written financial statement; a bank that relies on a stale statement without checking whether it reflects the debtor’s current finances fails to do so.

First Sanlando Bank, N.A. v. Benore (In Re Benore) · filed 1989-12-12(a)(2)(B)

Where a bank relies on stale financial statements, and never inquires as to whether the statements actually reflect the debt- or’s current financial situation, the bank fails to show reasonable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor to prove reasonable reliance on a debtor’s false written statement about financial condition.

Cadle Co. v. Spilotros (In Re Spilotros) · filed 1989-09-29(a)(2)(B)

Nevertheless, Kurshner testified that he would have approved the loan even if the property were not listed on the financial statement and, therefore, the Court finds that the Bank did not rely upon the false statement. ... Based on the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that Cadle did not establish with the requisite degree of proof all of the elements of the claim of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires reasonable reliance on a materially false financial statement, and partial reliance can suffice.

Borg Warner Central Environmental Systems, Inc. v. Nance (In Re Nance) · filed 1987-02-09(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires that the creditor reasonably rely upon a materially false statement. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the materially false financial statements provided by Defendant McCor-mack in granting the extension of credit to RMI. Even partial reliance upon a financial statement is sufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not except a debt from discharge for an omission on a credit application when the omission can reasonably be attributed to the form's defects and the lender's lack of instruction, rather than intent to deceive.

Family Federal Credit Union v. Schuster (In Re Schuster) · filed 1987-01-14(a)(2)(B)

A finding of intent to deceive is unwarranted when an omission on a credit application can reasonably be laid to a defect in the format of the credit application combined with a lack of instruction by a lender to a loan applicant.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor’s reliance on a false financial statement to have been a significant factor in its decision to extend credit.

Mazzucco Construction Co. v. Kubinski (In re Kubinski) · filed 1987-01-12(a)(2)(B)

The question to be asked in this instance, as was noted by the Bankruptcy Judge, is whether Mazzucco’s reliance on the false financial statement was the significant factor in its decision to renew credit to the Kubinski’s. ... I find it difficult to infer from this that reliance on the statement was in fact either substantial or significant.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a materially false written financial statement; partial reliance can suffice if it is reasonable.

Monroe Industrial Bank v. Wolf (In Re Wolf) · filed 1986-12-08(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Turning to the loan application dated July 14, 1983, the Court finds that Monroe did rely in part on that application but that the reliance was not reasonable considering the circumstances surrounding the making of the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a creditor to rely exclusively on a false financial statement; partial reasonable reliance can satisfy its reliance requirement.

Regency National Bank v. Blatz · filed 1986-11-04(a)(2)(B)

There was at least partial reliance on the financial statement in this case. This partial reliance is enough to satisfy the reliance element of sec. 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) imposes no automatic duty to verify a debtor’s financial statement; reasonable reliance depends on the creditor’s practices, industry custom, and the circumstances.

Sovran Bank, N.A. v. Allen (In Re Allen) · filed 1986-08-07(a)(2)(B)(iii)

A per se duty of verification does not exist under section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii), and the Bankruptcy Court lacked the evidence necessary to measure Sovran's conduct against its own practices and industry custom.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a creditor to rely exclusively on a false financial statement.

In Re Liming · filed 1986-07-29(a)(2)(B)

But Sec. 523(a)(2)(B) does not require that a creditor rely exclusively on the false financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) permits a court to consider misrepresentations together when deciding whether a financial statement is materially false.

Fentress County Bank v. Lambert (In Re Lambert) · filed 1986-07-21(a)(2)(B)

Viewing the misrepresentations contained in the financial statement as a whole, rather than separately, the financial statement is materially false. Considered in combination, the total over-valuation exceeds 2.5 times the amount of the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes statements about a debtor’s or insider’s financial condition, which are addressed separately under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Huntington National Bank v. Schwartzman (In Re Schwartzman) · filed 1986-07-17(a)(2)(A)

That section specifically excludes from its coverage “a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition,” since that appears as a separate ground for exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2) requires a false written statement for a fraud claim concerning the debtor’s financial condition.

McNulty v. Sullaway (In Re Sullaway) · filed 1986-09-05(a)(2)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) requires that when dealing with a fraud relating to financial condition, it must be based on a statement in writing. There is no such false writing.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition.

First & Merchants National Bank of Radford v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1980-02-21(a)(2)(B)

The second instance which is material here, includes the wording that the creditor “reasonably relied” upon the alleged written statement. ... In applying the foregoing rules of law to the facts presented in this case, the Court finds it difficult when viewing all the facts and circumstances to find that degree of reliance contemplated by the statute.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires intent to deceive before a debt based on a materially false written financial statement can be excepted from discharge.

Sun Bank of Lauderdale Beach v. Rosia (In re Rosia) · filed 1980-06-23(a)(2)(B)(iv)

However, in regards to Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv), the Court finds that the defendant did not submit the materially false written statement with the intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a financial statement lists a contingent trust interest as an asset without saying the funds are immediately available.

Kotzen v. Levine (In Re Levine) · filed 1980-08-14(a)(2)(B)

The debtor’s trust interest is contingent upon the death of his father and it is also subject to a life estate in favor of his mother. However, the financial statement neither represents nor implies that trust principal or income was immediately available for the debtor’s use. The statement is not materially false.

The court held that the creditor proved a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Deel Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Levine (In Re Levine) · filed 1980-08-18(a)(2)(B)

Plaintiff has met its burden and is entitled to a determination that its claim is non-disehargeable under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves that the debtor obtained money through a false representation or a materially false written financial statement made with intent to deceive and reasonably relied on by the creditor.

Heritage Bank v. Beaver (In re Beaver) · filed 1980-09-30(a)(2)

I find that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant obtained money from plaintiff by making a false representation or through the use of a written statement respecting defendant’s financial condition on which plaintiff reasonably relied in extending credit that was materially false and that defendant executed with intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a false financial statement; reliance on the original statement was no longer reasonable after the creditor learned it was inaccurate.

Genesco, Inc. v. Redford (In Re Redford) · filed 1980-09-25(a)(2)(B)

As to the amount of the plaintiff’s claim represented by the first invoice, the plaintiff has carried its burden of establishing all the elements above by clear and convincing evidence. As to the amount resulting from subsequent shipments, the reasonableness of reliance on the initial statement has not been convincingly shown the Court and so does not fit within the statutory exception to discharge raised.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not bar discharge based on an inaccurate financial statement made without intent to deceive.

Genesis Leasing Corp. v. Mangham (In Re Mangham) · filed 1981-01-21(a)(2)(B)

Inaccurate information without an intention to deceive is not materially false. No attempt was made by the debtor to hide the fact that tax liability existed by not listing any tax information. Something more than untrue or erroneous is required. A false writing must have been intentionally made to bar a discharge.

Allegations that a debtor used a false written financial statement or misrepresented an agency relationship can state a § 523(a)(2) dischargeability claim.

Empire Gas Co. v. Stewart-Brown (In Re Stewart-Brown) · filed 1981-01-29(a)(2)

If Plaintiff proves that Defendant obtained the liquid petroleum from Plaintiff by the use of materially false written financial statements published by Defendant with intent to deceive and on which Plaintiff reasonably relied, Plaintiff may be entitled to a judgment of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff may prove that Defendant obtained the liquid petroleum through false representations concerning his agency relationship with Welland Coal Corporation. If such facts are proved Plaintiff may be entitled to a judgment of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(aX2)(A). From reviewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff the Court cannot conclude that it appears to a certainty Plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any set of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Under these circumstances a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim cannot be granted.

Section 523(a)(2) requires an intentional wrong for a false representation claim and a materially false written financial statement for a financial statement claim.

Bank of Coweta v. Chambers (In Re Chambers) · filed 1981-03-10(a)(2)(A) and (B)

A false representation or false pretense under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) must be of a kind involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong. ... Because the Court finds that Defendant’s financial statement is not materially false a vital element of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) is not present in this case.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires intent to deceive for a debt based on a false written financial statement to be nondischargeable.

Avco Finance Co. v. Hamer (In re Hamer) · filed 1981-01-21(a)(2)(B)(iv)

The substance of such testimony (irref-futed) shows lack of an intent to deceive by the debtor as a requisite to nondischarge-ability under 11 U.S.C. 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor to reasonably rely on a materially false written statement to except a debt from discharge.

Eastern Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Kirby (In re Kirby) · filed 1981-02-11(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Under § 523(a)(2)(B)(iii), the creditor must reasonably rely upon any statement in writing that is materially false. Even assuming that the loan applications referred to in Counts I and II were materially false, there is absolutely no evidence that the plaintiff relied upon those statements.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes a debt obtained through a materially false written financial statement nondischargeable when the debtor intended to deceive the creditor and the creditor relied on the statement.

Household Finance Consumer Discount Co. v. Gennaro (In Re Gennaro) · filed 1981-03-30(a)(2)(B)

Household Finance met its burden to prove that the debtors made a materially false representation in writing upon which Household Finance relied. The debtors’ oral testimony attempting to rebut this evidence, by claiming that an unnamed employee of Household Finance advised them by telephone that the debtors need list only five to six of their outstanding debts, was not sufficient to cause the presumption of fraud to disappear, especially when larger debts were not listed. Therefore, the debt owed Household Finance is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes a debt nondischargeable when the creditor reasonably relied on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition that the debtor made with intent to deceive.

Teachers Service Organization, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1981-04-08(a)(2)(B)

I find the statement to be materially false as a written statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition. ... I find that plaintiff reasonably relied upon the debtor’s false representation. ... I find that the debtor made this false representation with an actual intent to deceive the plaintiff. ... It follows that the debt owed to the plaintiff is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a materially false written statement about financial condition, reasonable reliance, and intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge.

Gelling v. Dean (In Re Dean) · filed 1981-05-11(a)(2)(B)

The amended complaint further sets forth a claim based on 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(B) which would except from discharge the judgment debt if plaintiff could prove that his investments were induced by a written statement which was: (a) materially false; (b) respecting Dean’s financial condition as an “insider” of Kiitos Corporation; (c) reasonably relied upon by plaintiff; and (d) made by Dean with the intent to deceive plaintiff. Liberally construing the allegations contained in the documents submitted in support of the complaint as the qualifying written statements under § 523(a)(2)(B), it is apparent, as with the original complaint, that they are factually insufficient or irrelevant to the claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a written financial statement to prove material falsity, reasonable reliance, and intent to deceive.

Elgin National Bank v. Schade (In Re Schade) · filed 1981-03-18(a)(2)(B)

For the debt to be non-dischargeable the Bank must prove that the written financial statement was materially false, that the Bank reasonably relied on the statement and that the statement was made with an intent to deceive. ... The burden of proof is on the Bank and the Bank must prove each element of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court holds that the Bank has not met its burden of proof.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires creditor reliance and the debtor’s intent to deceive for a debt arising from a false financial statement to be nondischargeable.

Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Wingfield (In Re Wingfield) · filed 1981-03-31(a)(2)(B)

In order for a false statement to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) there must be a showing of positive fraud or intentional misstatement on which the creditor relied and which was made by the debtor with the intent to deceive the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a false financial statement to prove reasonable reliance on the misrepresentation.

Pacific Finance Discount Co. v. Whiting (In Re Whiting) · filed 1981-04-20(a)(2)

Having found that the creditor failed to prove that it reasonably relied upon the misrepresentation, the debt is not one which may be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that a creditor reasonably relied on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition that the debtor made with intent to deceive.

N. J. Gendron Lumber Co. v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 1981-06-12(a)(2)(B)

Upon all of the evidence, the Court is not convinced that the Debtor obtained credit from this Plaintiff by use of a materially false statement in writing respecting his financial condition, with the intent to deceive, or that the statement was reasonably relied upon by the Plaintiff within the intent of Section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition to except a debt from discharge.

Zammitti v. Montbleau (In Re Montbleau) · filed 1981-08-07(a)(2)(B)

Under § 523(a)(2)(B) the plaintiff must demonstrate a writing that is materially false and which represents the debtor’s financial condition. ... Absence of a written statement concerning financial condition is enough to mandate a conclusion that objections under § 523(a)(2)(B) cannot be sustained.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes the full amount of an existing debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains its renewal through a false financial statement on which the creditor reasonably relied, even without proof of damages.

First American National Bank v. Carter (In Re Carter) · filed 1981-06-30(a)(2)(B)

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that, when a debtor obtains a renewal of an existing debt by use of a false financial statement upon which the creditor reasonably relied, the measure of relief available to the defrauded creditor under § 523(a)(2)(B) is punitive — not compensatory — and the full amount of the renewed debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor reasonably relied on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition that the debtor made with intent to deceive.

Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Kimberly (In Re Kimberly) · filed 1981-07-28(a)(2)(B)

I find that plaintiff reasonably relied on the debtor’s statement in this instance and this debt is, therefore, nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B).

A creditor seeking to except renewed credit from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B) must prove reliance on the debtor’s false financial statement; renewing this debt without advancing new funds did not make it nondischargeable.

Lincoln First Bank, N. A. v. Tomei (In Re Tomei) · filed 1981-07-17(a)(2)(B)

As a result, Lincoln has failed to prove the exception to the doctrine set forth in Danns and since there was no fresh cash received at the time, the note was renewed and the debts are dischargeable and it is so ordered.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(i) requires a written statement to be actually false; intent to deceive is a separate requirement under subsection (iv).

Personal Thrift Plan Consumer Discount Co. v. Heil (In re Heil) · filed 1981-07-24(a)(2)(B)(i)

We believe the phrase “materially false” in Section 523(a)(2)(B)(i) means no more than “actually false” or merely “false.” Because Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) contains an “intent to deceive” element, it is redundant to include a degree of intent within the meaning of materially false. Thus the creditor must show only that the statement is actually false, but that it was made with the requisite intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a lender to rely solely on a false financial statement for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

First Westside National Bank of Great Falls v. Voeller (In Re Voeller) · filed 1981-08-12(a)(2)(B)

The cases cited do not require a hundred percent or sole reliance on the financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a financial statement; a creditor’s partial use of the statement does not establish it.

Thomson-MacConnell Cadillac, Inc. v. Isaacs (In Re Isaacs) · filed 1981-11-12(a)(2)(B)

Creditor herein has not demonstrated effective and reasonable reliance merely by showing that the application for the lease and financial statement (Plaintiff Ex. 1) was partially used to support creditor’s action.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to have reasonably relied on a written statement to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Bamber v. O'Hara (In re O'Hara) · filed 1981-08-13(a)(2)(B)

Even if a statement made with the requisite intent to deceive were established, since the Plaintiffs had notice of the Dan-forth and Nelson orders, I find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law that any reliance on such a statement would have been unreasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove reasonable reliance on a debtor’s written statement about financial condition to except the debt from discharge.

Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Keppel (In Re Keppel) · filed 1981-10-06(a)(2)(B)

Upon consideration of all the evidence of this case, we conclude that Beneficial has not established by clear and convincing evidence that it reasonably relied upon the information given by the debtors in granting this loan.

Section 523(a)(2) allows a creditor to seek an exception from discharge for a debt obtained through a false financial statement.

First City Bank v. Blewett (In Re Blewett) · filed 1981-08-31(a)(2)

On the other hand, the complaint stated — somewhat clumsily, to be sure — a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) to except appellant’s debt from discharge.

A debt remains dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B) when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor gave a financial statement with intent to defraud or that the creditor relied on it.

First National Exchange Bank of Montgomery County v. Spangler (In Re Spangler) · filed 1981-08-31(a)(2)(B)

Viewing the facts of this case in light of the foregoing standard and law applicable thereto, the Court fails to find that the evidence reaches the point of being clear, cogent and convincing, that the financial statement was given with intent to defraud or was relied upon and accordingly, the amount of $3,155.00 alleged to be obtained as a result thereof should be discharged.