11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(i) requires a materially false financial statement; the debtor’s intent to deceive is a separate requirement under subsection (iv).

Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Swan (In re Swan) · filed 2013-10-02(a)(2)(B)(i)

Her reliance on pre-Code law is misplaced and, in any event, a misinterpretation of § 523(a)(2)(B), which deals with the debtor’s state of mind and specific intent in § 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) (requiring intent to deceive), not § 523(a)(2)(B)(i) (requiring that statement be “materially false”).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not except a debt from discharge based on a promissory note that sets repayment terms but contains no statement of financial condition.

Carto v. Oakley (In re Oakley) · filed 2013-12-30(a)(2)(B)

The only writing that Mr. Carto refers to is the promissory note signed by Ms. Oakley on March 3, 2011. A promissory note, which contains terms and conditions regarding repayment, is not a statement respecting the payee’s financial condition.

Under section 523(a)(2)(B), reasonable reliance on a materially false financial statement can support nondischargeability.

Kempf v. Hitachi Capital America Corp. · filed 2013-12-11(a)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Hitachi reasonably relied on the materially false representations contained in Kempf’s personal financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof of intent to deceive; errors in a written financial statement that are careless but not sufficiently reckless do not satisfy that requirement.

Wildwood Property, L.L.C. v. Rauf (In re Rauf) · filed 2014-01-03(a)(2)(B)

But the Debtor’s supplying of information in the Application was not, in light of the Debtor’s testimony, sufficiently reckless to support a finding of an intention to deceive Wildwood. The Debtor intended that Wildwood believe what the Debtor himself believed, which turned out in large part not to be true. This is not deception. The Court concludes that Wildwood has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements of a non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not treat a bare promise to pay as a statement respecting financial condition.

Allen v. Morrow (In re Morrow) · filed 2014-02-24(a)(2)(B)

A promise to pay a debt says nothing about a borrower’s overall financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the false statement concerns an insider’s financial condition; an inn’s occupancy information can qualify.

Follo v. Morency · filed 2014-03-19(a)(2)(A)

Even under a narrow interpretation, all relevant representations by Morency are statements respecting her financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove intent to deceive and reasonable reliance on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s finances.

Andrews v. Chamblee (In re Chamblee) · filed 2014-04-30(a)(2)(B)

Ms. Andrews has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Chamblee made false statements on the loan application with the intent to deceive, nor has she established that her reliance on the loan application was reasonable. The debt Ms. Chamblee owes to Ms. Andrews is not excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on an unwritten representation about an insider’s overall financial condition, including concealment of that information.

In re: Richard Scott Urban · filed 2014-04-16(a)(2)(A)

In our view, even assuming this concealment constituted a “representation” for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), it was a non-written representation about BCS’s financial condition and, therefore, would not support an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor made or published a materially false written statement about financial condition with intent to deceive.

Country Credit, LLC v. Martin (In re Martin) · filed 2014-07-10(a)(2)(B)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Country Credit has failed to prove intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover alleged fraud in employment verification submitted with a loan application or in tax returns because those are statements respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

Candel Coop v. Cajigas (In re Cajigas) · filed 2014-07-30(a)(2)(A)

It follows that Girona’s employment verification submitted with the Debtors’ loan application qualifies as a statement respecting the Debtors’ financial condition which is expressly excluded from coverage under § 523(a)(2)(A). The same is true of Girona’s tax returns. Thus, notwithstanding the uncontroverted falsity of these documents, § 523(a)(2)(A) does not apply.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when preclusive findings establish that the debtor used a materially false written financial statement with intent to deceive and the creditor reasonably relied on it.

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Vigilotti (In re Vigilotti) · filed 2014-09-12(a)(2)(B)

Therefore, the court concludes that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the plaintiff’s claim that its debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). Additionally, in light of the preclusive effect of the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Louisiana District Court, the court also concludes that the undisputed facts further establish that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its dischargeability claim.

A genuine dispute about § 523(a)(2)(B) nondischargeability precluded summary judgment for either side.

Ritter v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2014-09-18(a)(2)(B)

Because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Defendants’ debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) only, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART; Ritter’s cross motion is DENIED.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor caused a materially false written statement about financial condition to be made with intent to deceive.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Barrick (In re Barrick) · filed 2014-09-24(a)(2)(B)

The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the Debtor caused a materially false writing to be issued with the intent to deceive Areola and to secure the Loan. The Plaintiffs claim under § 523(a)(2)(B) therefore fails.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a creditor to prove the value of property transferred in reliance on a false financial statement.

Gerritsen Beach Investments Ltd. v. Jemal (In re Jemal) · filed 2014-09-30(a)(2)(B)

The Defendants’ second argument is that the Plaintiffs, in addition to demonstrating reliance on the false financial statements, must prove the value of their interests in the Real Estate Projects in order to show damages caused by their reliance. This argument is equally merit-less; it is “inconsistent with the express language of the Code,” which sets forth the elements which must be shown to obtain a determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B), and contains no such requirement.

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

Res Ga Two, LLC v. Hiett (In re Hiett) · filed 2014-09-30(a)(2)(B)

Under § 523(a)(2)(B), the creditor must establish that it reasonably relied on the debtor’s statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the written statement to have induced the creditor to provide the money; documents that merely record an earlier decision to invest do not qualify.

DRCK, LLC v. Chong (In re Chong) · filed 2014-12-18(a)(2)(B)

With respect to the Plaintiffs’ initial $500,000 investment, the Court cannot find those funds were obtained by the use of the SPA or associated documents, because the evidence indicates the Plaintiffs had already made the decision to invest based on Chong’s fraudulent representations, false pretenses, and actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) treats public assistance forms asking about income and financial contributions as written statements respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

Cabarrus County v. Boyd (In re Boyd) · filed 2015-01-09(a)(2)(B)

Additionally, the forms that Mrs. Boyd completed and mailed to the County to receive assistance constitute a written statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition. Each of the FNS and Medicaid forms contained questions about the Debtors’ income and any other sources of financial contributions.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.

AmeriCU Credit Union v. Calogero (In re Calogero) · filed 2015-02-23(a)(2)(B)

Since intent to deceive under § 523(a)(2)(B) can rarely be proven with direct evidence, the law permits the requisite intent to be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a necessary element of its claim, namely that Debtor acted with intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not except a debt from discharge based on false statements about prior bankruptcy filings that do not concern the debtor’s financial condition.

Global Injury Funding, LLC v. Knight (In re Knight) · filed 2015-03-31(a)(2)(B)

The relevant statements not being statements respecting the “Debtor’s financial condition,” and not considered as such by Global, is a second independent basis for determining that Global it is not entitled to a determination of nondischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on an oral omission about a debtor’s or insider’s overall financial condition.

Metz v. Bentley (In re Bentley) · filed 2015-06-03(a)(2)

The Court finds that the fact that debtors did not orally inform Metz about the actual overall financial condition of Gayla Bentley, L.P. immediately prior to his loan is not actionable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor intentionally uses a false financial statement on which a creditor reasonably relies.

Daniels v. Holman (In re Holman) · filed 2015-09-08(a)(2)(B)

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts from discharge debts arising from the debtor’s intentional use of a false financial statement on which the creditor reasonably relied. ... In these circumstances, I conclude that elements (3) and (4) are satisfied as to Mr. Holman, and the Daniels are entitled to a judgment against him on their § 523(a)(2)(B) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) governs dischargeability when a debtor makes a false written statement about financial condition to obtain credit.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Lathers (In re Lathers) · filed 2015-10-28(a)(2)(B)

However, because the debtors’ allegedly false representations were contained in their written loan application, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), not section 523(a)(2)(A), governs the dischargeability of their debt to Tower.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) governs a written loan application describing the debtor’s overall income, expenses, assets, and liabilities as a statement respecting financial condition.

Lawrence Bank v. Brent (In re Brent) · filed 2015-09-30(a)(2)(B)

The Loan Application is a statement respecting Dr. Brent’s financial condition because within that document he listed information regarding his employment, monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities. The information in the Loan Application represents Dr. Brent’s overall financial health, net worth or assets and liabilities so it constitutes a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition and must be evaluated under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) applies to false statements about income and expenses that do not present a comprehensive picture of the debtor’s overall financial condition.

In re: Ritchie R. Roberts · filed 2016-01-27(a)(2)(A)

In connection with the applications, the Credit Union did not request, and Mr. Roberts did not provide, comprehensive information about his overall net worth. The bankruptcy court properly concluded that § 523(a)(2)(A), rather than (a)(2)(B), should govern its analysis.

A creditor states a § 523(a)(2)(B) claim by pleading facts about each element, including financial misrepresentations, intent to deceive, and reliance.

Hylan Debt Fund, LLC-Portfolio Series 18 v. Nestor (In re Nestor) · filed 2016-02-23(a)(2)(B)

With respect to the § 523(a)(2)(B) claim, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the pleading requirements by pleading facts with respect to each element of the claim. The complaint contains specific factual assertions regarding (1) the alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Debtor’s financial condition contained in the Personal Financial Statement; (2) the Debtor’s intent; and (3) the Plaintiffs’ reliance. As a result, the complaint states a claim for relief under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based solely on false statements respecting an insider’s financial condition.

Esplanade Enterprises, Inc. v. Horne (In re Horne) · filed 2016-03-28(a)(2)(A)

And because Horne’s false statements and misrepresentations to Miceli were limited to Esplanade’s financial condition, that means all that Miceli has proven are false statements and misrepresentations “respecting ... an insider’s financial condition.”

Section 523(a)(2)(B) governs debts arising from false written statements about a debtor’s financial condition in a loan application.

GulfSouth Credit, Inc. v. Perry (In re Perry) · filed 2016-03-30(a)(2)(B)

Because the debtor allegedly made false representations in a written loan application and related documents, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), not section 523(a)(2)(A), governs the dischargeability of her debt to GulfSouth.

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

Financial Pacific Leasing, LLC v. Kilaru (In re Kilaru) · filed 2016-05-25(a)(2)(B)

Therefore, the Court finds that the Debtor published his PFS with the intent to deceive his creditors. As a result, FPL has satisfied all the elements of section 523(a)(2)(B) to prove that its- debt is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) treats misrepresentations about a debtor’s financial condition, including omissions, as actionable only under subsection (B) and only if made in writing.

Jones v. Owens (In re Owens) · filed 2016-04-06(a)(2)

In short, an exception to discharge claim that is based upon misrepresentations (whether active or silent) regarding a debtor’s financial condition must arise from a writing in order to be actionable in this Circuit and then only under Section 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written statement to describe the debtor’s financial condition; a list of property and its purchase costs alone does not qualify.

Privitera v. Curran (Curran) · filed 2016-08-04(a)(2)(B)

As such, the List of Collateral did not constitute a statement concerning Curran’s financial condition under either interpretation of the phrase and, therefore, Privitera did not sufficiently plead this element of § 523(a)(2)(B) in her complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not cover a settlement agreement that promises payment without stating the debtor’s financial condition.

BBI Architectural Services v. Janney (In re Janney) · filed 2016-09-13(a)(2)(B)

BBI’s claim on this count fails because the settlement agreement is not a writing respecting the debtor’s “financial condition.”

Section 523(a)(2) treats false written statements about a debtor’s financial condition under subsection (B), while subsection (A) excludes statements about financial condition.

Landmark Credit Union v. Sharp (In re Sharp) · filed 2016-10-21(a)(2)

The critical difference for purposes of this decision is that a false written statement of the debtor’s “financial condition” will support an exception to discharge only under section 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor to prove it relied on the debtor’s written financial statements when extending credit.

National Credit Union Administration Board v. Zovkic (In re Zovkic) · filed 2016-11-21(a)(2)(B)

This testimony shows that several years before Raguz began his 2001 fraud, and before he became a rogue agent, he did not consider the statements made in the loan applications entered into evidence to be material to his lending decisions and he did not rely on them. The Board did not prove its case under § 523(a)(2)(B).

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

Security Seed & Chemical, Inc. v. French (In re French) · filed 2016-12-01(a)(2)(B)

Because the Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence all the elements required to except a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), the debt associated with the 2013 Direct Loan is excepted from discharge. ... Absent showing a materially false written document, any reasonable reliance, and any fraudulent intent with respect to the Open Account, the Court cannot except this debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

A creditor does not reasonably rely on a written financial statement under § 523(a)(2)(B) when apparent red flags call for further inquiry and the creditor makes none.

USAmeribank v. Strength (In re Strength) · filed 2016-12-20(a)(2)(B)

A creditor cannot be said to have reasonably relied, pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B), on a financial statement with indicators or “red flags” that would prompt a reasonable person to further inquire into the accuracy of the information.

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

Hurston v. Anzo (In re Anzo) · filed 2016-12-26(a)(2)(B)

First a creditor must actually rely on the false statement; if the reliance would have been reasonable, but there is no actual reliance, § 523(a)(2)(B) is not satisfied. ... After considering all of the evidence, including the documents and testimony, credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the Court finds that Mr. Hurston neither actually nor reasonably relied on the Financial Statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(ii) requires a written statement about the debtor’s or an insider’s overall financial condition; borrowing base certificates that omit substantial assets and liabilities do not qualify.

Fulton, N.A. v. Robbins (In re Robbins) · filed 2016-12-21(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Pursuant to the strict interpretation of the term “financial condition,” borrowing base certificates do not qualify as written statements about a borrower’s financial condition as required by § 523(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) treats a statement about a single asset as one respecting a debtor’s financial condition; a debt induced by such an oral statement may be discharged.

Appling v. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP · filed 2017-02-15(a)(2)(B)(ii)

Because the text is not ambiguous, we hold that “statement[s] respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” may include a statement about a single asset.

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

MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Brower (In re Brower) · filed 2017-03-22(a)(2)(B)

Each of the six factors having been established, I find that Brower’s obligation to the Bank for his guaranty of the Chateau Julien loan is exempted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not cover a share purchase agreement that identifies a business’s owners without representing its assets or liabilities.

Gavin v. Koch · filed 2017-03-29(a)(2)(B)

Furthermore, it appears that even the broad interpretation does not encompass the Share Purchase Agreement, as that document does not represent NAK’s assets or liabilities.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not require a lender to obtain IRS transcripts to verify a borrower’s tax returns when the circumstances give no reason to doubt them.

Banner Bank v. Robertson (In re Robertson) · filed 2017-03-30(a)(2)(B)

Reasonable lenders in these circumstances are not required to skeptically presume, without evidence, that borrowers’ tax returns are not the same as those they filed with the IRS. To impose a requirement on lenders that they obtain tax return transcripts to check against borrowers’ tax returns, as the Defendant suggests, would be to mandate that they view each representation with incredulity requiring verification when circumstances suggest no such verification is necessary.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to plausibly allege a materially false statement that would normally affect a decision to grant credit.

Privitera v. Curran · filed 2017-04-20(a)(2)(B)

To make out a claim that a statement is materially false within the purview of section 523(a)(2)(B), a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the statement misrepresented the kind of information that "would normally affect the decision to grant credit" and thus portrayed a substantially untruthful picture of the debtor's financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires intent to deceive, but does not require intent to withhold repayment.

French v. Security Seed & Chemical, Inc. · filed 2017-04-25(a)(2)(B)

But the plain text of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) defeats this argument, as it does not require an intent to withhold repayment. Instead, it is merely the intent to deceive that is required.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor used a written statement to obtain the debt.

Chesapeake Employers Insurance Co. v. Flores (In re Flores) · filed 2017-09-08(a)(2)(B)

CEIC has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Flores used a written statement and thus its claim under § 523(a)(2)(B) must be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)'s written statement requirement is satisfied when a debtor signs a financial statement prepared by someone else.

Carver Federal Savings Bank v. Cedillo (In re Cedillo) · filed 2017-09-11(a)(2)(B)

The record also shows that Mr. Cedillo signed the PFS, and that this is “sufficient, as a matter of law ... to conclude that the document was ‘written’ by [him].”

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains credit through a materially false written statement about financial condition that the creditor reasonably relies on and that the debtor makes with intent to deceive.

Heritage Bank v. McCracken (In re McCracken) · filed 2018-03-19(a)(2)(B)

Because no genuine dispute exists as to the existence of the § 523(a)(2)(B) elements in this proceeding, summary judgment is granted as to this nondischargeability claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes oral statements about a debtor’s or insider’s overall financial condition from its fraud exception to discharge.

Haler v. Boyington Capital Grp, L.L.C. · filed 2017-12-29(a)(2)(A)

Haler’s representations were “statement[s] respecting . . . financial condition” and therefore outside the scope of § 523(a)(2)(A).

A statement about a single asset can be a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling · filed 2018-06-04(a)(2)(B)

Naturally, then, a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition.”

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not treat a projected construction budget as a statement respecting financial condition when it says nothing about the debtor's net worth or ownership of an asset.

Summit Credit Union v. Goldbeck (In re Goldbeck) · filed 2018-09-07(a)(2)(B)

The projected costs of construction say nothing about Defendant's net worth or whether he owned an asset. And the Facility was not even built and there was no asset to own. The projected balance sheet was merely a forecast about future potential and thus not a representation of fact about financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) applies to alleged misrepresentations about payments to suppliers when the statements do not concern the debtor's overall financial condition.

Willmar Elec. Servs. Corp. v. Dailey (In re Dailey) · filed 2018-09-19(a)(2)(A)

Because the Lien Waivers in question did not concern Dailey's or SequrComm's overall financial condition, the Bankruptcy Court properly analyzed Willmar's claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a judgment debt from discharge when it arises from fraudulent statements about ownership of individual homes.

Town of Hingham v. Sirikanjanachai (In re Sirikanjanachai) · filed 2018-11-07(a)(2)(A)

The three representations in question are not broad enough in scope to constitute "statements respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition" within the meaning of § 523(a)(2). Accordingly, the three statements are appropriately subject to subsection (a)(2)(A). All the requirements of that subsection having been satisfied as to each of the three, each is a further basis for excepting the judgment obligations from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to establish reasonable reliance and intent to deceive to except a debt based on a false written financial statement.

Krieger Craftsmen, Inc. v. Ostosh (In re Ostosh) · filed 2018-09-20(a)(2)(B)

Because the Plaintiff has failed to establish the reliance and intent elements of its § 523(a)(2)(B) claim, that count of its complaint shall be dismissed for no cause of action.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a statement about a debtor’s or insider’s single liability to be in writing for the exception to discharge to apply.

Crocker v. Matthews (In re Matthews) · filed 2019-04-30(a)(2)(B)

It follows from this reasoning that a statement about a single liability-namely, the amount owed by BHB to the landlord or Domco-is also a statement respecting financial condition that § 523(a)(2)(B) requires be made in writing for the exception to discharge to apply.

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

Adams Bank & Trust v. Dunlop · filed 2019-06-05(a)(2)(B)

In this case, the evidence does not establish either reliance or intent.

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

TG Atl. Boulevard, LLC v. Fricks (In re Fricks) · filed 2019-07-12(a)(2)(B)

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Exhibits attached to the Motion do not show as an undisputed fact that the Plaintiff reasonably relied on the financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove it actually relied on the debtor’s written financial statement before its reliance can be reasonable.

Benchmark Bank v. Stapleton · filed 2019-07-18(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Without the existence of actual reliance, there can be no reasonable reliance.

A financial statement need not be signed to satisfy § 523(a)(2)(B), but the creditor must show that the statement is attributable to the debtor.

Benchmark Bank v. Stapleton · filed 2019-07-26(a)(2)(B)

A financial statement need not be signed by the debtor in order to satisfy the threshold element of the requirement of a writing; however, it must be shown that the allegedly false written statement is properly attributable to the debtor.

A written representation that a particular asset will be used to pay a creditor can support a plausible claim under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Elliott v. Piazza, III · filed 2019-09-17(a)(2)(B)

I find that the representations made by Piazza in the First Email are similar to the representations made by the debtor in Lamar. In both cases, the debtor represented that a particular asset or claim would be used to pay the creditor. Importantly, Piazza’s representation was written, unlike those of the debtor in Lamar. ... I conclude that a plausible claim for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B) has been pled in Count II of the Amended Complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) covers a farm loan application and attached acreage list when they directly relate to the debtor’s financial condition.

Blankenship v. AGRIFUND, LLC · filed 2019-10-21(a)(2)(B)

This Court finds that the Application and list of leases constitute written statements respecting the Debtor’s financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on statements respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

Gordon v. Etheridge · filed 2019-12-10(a)(2)(A)

Any alleged misrepresentations by Defendants regarding their assets and liabilities in their Steri-Clean franchise application and credit card applications are statements respecting Defendants’ financial condition, which are not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a qualifying debt or extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to be obtained through a false financial statement; a reaffirmation that does not change existing obligations does not qualify.

KLOSS v. HUSSAIN · filed 2020-03-16(a)(2)(B)

The plain words of Section 523(a)(2) require that a qualifying debt, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of a qualifying credit, must be “obtained by” a false financial statement. ... As a legal matter, because the 2013 Reaffirmation did not affect Kloss’s legal obligations with respect to the 2008 Loan, there was never any extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit that was “obtained by” the 2013 Reaffirmation.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor’s written financial statement was materially false; a lower sale price nearly two years later alone does not establish falsity.

Zelda Development, LLC v. Landon · filed 2020-03-31(a)(2)(B)

Almost two years passed between the compilation of the 2015 PFS and the 2017 sale of BRG’s assets; the relationship between those two values is too remote to support an inference that the relevant Financial Documents were inaccurate or false.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when credit was obtained through a false written statement about financial condition, made with intent to deceive and reasonably relied on by the creditor.

Webster Business Credit Corporation v. Smith · filed 2020-04-14(a)(2)(B)

To prevail on its § 523(a)(2)(B) claim, Webster must prove that (1) the debt was for an extension of credit; (2) Smith used a written statement to obtain the credit; (3) the statement was with respect to Continental’s financial condition; (4) the written statement was false; (5) Smith intended to deceive Webster when he made the false written statement; and (6) Webster reasonably relied on the false statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a loan from discharge when the debtor obtains it through a materially false written financial statement made with intent to deceive and reasonably relied on by the creditor.

UNITED MIDWEST SAVINGS BANK dba MIDWEST BUSINESS C v. RAIFFE · filed 2020-05-08(a)(2)(B)

Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff is non-dischargeable under §523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains credit through a materially false written statement about her financial condition, made with intent to deceive and reasonably relied on by the creditor.

Choice Credit, LLC v. Dent · filed 2020-07-10(a)(2)(B)

Choice proved that Dent's debt to it is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written statement about financial condition; payroll checks and oral assurances do not satisfy that requirement.

Obed Saul Barragan Reyes - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-07-15(a)(2)(B)

Therefore, the Court finds that the checks at issue are not ‘statements in writing’ for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B) and Reyes’ Motion with respect to claims asserted under § 523(a)(2)(B) is therefore granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor to reasonably rely on a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition; known warning signs can require the creditor to investigate.

Brady v. Pliura · filed 2020-11-05(a)(2)(B)(iii)

That fact alone is a red flag which would trigger an obligation for Dr. Pliura to conduct even a minimal investigation into the Rockingham Properties, such as performing a title or lien search of the property, requesting the properties’ financial statement, or obtaining an updated appraisal prior to loaning $1 million.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written statement by the debtor; a transcript of the debtor's oral statement at a hearing does not satisfy that requirement without the debtor's adoption of it.

America's Home Place, Inc. v. Edwards · filed 2020-11-13(a)(2)(B)

The transcript of the August 2, 2016 hearing is not a written statement within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(2)(B), even if Edwards's statement were untruthful.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a statement in writing; silence about a material fact does not qualify.

Swift Financial, LLC Servicing Agent for WebBank e v. Opoku · filed 2020-12-02(a)(2)(B)

Silence regarding the existence of a material fact does not constitute a statement which can properly fall under the auspices of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that a written statement about the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition was materially false and that the creditor actually relied on it when making the loan.

Bank Northwest v. Clevenger · filed 2020-12-29(a)(2)(B)

Though the court determines David made a false written statement respecting an insider’s financial condition with the intent to deceive the bank, the court determines that the misrepresentation was not material and the bank did not actually rely on the false statement about the tractor’s ownership when deciding to make the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to receive the written financial statement before the debt is created in order to rely on it.

Dubbeld v. Diget · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(B)

Implicit in this section’s requirement that the Plaintiff reasonably relied on the written statement is the requirement that the written statement be delivered to the Plaintiff prior to the creation of the debt.

Failure to repay a promissory note according to its terms does not, by itself, make the note materially false under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Hopewell v. Stephens · filed 2021-09-29(a)(2)(B)

Debtor may not have repaid the Loan according to the Note’s terms, but that does not make the Note materially false.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires facts supporting a plausible claim that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor through a written statement about the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

In Re: Michelle A. Veale · filed 2022-10-25(a)(2)(B)

In sum, I agree with the Bankruptcy Court that the facts alleged in the Complaint do not support any plausible claims under § 523(a)(2)(B) based on the Alleged Misrepresentations concerning either the Debtor’s individual financial condition or that of Retro.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a false written financial statement to prove reasonable reliance and the debtor’s intent to deceive.

Gbaz, Inc. v. Conte · filed 2022-11-21(a)(2)(B)

For the reasons stated above, GBAZ is not entitled to summary judgment on its nondischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2)(B) against the Contes. Genuine issues of material fact remain regarding both the reasonableness of GBAZ’s reliance and on the Contes’ intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)'s writing requirement can be met by an unsigned financial statement the debtor adopted to obtain credit.

Producers Livestock Marketing Association v. Del Toro · filed 2023-03-28(a)(2)(B)

Though a written statement is a prerequisite to liability under § 523(a)(2)(B), there is a written statement here: the February 19, 2018, personal financial statement. Id. at *16; PX34. It is unsigned, but Del Toro adopted it.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the debtor used a materially false written financial statement with intent to deceive; a genuine dispute about that intent prevents summary judgment.

Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA v. Shireman · filed 2023-03-31(a)(2)(B)

Having reviewed the designated evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that whether Debtors intended to deceive Plaintiff by making or producing materially false Balance Sheets is a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate for claims arising under § 523(a)(2)(B).

A creditor who establishes none of the elements required by § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B) cannot except the debt from discharge under either provision.

Virginia Commercial Finance LLC v. Lewis · filed 2023-09-19(a)(2)(A) and (B)

Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the elements necessary to successfully maintain an exception to discharge under §§523(a)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to rely on a written statement when the debt is incurred; a statement made afterward cannot support the exception to discharge.

Pearsall v. Hurd · filed 2025-03-26(a)(2)(B)

Statements made after the debt was incurred cannot establish a claim of relief under this Section.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts unemployment overpayments from discharge when a debtor obtains benefits through materially false written statements about income on which the agency reasonably relies, made with intent to deceive.

State of Kansas, ex rel., Amber Shultz, Secretary v. Anderson · filed 2025-07-11(a)(2)(B)

Thus, the Court finds that KDOL has satisfied all five requirements to show its claim is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains credit through a materially false written statement about the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition, the creditor reasonably relies on it, and the debtor intends to deceive.

First National Bank of Groton v. Dow · filed 2025-08-12(a)(2)(B)

In light of the evidence presented, the Court finds Plaintiff has satisfied its burden under section 523(a)(2)(B) and the debt owed to Plaintiff for the balance of the Loan is therefore not dischargeable.

A debt remains dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B) when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor’s written financial statement was materially false.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2025-09-12(a)(2)(B)

Because Tower has not met its burden of proving that most critical element of § 523(a)(2)(B), the court’s inquiry ends here, and the court need not reach the remaining elements of § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts an extension of credit from discharge when the debtor materially misrepresents his financial condition in writing and the creditor reasonably relies on the statement.

John Deere Company v. Charles J. Myers and Joan E. Myers · filed 1992-04-30(a)(2)(B)

John Deere Company prevailed in this bankruptcy court action, instituted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), which excepts an extension of credit from discharge in bankruptcy if the debtor materially misrepresents his financial condition in writing, and credit is obtained by the creditor's reasonable reliance on the misleading financial statement. ... We, therefore, AFFIRM the decision of the Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, for the reasons set forth in his August 28, 1991, opinion and order.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false and intended to deceive the creditor; an honest belief that it was true defeats those elements.

In Re Guggiero · filed 2008-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, given that Defendant was a truthful and credible witness who honestly believed that he was making accurate representations to Plaintiff at the time he executed the Lease and at the time he spoke to Mann, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to establish the second and third elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to prove that the debtor knew it was false and intended to deceive the creditor.

VGM Financial Services v. Ruggiero (In re Ruggiero) · filed 2008-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all five elements required to make a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot prevail under this provision.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor’s fraud occurs only after the creditor has finished providing the services that gave rise to the debt.

Massof v. Lages (In Re Lages) · filed 2008-05-05(a)(2)(A)

Conduct on debtors’ part indicating actual fraud on their part after that time does not fall within the scope of § 523(a)(2)(A) and does not warrant the conclusion that the debt they owe plaintiff is excluded from discharge by the provision.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor used fraud to obtain the money; later fraud does not suffice.

Haas v. Trammell (In Re Trammell) · filed 2008-05-02(a)(2)(A)

A plain reading of § 523(a)(2)(A) demonstrates that Congress did not except from discharge any debt incurred as a result of fraud, but only those debts in which the debtor used fraudulent means to obtain the money.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming false pretenses or a false representation to establish justifiable reliance.

Goldberg v. Ojeda (In Re Ojeda) · filed 2008-04-22(a)(2)(A)

In sum, the Court finds that Gail failed to establish justifiable reliance. As a result, the Ojedas’ debt to Gail is dischargea-ble and does not fall within the § 523(a)(2)(A) exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for each loan advance; reliance supporting an initial loan does not necessarily make a later advance nondischargeable.

In Re Riebesell · filed 2008-05-23(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that with respect to all but the last $45,000.00 loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, there was "justifiable reliance." However, as to the additional $45,000.00 advanced in 2003 there was no "justifiable reliance" on the part of the Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor acted with fraudulent intent; a claimed mistake about ownership does not defeat that finding when the court rejects it.

Dubois v. Lindsley (In Re Lindsley) · filed 2008-04-22(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the central question is whether Debtor acted with the requisite intent to complete the case for fraud, and nondis-chargeability, under Section 523(a)(2)(A). For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Debtor’s claims of ignorance and misunderstanding are wholly unconvincing and therefore finds that he acted with an abundance of fraudulent intent. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Plaintiffs shall be excepted from Mr. Lindsley’s Discharge in this Chapter 7 case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor knowingly made a false representation.

G.E. Money Bank v. Wyble (In Re Wyble) · filed 2008-05-14(a)(2)(A)

The Court need not address the last three elements, for if Debtor did not knowingly make a false representation, she could not have intended to deceive Creditor, nor could Creditor have relied upon the false representation to its detriment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and proximate cause by a preponderance of the evidence.

Liberty Savings Bank, FSB v. McClintic (In Re McClintic) · filed 2008-03-12(a)(2)(A)

Here, the Plaintiff, that bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, has not provided critical information to support a finding of the requisite elements of intent to deceive, justifiable reliance and proximate cause.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only if it arises from the debtor's fraud; statutory disgorgement that does not arise from the fraud remains dischargeable.

Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In Re Sabban) · filed 2008-02-20(a)(2)(A)

Given that we are to construe strictly the exceptions to discharge and that the exception under section 523(a)(2)(A) is limited to debts arising from a debtor's fraudulent conduct, we conclude that the § 7031(b) award is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes all damages arising from fraud nondischargeable.

Park v. Chang (In Re Park) · filed 2008-03-25(a)(2)(A)

The district court did not err in concluding that the damages found in the state court action arose from the Parks’ fraud and were ... thus not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows fraudulent intent to be inferred from reckless disregard of the facts, but recklessness is not a separate element of the claim.

Cobra Well Testers v. Carlson · filed 2008-01-25(a)(2)(A)

To begin with, the question of whether Debtor acted with a reckless disregard of the facts is not an element of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, but is instead simply a means of proving fraudulent intent by inference.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove reliance on the debtor’s false representation and that the reliance was justified.

Alta One Federal Credit Union v. Bumgarner (In Re Bumgarner) · filed 2007-12-18(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has not established the second and third elements for non-dischargeability pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiff presented no evidence establishing it relied on a false representation by the Debtors in connection with the closed Loan 25 withdrawals. It presented no evidence any such reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a court to consider the parties’ relationship and trust when deciding whether reliance on a false representation was justified.

Melikyan v. Khnkoyan · filed 2008-01-16(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it considered the nature of the relationship between the women, including the trust that Khnkoyan placed in Chukhian as a friend and colleague and a person well-regarded by the Armenian community in Los Angeles, in concluding that Khnkoyan’s reliance was justified under § 523(a)(2)(A) (providing an exception to discharge “to the extent [the money is] obtained by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud”).

In a fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), reliance, intent to defraud, causation of damages, and materiality are questions of fact.

Hsieh v. Pei Ti Tung (In re Pei Ti Tung) · filed 2007-11-02(a)(2)(A)

Cheng-Lu Hsieh timely brought an adversary proceeding asserting the nondis-chargeability of her claim against Tung pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), an exception in the Bankruptcy Code that prevents the discharge of debts resulting from fraud. ... Whether a creditor relied upon false statements is a question of fact, as are the issues of intent to defraud, proximate causation of damages, and the materiality of the alleged fraud. ... We have reviewed the record and find no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to prove the debtor’s intent to deceive.

Friendly Finance Service-Eastgate Inc. v. Dorsey (In Re Dorsey) · filed 2007-10-23(a)(2)

A creditor must prove the debtor’s intent to deceive in order to obtain a non- dischargeability judgment under both § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can cover an extension or renewal of credit when a creditor releases a lien in exchange for a debtor’s promise to pay an existing debt.

McKee Builders, Inc. v. Knight (In Re Knight) · filed 2007-10-02(a)(2)(A)

Although the debtors’ debt to the plaintiff was initially created by the February 2003 contract and the services performed by plaintiff pursuant to that contract, an extension or renewal of credit occurred when the parties settled their dispute over the construction contract by the debtors executing a note for the balance owed plaintiff, in return for the plaintiffs release of its lien.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require an express misrepresentation to except a debt arising from false pretenses or actual fraud from discharge.

Schafer v. Rapp (In Re Rapp) · filed 2007-09-18(a)(2)(A)

By contrast, an express misrepresentation by the debtor need not be shown to establish a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on false pretenses or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts for money or property obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Chapman v. Fuget (In Re Fuget) · filed 2006-03-14(a)(2)(A)

FURTHER, Debtors defrauded Plaintiff of $128,000.00 which is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for a false representation claim, which a creditor cannot show when documents in the creditor’s possession contradict the alleged representation.

Bletnitsky v. Jairath (In Re Jairath) · filed 2001-03-08(a)(2)(A)

His disregard of that information is fatal to his first claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), because he cannot claim justifiable reliance on an inferred misrepresentation contradicted by both the Contract and an official report in his hands.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor suffers damages through justifiable reliance on a representation the debtor knew or should have known was false.

Alfred Almeder v. · filed 2001-02-06(a)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Court stated that in order to prevail on their complaint, the Plaintiffs were required to show that the Debtor made a false representation, that he knew or should have known it was false, and that the Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representation, resulting in damages to them. ... The Debtor does not challenge the legal standard utilized by the Bankruptcy Court, and the Panel rules that the Bankruptcy Court applied the proper legal standard in determining the exception to discharge under § 523 (a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when fraud enables the debtor to obtain property or an extension or renewal of credit.

Burt v. Maurer (In Re Maurer) · filed 2000-12-22(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Maurer’s argument that she obtained nothing as a result of her fraudulent conduct must fail, and we affirm the bankruptcy court’s determination that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the state fraud judgment from discharge. Either Maurer obtained the property in a new transaction which was tainted by fraud, or alternatively, what happened in February 1988 was an extension or renewal of credit originally granted, and either would suffice to support the decision of the bankruptcy judge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats silence or deliberate nondisclosure as a false representation when a duty to disclose exists, but requires intent to deceive.

Lee-Benner v. Gergely · filed 2000-12-15(a)(2)(A)

Although we agree with the district court that silence or a deliberate failure to disclose when a duty to disclose exists can constitute a false representation under § 523(a)(2), ... on this record the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Dr. Gergely lacked the required intent to deceive.

A promise of future performance can support an exception to discharge if the debtor made it with a present undisclosed intent not to perform, which the creditor must prove.

Wade, Inc. v. Ellington (In re Ellington) · filed 2000-09-12(a)(2)

The debtor contends that any representations that he made were not fraudulent, in a legal context, because they were promissory in nature, i.e., they were promises predicated on future performance. The debtor’s position is generally correct. However, there is an exception to the general rule if the debtor’s promises were made with a present undisclosed intent not to perform in the future. This exception must be proved by Wade.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from fraud from discharge even if the debtor did not personally benefit from the fraud.

National Development Services, Inc. v. Denbleyker (In Re Denbleyker) · filed 2000-08-11(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require that the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant benefitted in any way from his fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an accident debt from discharge merely because the debtor drove without insurance; the creditor must show false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

White v. Grisham (In Re Grisham) · filed 1995-01-19(a)(2)(A)

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), the section elected by plaintiff, defendant’s action in driving without insurance may have been a violation of a state statute, but as to plaintiff, it does not constitute false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud to exist when the debtor obtains money, property, or services and to be the means of obtaining them.

Wilcoxon Construction, Inc. v. Woodall (In Re Woodall) · filed 1995-01-13(a)(2)(A)

To invoke § 523(a)(2), the fraud must have existed at the time of, and been the methodology by which, the money, property or services were obtained.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a debtor to personally benefit from property obtained through fraud for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Naimo (In Re Naimo) · filed 1994-12-20(a)(2)(A)

We agree with those cases which do not confine § 523(a)(2)(A) to instances where a debtor receives a direct benefit from such actions.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make earlier advances nondischargeable when later fraud induces a new advance but does not renew or extend the earlier obligation.

Wingate v. Attalla (In Re Attalla) · filed 1994-12-16(a)(2)(A)

Thus, it cannot be found based on this record that the plaintiffs “renewed” the loan or investment as of that date in any meaningful sense relevant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, even if the Court should find that the defendant could no longer rely on the December 1980 repayment due date under the 1988 agreements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a fraud debt to be excepted from discharge when the debtor benefits indirectly through an affiliated entity, even if the debtor does not receive the money directly.

Arm v. A. Lindsay Morrison, M.D., Inc. (In Re Arm) · filed 1994-12-09(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not limit exception from discharge of compensatory damages arising from a fraud committed by an affiliation to that certain portion of the money, property or services obtained directly by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a reckless misrepresentation nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relies on it and suffers harm.

Meggs v. Booth (In Re Booth) · filed 1994-12-01(a)(2)(A)

Fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require that the defendant intended to mislead the plaintiffs—only that he/she did so recklessly.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for false pretenses merely because the debtor issued postdated checks that were later dishonored.

Bobilya Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, Inc. v. Gross (In Re Gross) · filed 1994-11-30(a)(2)(A)

This court concludes that Bobilya Chrysler has simply not proven that Gross’s actions of postdating the checks to Bobilya Chrysler during the first week of June 1992 constituted “false pretenses” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), reckless disregard for the truth can satisfy the knowledge and intent to deceive elements of actual fraud.

De La Cruz v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 1994-10-24(a)(2)(A)

The Court’s finds that Cohen’s reckless disregard for the truth as demonstrated by his failure to inquire about rent control satisfies both the knowledge element and the intent to deceive element required under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses to prove the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Corestates Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Richardson (In Re Richardson) · filed 1994-10-21(a)(2)(A)

Since the plaintiff Corestates has failed to establish the defendant’s intention to deceive the creditor, it is not necessary for the Court to address the remaining elements necessary to except this debt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s false representation induces payment, even if the debtor did not make it directly to the paying creditor.

Heeter v. Birt (In Re Birt) · filed 1994-10-14(a)(2)(A)

The fact that Birt did not make misrepresentations with regard to the Eneo Windows directly to Frances is insignificant. Birt made the misrepresentations with the intent to deceive BF2, Celeste, BFH and Frances. Frances actually relied on Birt’s misrepresentations in issuing the Check to Birt.

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

Berr v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (In Re BERR) · filed 1994-09-14(a)(2)(B)

As previously stated, § 523(a)(2)(B) requires that the creditor reasonably rely on the debtor's representations within the official loan documents. ... The requirements of § 523(a)(2)(B) have not been met.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to rely on the debtor’s false representation; representations made to a third party do not satisfy that requirement when the creditor did not rely on them.

Beshears v. Beshears (In re Beshears) · filed 1994-09-09(a)(2)(A)

It is the opinion of this Court that the plaintiff cannot prevail on her second theory of fraud because the plaintiff did not rely on any representations made by the defendant to First Alabama Bank.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove actual reliance on a false written financial statement to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Frankford Bank v. Chryst (In Re Chryst) · filed 1994-10-03(a)(2)(B)

These findings by the Court are not sufficient, however, to deny Debtor her discharge since the Bank must prove each element of § 523(a)(2)(B) to prevail and it failed to establish the third element, i.e., it actually relied upon the false information in the financial statements in deciding to make the Loans.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge for actual fraud only if the creditor proves every fraud element by a preponderance of the evidence.

At & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Shaw (In Re Shaw) · filed 1994-08-15(a)(2)(A)

Having rejected the implied representation theory of non-dischargeability of credit card debt plaintiff may still proceed under the actual fraud provision in § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The party claiming the exception to discharge has the burden of proving each of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Consequently, plaintiff has not sustained its burden of establishing each of the elements necessary to establish actual fraud and non-dis-chargeability of defendant’s debt to plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from actual fraud nondischargeable when the debtor acted with intent to defraud.

Hellmann v. Mask (In Re Mask) · filed 1994-08-24(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds and concludes further that the Defendant’s actions in executing these credit card invoices and credit slips were performed with an intent to defraud the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s obligations as a result thereof are not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) based upon actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly makes material misrepresentations to obtain a loan, intending to mislead the lender, and the lender relies and is damaged.

In Re Gordon Wayne Jenkins Jolene Jenkins, Debtor. First Interstate Bank of Idaho v. Jenkins · filed 1994-08-12(a)(2)

While there are disputes regarding the facts of the case, the record does support the determination that Jenkins misrepresented material facts which he knew to be false and that he did so with the intent to mislead the Bank. He succeeded. The Bank did justifiably and reasonably rely and was damaged. Those facts support the judgment in this case. See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2)(A) and (B); In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d 1454, 1457 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam); In re Siriani, 967 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir.1992).

For a loan allegedly obtained through a false representation, Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation and intended to deceive the creditor at the time of the loan.

In Re Robert A. Nelson, Debtor. Mercedes Williams v. Nelson · filed 1994-07-26(a)(2)(A)

Because Williams did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that Nelson made a misrepresentation or that he intended to deceive her at the time of the loan, she was not entitled to relief under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor made a false representation on which the creditor relied.

Meltzer v. Mantovani (In Re Meltzer) · filed 1994-08-12(a)(2)(A)

It is wéll established that a creditor has the burden of proving each element of § 523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Although the improvements to the home appear to have been effectuated by Creditor with Debtor’s consent, Debtor made no statements or representations to Creditor upon which she relied which induced Creditor to pay for such improvements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits the FDIC as receiver to rely on contemporaneous loan-file documents when seeking to except a fraudulently incurred debt from discharge, without proving actual reliance.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1990-04-13(a)(2)(A)

Vernon Savings, as co-conspirator with the Smiths, could not sustain against the Smiths an action under § 523(a)(2)(A) because Vernon Savings could not show it reasonably relied on the deceptive closing statement and loan applications. However, the FDIC need not show actual reliance. The FDIC as receiver may, as a matter of law, reasonably rely on the documents in the loan file contemporaneous with the making of a loan, such as the closing statement, loan application, loan committee approvals and the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor breached a contract; the creditor must establish that the debtor intended not to perform when entering it.

First Baptist Church v. Maurer (In Re Maurer) · filed 1990-04-04(a)(2)(A)

It is-well established that a finding of fraud cannot be premised upon a mere breach of contract. Instead, to be actionable as fraud, the plaintiff must establish that the debtor entered into the contract with the intent of never complying with its terms.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor received a benefit before a fraud debt can be excepted from discharge.

McHenry v. Ward (In Re Ward) · filed 1990-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Whether a benefit to the debtor is required in order to block discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is a question of law not specifically decided in this Circuit. ... I also find its reasoning to be the most persuasive, thus, I cannot find error in the bankruptcy court’s requirement of proof of benefit to the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an existing debt from discharge when fraud obtains more time to pay it, without requiring proof that the delay reduced the creditor’s recovery.

In Re R. Clare Gerlach and Lois F. Gerlach, Debtors. John Deere Company v. R. Clare Gerlach and Lois F. Gerlach · filed 1990-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2), by its terms, only requires an objecting creditor to prove an extension of credit was “obtained by” fraud for the debt to be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor knowingly uses worthless checks to obtain goods and the creditor reasonably relies on them and suffers a loss.

Designed Flooring Distributors, Inc. v. Wagenti (In Re Wagenti) · filed 1990-02-07(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the foregoing facts, this Court finds that the creditor has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and therefore the debt is nondischargeable.

A worthless check alone does not make a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A); the creditor must prove an intent to deceive.

Weitzer v. Lyman (In re Lyman) · filed 1990-02-22(a)(2)(A)

This Court, facing a similar factual situation, concluded that the issuance of a worthless check does not, in and of itself, give rise to a claim of nondischargeability. ... This Court expressly finds that the evidence presented at trial does not demonstrate that the defendant made any representations with the intention of deceiving the plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising when a debtor obtains money through false pretenses amounting to actual fraud.

Atassi v. McLaren (In Re McLaren) · filed 1990-01-26(a)(2)(A)

We need not reach this issue, however, since it is clear that the Debtor obtained the $100,000 by false pretenses amounting to actual fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a failure to disclose a material fact to count as a fraudulent misrepresentation even without a fiduciary or confidential relationship.

Texas Venture Partners v. Christian (In Re Christian) · filed 1989-12-27(a)(2)(A)

The weight of the case law supports the plaintiffs position that a failure to disclose can constitute a misrepresentation for non-dischargeability purposes even without a finding of a fiduciary or confidential relationship.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt arising from an insufficient-funds check nondischargeable when the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when obtaining property.

Kline's Service Center, Inc. v. Fitzgerald (In Re Fitzgerald) · filed 1989-12-18(a)(2)(A)

This overall conduct by the Defendant evinces to this Court an intent to deceive the Plaintiff from the time the Plaintiff told the Defendant he could place the insurance check in his own account rather than endorse it over to the Plaintiff, and thus goes beyond the mere issuance of a check against an account that has insufficient funds therein which, standing alone, would be a dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) make a judgment for the debtor’s fraudulent diversion of buyers’ payments nondischargeable.

Ambrose v. St. Laurent (In Re St. Laurent) · filed 1989-11-16(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The Debtor commited a fraud upon the Plaintiffs; therefore, the Court will give collateral estoppel effect to the state court judgment. ... Based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that the state court judgment is non-disehargeable under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) and Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud, including the debtor’s intent to deceive, to except a debt from discharge.

Charles Chips of Virginia, Inc. v. Pappas (In re Pappas) · filed 1989-10-13(a)(2)(A)

“Actual” fraud precluding discharge, as declared in the law mentioned above, requires this Court to focus on the Debtor’s actual state of mind at the time he gave the checks to Charles Chips, Inc.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor gives an insufficient-funds check to pay for goods already delivered.

Buckeye Candy Co. v. Ritzer (In Re Ritzer) · filed 1989-10-04(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Buckeye Candy did not rely upon the check it received the succeeding Monday in making deliveries on the prior Tuesday. Likewise, no money or property was obtained by Ritzer as a result of “NSF” checks since the checks were merely presented in an attempt to pay antecedent debt.

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), FSLIC as receiver is deemed to rely on representations in the institution's loan files without proving that the institution actually relied on them.

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Stefanoff (In Re Stefanoff) · filed 1989-10-03(a)(2)(A)

However, FSLIC need not prove actual reliance by Victor Savings to establish its case under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Rather, FSLIC is deemed as a matter of law to have relied solely on the written records of Victor Savings as they existed at the time FSLIC was appointed receiver for the institution.