11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when intentional misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts causes a creditor who relied on the deception to suffer a loss.

Smith v. Cravey (In Re Cravey) · filed 1989-09-29(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the representations of the defendants and have suffered damages. The judgment issued by the Nassau County Circuit Court concerning the sale of this property by the defendants to the plaintiffs is an exception from discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor can plead a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim by alleging that the debtor promised services without intending to perform them in order to obtain a deposit.

Brown v. Sibley (In Re Sibley) · filed 1987-03-10(a)(2)(A)

Although the Claimant s complaint is not well-drafted, we cannot say that it does not give enough notice to the Debtor of the alleged fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). Assuming the truth of the Claimants’ facts and drawing all favorable inferences from them, fraud to obtain property could exist here. The best case for the Claimants is that the Debtor promised services solely in order to get a downpayment, without any intention of actually performing those services.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat use of an authorized credit card as an implied representation of the debtor’s ability or intent to pay.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Quick (In Re Quick) · filed 1987-03-03(a)(2)(A)

Rather, at issue here is whether the Court should follow the “implied representation” analysis used by many courts in dischargeability actions involving bank credit cards. For the reasons expressed in the Roddenberry case, this Court declines to do so.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud; a general consent judgment alone does not establish that a debt is nondischargeable.

Commanders Quartet v. Hefner (In Re Hefner) · filed 1986-12-31(a)(2)(A)

In the present case, the materials submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment show only that the state court judgment is based on the consent of the debtor. There is no evidence to support a finding of the fraud required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to except the debt from the debtor’s discharge. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is therefore due to be denied, as material facts remain to be proved.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through fraud.

Taylor Electric Co. v. Ettinger (In re Ettinger) · filed 1987-01-21(a)(2)

The Court concludes that the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that those checks were fraudulently written by the defendant, and therefore are excepted from the discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge to prove a materially false representation, intent to deceive, and reliance.

Comerica Bank-Midwest v. Kouloumbris · filed 1986-12-19(a)(2)(A)

Comerica has not, therefore, demonstrated that Mr. Kouloum-bris’ debt involved a false representation, as required by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor challenging a credit card debt to establish that the debtor intended not to pay when making the charge if the card was valid and had not been revoked.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Blackburn (In Re Blackburn) · filed 1987-01-12(a)(2)(A)

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), if the debtor did not obtain the credit card fraudulently or use the card after being notified of its revocation, the objecting creditor must establish the debtor’s present intent not to pay for the goods purchased on credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove the debtor intended to deceive before a debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud.

Patrick v. Hicks (In re Hicks) · filed 1986-12-11(a)(2)(A)

It was plaintiffs burden to prove that defendant Hicks had an intent to deceive the plaintiff — which he has failed to do. The court is compelled therefore to find that any debt which the defendant may owe the plaintiff does not fall within the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and hence is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge only when the debtor obtained the loan through fraud; fraud occurring after the loan was made does not suffice.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Maranzino (In Re Maranzino) · filed 1986-11-25(a)(2)(A)

In order for a debt to be excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A), the loans must have been “obtained by” fraud in the inception.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising when a debtor accepts money for a specific purpose without intending to use it for that purpose.

Miller v. Blagaich (In Re Blagaich) · filed 1986-11-24(a)(2)(A)

Included within the ambit of the actual fraud provisions of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code is the conversion of funds by a debtor who is entrusted with money to be used for a specific purpose where no apparent intention exists for using the money for that purpose.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt for legal services from discharge without proof that the debtor obtained the services through fraud.

Sprague, Thall & Albert v. Woerner (In Re Woerner) · filed 1986-11-12(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs Complaint for a determination of the non-dischargeability of the Debtor’s obligation for the Plaintiffs legal services for the Debtor must be dismissed for lack of any proof as to any fraudulent conduct on the part of the Debtor in obtaining those services. Therefore, the Debtor’s debt of $149,229.83 owed to the Plaintiff is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts cash advances from discharge as fraud when debtors incur them without a reasonable likelihood of repayment.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Sterling (In re Sterling) · filed 1986-11-07(a)(2)(A)

Since there was no reasonable likelihood of the debtors being able to repay this, or any of their then existing debts, their conduct constitutes fraud within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) includes knowing manipulation used to cheat others.

Levy v. Runnells (In Re Landbank Equity Corp.) · filed 1986-11-06(a)(2)(A)

Simply put, being in the center of a stew with knowledge, with nothing at arms’ length, and as a conductor through which the manipulations of ninety entities passed is clearly fraud. ... Always wishing we had said it better, that is a superb definition of the fraud codified in the requisite statute, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove reliance on the debtor’s false information to except a debt from discharge.

Colonial Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Routon (In re Routon) · filed 1986-10-15(a)(2)(A)

The burden of proving each of these elements is Colonial’s. Assuming, without deciding, that Colonial proved the first two elements, Colonial’s claim to relief fails because it did not prove the third element, reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation and creditor reliance to except a debt from discharge.

Peoples State Bank & Trust Co. v. Sayler (In Re Sayler) · filed 1986-10-10(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the Court concludes that there was no misrepresentation and if there were PSB did not rely thereon and therefore PSB’s complaint under § 523(a)(2)(A) fails.

Section 523(a)(2)(C) does not apply to debt incurred to purchase index options because that debt is not a consumer debt.

Interstate Securities Corp. v. Costantino (In Re Costantino) · filed 1986-08-29(a)(2)(C)

The debt incurred in the purchase of the index options is not a consumer debt; therefore, § 523(a)(2)(C), which relates only to consumer debts, is of no aid to the plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud in obtaining the money; a business’s later failure alone does not establish fraud.

Woodams v. Cruickshank (In Re Cruickshank) · filed 1986-08-19(a)(2)(A)

The proof submitted at the trial did not indicate that the debtor used false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud in obtaining the loans from Ms. Woo-dams. The purpose of the loans was for the opening of a roller skating related business. That opening actually took place. The fact that the business was unsuccessful after two and one-half years of operation and the fact that perhaps the business was not run in the most professional manner does not imply any falsity or fraud in the initial obtaining of the funds in question.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card charges nondischargeable when the debtor had no present intention to pay them.

Sears v. Faulk (In Re Faulk) · filed 1986-08-18(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Defendant had no present intention to pay for the charges incurred between December 3, 1984 and December 19, 1984 and these charges were fraudulently made by the Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud and intent to deceive; a willful breach of contract alone does not establish nondischargeability.

Standex International GmbH v. Bosselait (In Re Bosselait) · filed 1986-07-24(a)(2)(A)

While it is apparent that Bosselait may have wilfully breached his employment contract with Standex, which is evident from the translations provided by both parties, the Court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that such conduct rises to the level of fraud necessary to find the debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) and that Bosselait had the intent to deceive required by that subsection.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly makes a representation to deceive a creditor, the creditor relies on it, and the representation causes loss.

Allianz Insurance v. Taylor (In re Taylor) · filed 1986-07-02(a)(2)(A)

This Court has previously set forth the elements necessary to prove a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). In In re Hazelwood, 43 B.R. 208, 211 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1984), this Court held that an allegation of actual fraud or false pretenses must be made out by showing: (1) that the debtor made the representations; (2) that at the time of making the representations the debtor knew they were false; (3) that the debtor made the representations with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as a result of the representations having been made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debt was obtained through fraud or false pretenses; a promissory note alone does not establish that.

Hartwig v. Medlin (In Re Medlin) · filed 1986-08-25(a)(2)(A)

The simple existence of the promissory note, without more, is insufficient to establish that Debtor received money from Hartwick by fraudulent or false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats concealment of a material fact as a false pretense or false representation that can make a debt nondischargeable.

Bank of Miami v. Quintana (In Re Quintana) · filed 1980-04-07(a)(2)(A)

It is generally recognized that silence or concealment as to a material fact can constitute a false pretense or a false representation as surely as an overt act.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an implied representation to have been made knowingly and fraudulently to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Koma v. Brooks (In Re Brooks) · filed 1980-05-09(a)(2)(A)

However, it must be made knowingly and fraudulently by the debtor. Plaintiff has failed to prove that the implied representation was known by the debtor to be false.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation or pretense involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong; fraud implied by law is insufficient.

Hennessy Cadillac, Inc. v. Green (In Re Green) · filed 1980-07-15(a)(2)(A)

A false representation or false pretense under Section 523(a)(2)(A) must be of a kind involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong. Fraud implied in law which may exist without imputation of bad faith or immorality is insufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money by falsely representing an intention to use it for a specific purpose.

Fournet v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1980-08-07(a)(2)(A)

It is not necessary that the false pretense or representation be made in writing; a misrepresentation by a debtor of his intention may constitute a false representation within the exception to discharge. Similarly, the exception applies when the debtor is entrusted with money to be used for a specific purpose and has no intention of using it for that purpose.

The court declared a bank loan nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2).

Midland National Bank v. Strapko (In re Strapko) · filed 1980-08-08(a)(2)

That Kraig F. Strapko’s debt to Midland National Bank shall be, and hereby is, declared non-dischargeable in bankruptcy by reason of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional fraud, and a debtor’s intent to deceive in making credit card charges may be inferred from the circumstances.

First National Bank & Trust Co. in MacOn v. Stewart (In Re Stewart) · filed 1980-09-22(a)(2)(A)

It is well established that the type of fraud dealt with in Section 523(a)(2)(A) is actual fraud and requires intentional wrong involving moral turpitude. ... In the case before the Court the factors all point to deception, and the Court is persuaded that the requisite intent to deceive has been shown.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud or knowingly false representations, while § 523(a)(6) requires an intentional, wrongful injury to except a debt from discharge.

Rainey v. Warren (In Re Warren) · filed 1980-09-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The necessary intentional nature of the injury to plaintiff has not been shown. Hence, the part of the complaint based on § 523(a)(6) is unfounded. ... As to the portion of the complaint based on fraud and false representation, the plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proof in establishing all the necessary elements of a prima facie case under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove that the debtor incurred it through positive fraud.

First Service Corp. v. Schlickmann (In Re Schlickmann) · filed 1980-09-29(a)(2)

In cases involving nondischargeability due to fraud, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the debt owed to them by the defendant was incurred by reason of the defendant’s positive fraud, and thus should be excepted from discharge pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains money through a knowingly false promise that induces a creditor to forgo a lien.

Ballard v. Grubbs (In re Grubbs) · filed 1980-10-07(a)(2)(A)

It is the opinion of the Court that the defendant made the statements that he would pay the plaintiffs from moneys obtained in the Bevin Drive closing, knowing at the time that he would not use the money thus obtained for that purpose. By so acting, the defendant was able to obtain the moneys from the Bevin Drive closing for his own use and to defeat the claims of the plaintiffs. Since valid materi-alman’s liens on the properties would have insured payment to the plaintiffs, they have been damaged thereby in the amounts stated. Hence, the debt owed the plaintiffs admits to Section 523(a)(2)(A) and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debts from discharge when the debtor’s knowing inability to repay supports an inference of intent not to pay.

United Bank of Denver v. Kell · filed 1980-10-27(a)(2)(A)

In light of that knowledge and the other circumstances of this case already related, I am convinced the debt owed the Bank here falls within the exceptions to discharge provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Yet, inherent in his continued used of his credit cards without a disclosure of his insolvency when he was manifestly unable to repay the Bank in full, is a circumstance from which an intent not to pay may be inferred.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through a knowingly fraudulent representation of intent on which the creditor relies.

Southeast First National Bank of Miami v. Torrens (In Re Torrens) · filed 1980-11-24(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, considering the evidence presented by the record in this cause in light of the applicable legal principles, this Court finds as a matter of fact and concludes as a matter of law that the Debt- or knowingly and intentionally misrepresented his intention and ability to cover a $3500.00 cash advance by Southeast Bank to the Debtor on February 19, 1980; and that in so doing the Debtor intended to make and did make a false representation to Southeast Bank and thereby obtained money or an extension of credit by false pretenses, false representation and actual fraud, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained the money through fraudulent representations on which the creditor relied.

Lee County Bank v. Boettcher (In re Boettcher) · filed 1980-12-01(a)(2)

The Court further finds that the loans were obtained by false pretenses or representations amounting to actual fraud in that the representations regarding the purposes of the loans and the source for repayment of the loans were knowingly and fraudulently made and were relied upon by Plaintiff in making the loans. ... As is required by Bankruptcy Rule 921(a), a separate judgment will be entered in favor the Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $124,726.94 and that claim is declared non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the debt incurred by obtaining money through false representation or actual fraud, but not additional damages for breach of contract.

Cronin v. Clayton (In Re Clayton) · filed 1980-12-12(a)(2)(A)

The only part of the debt owed the plaintiffs which was incurred within these provisions is that part of the construction fund misappropriated by the debtor husband. The rest of his debt to the plaintiffs was for breach of contract.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from money obtained through false representations or fraud.

Trachsel v. Flanzbaum (In re Flanzbaum) · filed 1980-12-22(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds and concludes that all scheduled debts owing by the Debtor, RICHARD FLANZB-AUM, the Defendant herein, to the Plaintiff, DENNIS L. TRACHSEL, shall be excepted from the Defendant’s/Debtor’s discharge herein, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a representation on which the creditor relied.

Hot Springs v. A. Federal Credit Union v. Foreman (In Re Foreman) · filed 1980-12-17(a)(2)(A)

The frauds included in Section 523(a)(2)(A) are those which in fact involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong. The representations must have been knowingly and fraudulently made. The creditor must have relied upon the representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly exceeds the credit limit, makes small purchases to avoid approval, and has no reasonable expectation of paying.

Huntington National Bank v. Schartner (In Re Schartner) · filed 1980-12-31(a)(2)(A)

The frauds included in § 523(a)(2)(A) are those which in fact involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong. ... In the instant case, the debtor’s action in using the credit card to make purchases over her credit limit, under $50.00, and with no reasonable expectation of being able to pay for the purchases constitutes actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except credit card debt from discharge merely because the debtor exceeded a credit line; fraudulent intent must be proved.

Northeast Bank of Lewiston & Auburn v. Lyon (In Re Lyon) · filed 1981-01-07(a)(2)(A)

Most courts, including this one, that have considered the issue have decided that exceeding the “credit line,” without more, is not sufficient to infer an intent not to pay.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat exceeding a credit limit alone as proof of fraud; charges made without a sincere intent to repay may be nondischargeable.

First National Bank Dayton v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1981-02-02(a)(2)(A)

Exceeding credit card limits is not ipso facto proof of intent to obtain money or property by false pretenses, false representations, or fraud in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... We further find that she made the purchases without any sincere intention to pay for them.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of a debt arising from fraud.

Williams v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1981-01-16(a)(2)(A)

Based on this evidence, the Court finds fraud, and holds that this debt will not be discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a knowingly fraudulent representation made to obtain a creditor’s money; later conduct contrary to the representation does not necessarily prove it was false when made.

MANN v. Boese (In Re Boese) · filed 1981-02-05(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must prove that a debtor knowingly and fraudulently made false representations to the creditor in order to obtain the creditor’s money. Subsequent conduct contrary to a former representation by debtor does not necessarily establish the original representation to have been false.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional fraud; fraud implied in law does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Byrd v. Byrd (In Re Byrd) · filed 1981-03-02(a)(2)(A)

Fraud implied in law, which does not require a showing of bad faith or immorality, is insufficient to constitute a false pretense or representation, or actual fraud as envisioned under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts incurred through false pretenses or false representations from discharge.

Bishop v. Greenblatt (In Re Greenblatt) · filed 1981-02-19(a)(2)(A)

The jury verdict rendered in the state court action presents a classic case of a liability incurred by false pretenses or false representations under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation or false pretense involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong.

Landing v. Williams (In re Williams) · filed 1981-03-09(a)(2)(A)

A false representation or false pretense under Section 523(a)(2)(A) must be of a kind involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong. ... After careful consideration of the evidence the Court concludes that no false representation of a kind involving moral turpitude was made by Defendant to Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit purchases from discharge as fraudulent to prove that the debtor did not intend to pay for them.

May Co. v. Stevenson (In re Stevenson) · filed 1981-03-09(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof by establishing all elements of the cause of action set forth in § 523(a)(2), and, accordingly, the plaintiff must establish that the debtor had no intention to pay for the purchases incurred during the time period May-June 1980.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor obtained the money through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Sylvester v. Stone · filed 1981-04-29(a)(2)(A)

It is the finding of the court that the defendant did not obtain the money from the plaintiff by false pretenses, false representations and/or actual fraud within the provisions of § 523(a)(2)(A), and that the debt therefore is dischargeable under § 727.

Material factual disputes about an alleged false representation precluded summary judgment on a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Lader's Tiffany Feed & Supply Co. v. Kohl (In Re Kohl) · filed 1981-06-03(a)(2)(A)

These facts are required in order to determine whether Kohl made a false representation, the first element required in order to commit a fraud, false representation or false pretense pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Kohl’s motion for summary judgment, therefore, must be denied.

The court held a debt arising from a false statement nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Wollman v. Gessler (In Re Gessler) · filed 1981-06-05(a)(2)(A)

The debt created by the paragraph 6 false statement meets the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and therefore is non-dischargeable.

The court held a loan debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Plummer v. Gillespie (In Re Gillespie) · filed 1981-03-26(a)(2)(A)

1. Plaintiff has carried her burden of proof as to each element necessary to establish defendant’s obligation to her as nondis-chargeable, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

The court held that a debt created by an unfunded check was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Monarch Tile Manufacturing, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1981-04-14(a)(2)(A)

The debt created by the “NSF” check for $1,521.15 is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains a loan by falsely claiming to own the collateral pledged for it.

Lancaster v. Easterly (In Re Easterly) · filed 1981-04-24(a)(2)

I find and conclude that the debtor, when he negotiated the loan with Commercial Credit, made a false representation to that creditor when he asserted ownership of the Browning shotguns and pledged those guns as security for the loan. ... Further, the judgment will provide that the debt is nondischargeable. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for credit obtained by actual fraud.

Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina v. Jones (In re Jones) · filed 1981-05-05(a)(2)(A)

On the basis of this finding, the court holds that Eugene Jones became indebted to C&S for obtaining credit by actual fraud within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains a loan by false pretenses or a false representation.

Rogers v. Swanson (In Re Swanson) · filed 1981-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Mary Joyce Rogers has met her burden of proof for establishing that Donald J. Swanson obtained the loan by false pretenses and/or a false representation, thus rendering the defendant’s debt to her excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking nondischargeability for false pretenses or representations to prove all elements of positive fraud when the debt was created.

Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1981-07-10(a)(2)(A)

The party alleging nondischargeability of the debt under Section 523(a)(2)(A) must prove all of the elements of positive fraud incident to the creation of the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intentional fraud to except a debt from discharge; a returned check marked N.S.F. alone does not establish it.

Family Fair, Inc. v. Montbleau (In Re Montbleau) · filed 1981-06-08(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff has not shown upon the circumstances of the case or as a matter of law, that the debtor’s writing of a check drawn on an overdue account was fraudulent. The plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof that the defendant Montbleau intentionally engaged in wrongful or fraudulent conduct sufficient to prevent discharge of the debt owed to Family Fair.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) allows intent to deceive to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

East Hartford Aircraft Federal Credit Union v. Graham (In Re Graham) · filed 1981-06-19(a)(2)(B)

Although intent to deceive is a critical link in the chain of proof required to successfully challenge the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), it is not necessary to read the minds of these defendants in order to furnish such proof. Proof of fraudulent intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may except a debt from discharge when it arises from a fraudulent promise to marry, even if the promisor was already married and the promise was unenforceable.

Thomas v. Turner (In Re Turner) · filed 1981-07-10(a)(2)(A)

As a matter of law, a breach of promise to marry made by a party, who is already married at the time of the promise, may be the basis of actual fraud in the context of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the debtor makes a materially false representation with fraudulent intent and the issuer relies on it.

Ranier Bank v. Poteet (In Re Poteet) · filed 1981-07-16(a)(2)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge any debt for obtaining money, property, or services by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. That section represents little change from the provisions of § 17(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Act. The bank must establish that the debtors (1) made a materially false representation, (2) with the intent to defraud, and (3) that the bank relied on that false representation.

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

Cumis Insurance Society v. Sneed (In Re Sneed) · filed 1981-07-28(a)(2)(A)

Turning to the federal law, the conclusion from the facts is unavoidable that the same type offense is covered by the Section 523(a)(2)(A) “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud ...” Such is a legal conclusion based upon the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual fraud; a later breach of a promise made with intent to perform does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Miracle v. Hollister (In Re Hollister) · filed 1981-07-31(a)(2)(A)

The promises with respect to maintaining the inventory were merged into the writing of May 17, 1978, and Hollister signed that document with the present intent to maintain the inventory. The fact that Defendant subsequently breached his promise does not make the debt non-dischargeable under a fraud theory. I hold Plaintiff has failed to show that Hollister committed a fraud within the meaning of § 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make credit card debt nondischargeable when the debtor's use of the card falsely implies an ability and intent to pay, and the creditor reasonably relies on that representation.

H. C. Prange Co. v. Schnore (In Re Schnore) · filed 1981-08-07(a)(2)(A)

I find that the debt of $3,467.54 owed by Schnore to Pranges is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). When he incurred the debt by purchasing goods on credit, Schnore implicitly represented that he could and would repay it. He did not believe or intend that he would repay the debt. Pranges relied on this representation to its detriment when it allowed Schnore to purchase the goods on credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of an intentional misrepresentation made knowingly and fraudulently and reasonably relied upon by the creditor.

Cook v. Cook (In re Cook) · filed 1981-07-31(a)(2)(A)

It is settled that this provision requires proof of an intentional wrong as distinct from an implied fraud or an imputation of bad faith. The misrepresentation must also be shown to have been made knowingly and fraudulently and that it was reasonably relied upon by the aggrieved party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat omissions as false representations or pretenses.

Boatmen's North Hills Bank, Inc. v. Brewood (In Re Brewood) · filed 1981-11-12(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, given that § 14(c)(3) and § 17(a)(2) are closely related to § 523(a)(2)(B) and § 523(a)(2)(A) under the Code, the Court finds that omissions do not constitute false representations or pretenses under the Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor committed statutory fraud.

Sherman v. Alvarez (In Re Alvarez) · filed 1981-08-10(a)(2)(A)

Commission of a statutory fraud does not, of itself, constitute either a misrepresentation or a fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual fraud or an intentional wrong; a debtor’s failure to pay for goods alone is insufficient.

Moseley Associates, Inc. v. Lieberman (In Re Lieberman) · filed 1981-10-13(a)(2)(A)

Lieberman’s failure to pay for the equipment alone is not fraudulent. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), only those frauds which result from acts of moral turpitude or intentional wrongs are sufficient to make a debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on a broken promise to pay unless the debtor intended not to pay when making the promise.

Mesker-Clark v. Gargiulo (In re Gargiulo) · filed 1981-08-13(a)(2)(A)

There is no basis in the record before me to find that the debtors had no intention of paying at the time their representation was made. There is no misrepresentation here and plaintiff has not supported its count under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt incurred through false pretenses or actual fraud from discharge.

Southeast Services, Inc. v. Vegh (In Re Vegh) · filed 1981-08-21(a)(2)(A)

Credit card cases such as this one clearly fall within the rubric of false pretenses and actual fraud sufficient to except a debt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud to exist when the debtor obtains the money.

Bissette v. Witt (In Re Witt) · filed 1981-09-01(a)(2)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) contemplates the obtaining of money by false pretenses, false representations or fraud. This statute necessarily means that the fraud exists at the time the Plaintiff parted with the $10,000.00.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a purchase debt from discharge when fraud at the outset is unproved and the debtor stopped payment before delivery without reason to expect the goods would still arrive.

International Diamond Corp. v. Parullo (In re Parullo) · filed 1981-09-10(a)(2)(A)

There is no evidence to support any contention that there was fraud at the outset, and the argument is weak that stopping of payment of the check prior to delivery was fraudulent where the defendant had no reason to expect that delivery would be made in spite of the fact that payment had been stopped.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt for services from discharge when the services were completed before the creditor received the debtor’s bad check and thus could not have been performed in reliance on it.

Kwinter Realty v. Lo Bosco (In Re Lo Bosco) · filed 1981-10-20(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, in that the brokerage service, to wit, the finding of a buyer, was obviously completed prior to the closing, it could not have been performed in reliance upon the bad check.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual reliance on a fraudulent representation, but does not require the creditor to prove reasonable reliance.

Mechanics & Farmers Savings Bank v. Fosco (In Re Fosco) · filed 1981-10-30(a)(2)(A)

As mentioned above, this does not imply that discharge will be denied when the creditor’s reliance is so unreasonable as to be no reliance at all, but the debtor whose conduct is fraudulent under section 523(a)(2)(A) should not be discharged from his fraudulent debt when his victim’s conduct was merely less than prudent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a liability to a former spouse from discharge when the debtor induces a divorce settlement by falsely promising to pay joint debts.

Arterburn v. Arterburn (In Re Arterburn) · filed 1981-11-06(a)(2)(A)

The defendant did make a deliberate misrepresentation which was relied upon by the plaintiff at the time the divorce settlement was arrived at in that the defendant at the time had no intention of paying the designated debts to third parties as he promised to do as a part of the settlement agreement and divorce decree. ... Accordingly, the court concludes and hereby ORDERS that the defendant’s divorce decree promise to hold-harmless the plaintiff as to the identified debts is a non-dischargeable liability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through a false representation made with reckless disregard for its truth, on which the creditor relies and that causes loss.

Livingston v. Hospelhorn (In Re Hospelhorn) · filed 1981-11-16(a)(2)(A)

It is sufficient to make out the requirement that the misrepresentation be intentionally made to show that it was made with reckless disregard for its truth. ... Plaintiff’s judgment is found to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional fraud to except a debt from discharge based on false pretenses or false representations.

Louisiana National Bank of Baton Rouge v. Talbot (In Re Talbot) · filed 1981-11-16(a)(2)(A)

Fraud implied in law which may exist without imputation of bad faith or immorality is insufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge to prove that the debtor intended to defraud it.

Sun Bank of Wilton Manor v. Nigro (In re Nigro) · filed 1981-12-01(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff has not carried its burden of proof to have the obligation to it excepted ...from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to defraud; issuing a check that is returned for insufficient funds does not alone make the debt nondischargeable.

C.O.T.C.O. Gasoline, Inc. v. Jenes (In Re Jenes) · filed 1981-12-02(a)(2)(A)

The cases hold that simply issuing a worthless check to purchase goods does not in and of itself constitute fraud. There must be proven the intention to commit fraud or to mislead the other party beyond the mere giving of a check which is not paid.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of a debt for electrical service the debtor knowingly obtained through actual fraud.

Electric Power Board of Chattanooga v. Holt (In Re Holt) · filed 1981-12-11(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that defendant was guilty of “actual fraud” as used in the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be allowed to cheat the creditor. ... It is clear that the debt of the defendant to the Electric Power Board arose from theft of electrical service. The defendant received the electrical service knowing that it was stolen. Therefore, this indebtedness cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a check debt from discharge when the debtor did not write the check with intent to obtain money by fraud.

Weller Realty, Inc. v. Taulbee (In re Taulbee) · filed 1981-12-12(a)(2)(A)

In this regard, the Court further finds ... that the Debtors did not write the $1,500.00 check with an intent to obtain money by fraudulent means as alleged in the instant Complaint, but rather as a part of a scheme conceived by the realtor to remove title from insolvent debtors and then subject to legal action by creditors.

Section 523(a)(2) does not except a debt from discharge for silence about a lien when the buyer fails to show a special relationship that would make the silence fraudulent.

Love v. Finocchario (In re Finocchario) · filed 1981-12-21(a)(2)

He did not and he now comes in and says that because the debtors were silent with regard to the lien, he is entitled to a judgment of non-dis-chargeability. He had failed to offer any proof of a special relationship which would make the silence fraudulent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove a knowingly fraudulent representation and reliance to except a debt from discharge.

Huntington National Bank v. Singh (In Re Singh) · filed 1982-01-15(a)(2)(A)

However, the burden is upon the Bank to show that an affirmative representation was knowingly and fraudulently made by the debtor and that this representation was relied upon by the other party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the debtor obtains credit through a deliberately false implied representation that he can and intends to pay, and the creditor relies on it.

Barnett Bank v. Linn (In Re Linn) · filed 1982-01-22(a)(2)(A)

I find that the debtor obtained credit from the plaintiff in the total sum of $3,771 (the difference between the balance owed July 1,1981, and his final account) upon the implied but deliberately false representation that he had the means to pay and the intention of paying the account. Plaintiff relied on that representation. Beginning not later than July 1, the debtor employed the Visa card with an actual intent to defraud the plaintiff by using the credit without any true intention of ever paying any part of the account. ... That judgment is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) makes the unpaid balance of a judgment for money or property obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud nondischargeable, including compensatory and punitive damages.

Rasnick v. Carpenter (In Re Carpenter) · filed 1982-01-26(a)(2)

The court concludes that the defendant obtained money and property from the plaintiff by false pretenses, false representations and actual fraud; that, as a result of said actions of defendant, plaintiff was granted judgment in Chancery Court of Carter County at Elizabethton, Tennessee, in the amount of $8,000.00 compensatory and punitive damages; that defendant is entitled to credit for sums previously paid on the judgment but that the balance owing on said judgment is nondischargeable. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires examination of the circumstances bearing on a debtor’s intent; fraud and intent to defraud are never presumed.

Clinch Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Shortt (In Re Shortt) · filed 1982-01-27(a)(2)(A)

In determining whether or not the Debtor’s conduct is brought within the purview of the foregoing section, all facts and circumstances bearing upon the intent of the Debtor must be inquired into and determined. The rule prevails that fraud and intent to defraud are never presumed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of knowing misrepresentation and intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge on this fraud theory.

Thompson v. Brookshire (In Re Brookshire) · filed 1982-01-28(a)(2)(A)

The evidence presented does not indicate that the Debtor knowingly made false representations or acted with the intent to deceive the Plaintiffs. Thus, the proof of the Plaintiffs fails to show conduct of the Debtor such as to render the subject debts nondischargeable.

Section 523 treats a debtor’s fraudulent dissolution of a creditor’s lien as obtaining property by fraud under (a)(2)(A) and as a wilful and malicious injury under (a)(6).

Cheek v. Lowe's of Georgia, Inc. (In Re Cheek) · filed 1982-03-02(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

By reason of the false affidavit, Cheek dissolved the “special lien” of Lowe’s and received the money or property interest rightly belonging to Lowe’s. This is obtaining money or property by reason of false representation or actual fraud. ... As to Lowe’s second theory that the debt is nondischargeable because the false affidavit resulted in a wilful and malicious injury to the property of Lowe’s, the facts clearly show that this is a valid ground upon which to find that Lowe’s debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a knowingly false representation intended to deceive causes a creditor to rely on it and suffer damage.

State Bank of Springhill v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1982-03-11(a)(2)(A)

Since the factual findings made by the state court satisfy all the elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action: false representation, made with knowledge and intent to deceive, reliance and damage; this Court finds that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing; that the Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be sustained; and that the debt is nondischargeable under Title 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; an honest mistake does not satisfy that requirement.

Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. Russell (In Re Russell) · filed 1982-03-15(a)(2)(B)

We find that Beneficial has not met its burden of persuasion in establishing the requisite element of intent to deceive in this case. Mr. Russell’s assumption that Beneficial was relying upon all of the information supplied to it by the debtors during the course of their transactions was not unreasonable. It appears that the debtors made an “honest mistake” which did not involve the moral turpitude underlying the fraud element of § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2) requires the creditor to prove intent to deceive by a preponderance of the evidence to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

Clarke v. Turner (In re Turner) · filed 1982-04-14(a)(2)

For the above-stated reasons, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the scienter requirement of II U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), and thus this Court declares that the debtor’s obligation to the plaintiff is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may except a Social Security overpayment debt from discharge if it arose through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

In the Matter of Randall B. Neavear, Debtor. Randall B. Neavear v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human S · filed 1982-04-05(a)(2)(A)

While we do not necessarily accept what appears to have been the Secretary’s argument in the bankruptcy court — that the ALJ’s determination that Neavear was at fault in obtaining the overpayments constitutes a finding of a “false representation” precluding discharge — we do agree that at least in some cases an overpayment debt may fall within this category of exceptions to discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive and reasonable reliance to except a debt obtained by false representation from discharge.

Mick v. Hosking (In Re Hosking) · filed 1982-04-30(a)(2)(A)

The two other elements which must be proven under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), intent to deceive and reasonable reliance, are less susceptible of direct proof.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove a knowingly false representation, intent to deceive, reasonable reliance, and resulting loss.

Bardan Co. v. McCourt (In Re McCourt) · filed 1982-05-17(a)(2)(A)

In order for a debt to be non-dischargeable under this provision, it must be shown that: (1) the debtor made a false representation; (2) known at the time to be false; (3) made with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) which was reasonably relied upon by the creditor; and (5) which resulted in loss or damage to the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a material misrepresentation that the debtor intended the creditor to rely on and that the creditor reasonably relied on to their detriment.

Greene v. Carlson (In re Carlson) · filed 1982-05-18(a)(2)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt incurred by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” In order to establish fraud, the plaintiffs must show a material misrepresentation by the defendants with the intent that the plaintiffs rely thereon and the plaintiffs reasonably do rely on the misrepresentation to their detriment. ... The debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff as a result of the failure to clear title was incurred by a false representation and fraud. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation about a past or existing fact; a mere promise to act later is insufficient.

Everwed Co. v. Ayers (In Re Ayers) · filed 1982-05-04(a)(2)(A)

It is well established that the false representations prohibited by § 523(a)(2)(A) must be representations of a past or existing fact; a mere promise or representation of intention to act is insufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts assumed in a divorce settlement nondischargeable when the debtor fraudulently promised to pay them while intending to seek their discharge in bankruptcy.

Brasher v. Brasher (In Re Brasher) · filed 1982-05-20(a)(2)(A)

Thus the debts which the debtor promised to pay in the divorce decree shall be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats knowingly and intentionally exploiting another person’s mental incompetence to obtain property as actual fraud, making a related attorney-fee judgment nondischargeable.

Shelby Ex Rel. Stephenson v. Creekmore (In Re Creekmore) · filed 1982-05-21(a)(2)(A)

This inexorably leads one to the conclusion that where a person knowingly and intentionally takes advantage of another’s mental incompetence to get his property, such conduct is malicious and must therefore be characterized as “actual” as opposed to “constructive” fraud. ... In light of the foregoing factual findings and legal authorities, it is this Court’s considered opinion that it is bound by the findings of the Oklahoma District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma, under the principals of collateral estoppel and that these findings warrant a conclusion by this Court that the attorney fees awarded in connection with that case in the amount of $13,837.05 are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2) requires intentional wrongdoing for actual fraud; a negligent misrepresentation is insufficient.

North Central Wool Marketing Corp. v. Carothers (In Re Carothers) · filed 1982-06-05(a)(2)

By contrast, the false representation necessary to render a debt nondis-chargeable in bankruptcy is fraud which involves moral turpitude or intentional wrong; “actual fraud,” within the meaning of Section 523(a)(2), connotes deceit, artifice, trick or design, involving direct or active operation of the mind.

Once a creditor establishes a prima facie case of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), the debtor bears the burden of going forward with a defense.

National Bank of North America v. Newmark (In Re Newmark) · filed 1982-06-01(a)(2)(A)

Once a creditor establishes a prima facie case of fraud under Section 523, the debtor then has the burden of going forward with its defense.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud and intent to deceive when the loan is made; later misconduct alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Iola State Bank v. Coberley (In re Coberley) · filed 1982-06-03(a)(2)(A)

The fraud and the intent to deceive must occur at the inception of the loan; subsequent bad acts are not actionable.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor conceals material facts despite a duty to disclose them and the creditor reasonably relies on the resulting misrepresentation.

Haddad v. Haddad (In Re Haddad) · filed 1982-07-07(a)(2)

The question presented is, is the surviving partner’s failure to disclose his possession of $1,000,000 in partnership funds at a time when the deceased partner’s widow is asked to pay a partnership debt, a false representation or fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)? We hold that the debtor did have a duty of disclosure and reverse, 10 B.R. 276.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a creditor proves that the debtor’s intentional false representations induced its reliance and proximately caused its loss.

Keyes Co. v. Gunn (In Re Gunn) · filed 1982-07-08(a)(2)(A)

After a review of the facts and the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the Court finds that Keyes has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and this debt, therefore, should be non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual reliance on a fraudulent representation, but a creditor’s imprudence alone does not make the resulting debt dischargeable.

McMillan v. Firestone (In Re Firestone) · filed 1982-08-18(a)(2)(A)

Where a person has the intent to deceive and succeeds in that deceit to another’s detriment, it serves no purpose to protect the deceiver from the consequences of his wrongdoing simply because someone smarter would not have been misled. ... The court concludes that it was not so unreasonable that one must infer that there was no actual reliance.

Section 523 excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently obtains it by representing that goods have been manufactured or shipped.

McNeeley v. First National Bank of Crossett (In re McNeeley) · filed 1982-09-13

The Bank argued, and the bankruptcy judge found, the Debtor fraudulently obtained loans, representing to the Bank that goods had been manufactured or shipped. This was in violation of the security agreement between the parties. Despite Debtor’s contention of culpability of the Bank, this Court has determined that the holding of the bankruptcy court is correct. There was sufficient factual basis for the bankruptcy court to find the requirements of § 523 were met and the denial of Debtor’s discharge was proper.

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

Bialek's Medical Arts Clinical Reference Laboratory, Inc. v. Patch (In Re Patch) · filed 1982-09-15(a)(2)(A)

In order to recover under 523(a)(2)(A), the false pretense, etc. must relate to something other than debtor’s financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) limits a debt arising from a false statement about collateral value to the loss attributable to the creditor’s reliance on that statement.

Good Leasing, Inc. v. Finkel (In Re Finkel) · filed 1982-09-17(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the panel finds the trial court not to have been clearly in error in finding that the appellant’s reliance upon Mr. Finkel’s misrepresentation was limited to the greatly-reduced value it would have received pursuant to an execution upon its collateral, if new.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money obtained by false representations nondischargeable even when the debtor obtains the money for a corporation rather than himself.

McCloud v. Woods (In Re Tom Woods Used Cars, Inc.) · filed 1982-09-21(a)(2)(A)

The better view is that the debtor need not have obtained the money for himself in order for the debt to be nondischargeable. ... The result is that Tom Woods is liable to the McClouds for a debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A routine substitution of collateral that gives the debtor no new credit and leaves the creditor’s rights unchanged is not a renewal or refinance of credit under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Barneveld State Bank v. Chambers (In Re Chambers) · filed 1982-09-22(a)(2)(A)

The Bank did not forebear from foreclosure or in any way modify its rights when the note was executed. Thus, the floor plan note is not a refinance or renewal of credit, but simply a routine substitution of collateral.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money or a creditor’s guarantee through false representations or actual fraud.

Kovacs v. Kovacs (In Re Kovacs) · filed 1982-11-16(a)(2)(A)

In order for a debt to come within this exception, money, property or services, or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit must have been obtained by false representations or by means of actual fraud. ... Where a debtor obtains a loan from a person, or his guarantee of an obligation, the debtor has obtained property within the meaning of this section.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card debt nondischargeable when the debtor makes purchases without intending to pay for them and in contemplation of bankruptcy.

Philadelphia National Bank v. Petrini (In Re Petrini) · filed 1982-10-29(a)(2)(A)

... we must conclude, using the six aforementioned factors as a guide, that the present record indicates that the debtor made the purchases in question without intending to pay for them and in contemplation of filing a petition for relief under the Code. Consequently, we conclude that the debt of $761.95 owed to the creditor by the debtor is nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the debtor incurred it without intending to repay it; intent may be inferred from the circumstances.

Pittsburgh National Bank v. Goldstein (In Re Goldstein) · filed 1982-11-04(a)(2)(A)

A debt for obtaining credit by false pretenses or false representations is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). It is well-settled that the purchase of goods on credit by a debtor who does not intend to pay constitutes false representation. Plaintiff need not prove an overt misrepresentation.

Section 523(a) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor obtained money or property through conduct covered by its fraud exceptions.

Smith v. Infantolino (In Re Infantolino) · filed 1982-10-18(a)(2), (a)(4)

Based upon the record and the findings on pp. 669-670 supra, Smith has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Infantolino obtained money or property from Quonset-Davisville Flight Center through any conduct which would render the debt in question nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive before a credit-card debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud; exceeding the credit limit alone does not establish that intent.

Philadelphia National Bank v. Brackin (In Re Brackin) · filed 1982-10-29(a)(2)(A)

Finally, the fact that the debtors’ December 31, 1981 statement, which was the last finance statement received by the debtors prior to the filing of their petition, reflected that the debtors had $256.00 still available to them on their account and the fact that the debtors exceeded that credit limit by $465.41 does not give rise to a finding of intent to deceive on the debtors’ part within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the debtor incurs charges without a realistic basis for believing she can repay them.

Central Trust Co. v. Manuel (In Re Manuel) · filed 1982-11-17(a)(2)(A)

Our conclusion is that there was at the time of the charges an absence of a realistic basis for believing that she could pay the debt, in view of the prior history of defendant in connection with this account. ... We find that plaintiff has by clear and convincing evidence proved the requisites required of it to establish that the debt owed by defendant to plaintiff is nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except credit card debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove a false representation made with intent to deceive.

Matter of Buford · filed 1982-12-07(a)(2)(A)

In applying these legal standards to the instant facts, MHT has not sustained its burden to provide clear and convincing proof of Mrs. Buford’s having made any false representation with intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt for money obtained through actual fraud when the debtor had fraudulent intent.

Ledonne v. Lasich (In re Lasich) · filed 1982-11-16(a)(2)(A)

The Court believes that these facts establish the intent necessary to constitute actual fraud and thereby bar discharge of the debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor obtained money, property, services, or credit through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; checks tendered for an antecedent debt do not establish that the debtor obtained anything by issuing them.

Quality Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Miles (In re Miles) · filed 1983-02-01(a)(2)(A)

It is the opinion of the Court that the debtor, as a result of payment in full of the sales price of the corporation, was the de facto owner thereof, and the burden of proof upon plaintiff to establish the existence of the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) has not been met. It is further the opinion of the Court that the dishonored check and its replacements were issued on an existing account, were tendered for an antecedent debt, and therefore, the debtor, operating under the name of Bluegrass Siding and Roofing, Inc., did not at that time obtain money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or refinance of credit by their issuance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card charges nondischargeable when the debtor lacked the intent or ability to pay at the time of purchase, regardless of the credit limit.

Ohio Citizens Bank v. Satterfield (In Re Satterfield) · filed 1982-12-14(a)(2)(A)

The determinative factor, under this view, is the lack of an intention or inability to pay for the goods at the time of purchase, irrespective of whether the purchases resulted in the account being in excess of or below the agreed credit limit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card debts nondischargeable when the debtor incurs them without intending to repay.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Pannell (In Re Pannell) · filed 1983-01-25(a)(2)(A)

The pre-November, 1981 debts are the type of debts from which the bankruptcy laws are intended to give relief: debts incurred in the honest expectation that they would, and could, be repaid. But the post-November, 1981 debts are not in that category: they were incurred in clear anticipation of the bankruptcy which followed on their heels. The law makes debts of that character nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge to prove that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Fifth Third Bank v. Hagedorn (In Re Hagedorn) · filed 1982-12-30(a)(2)(A)

However, that same performance record, combined with the defendant’s testimony, leads this Court to conclude that Fifth Third has failed to establish by the requisite proof that defendant made false representations with the intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the creditor establishes an unrebutted prima facie case of fraud.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Hutchinson (In Re Hutchinson) · filed 1983-01-06(a)(2)

7. The plaintiff having established a pri-ma facia case under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), and said case being unrebutted, the involved debts are declared non-dischargea-ble.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud to prove that the debtor actually intended to deceive or defraud.

Bankers Trust Co. v. Lichstrahl (In Re Lichstrahl) · filed 1983-01-13(a)(2)(A)

However, the issue here is whether the debtor obtained property or credit by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud”. § 523(a)(2)(A). It is plaintiff’s burden to prove an actual intent to deceive or defraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan nondischargeable when a debtor obtains it by intentionally concealing an imminent bankruptcy filing.

Autotruck Federal Credit Union v. Donald (In Re Donald) · filed 1983-01-17(a)(2)(A)

In the case at bar, the debtor induced the credit union to grant a loan in the amount of $300.00 at a time when she knew the filing of her petition for relief in bankruptcy was imminent, together with her admitted intention not to reveal this fact to the lender constitutes the requisite fraud to place this debt squarely within the nondischargeability provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) keeps a debt arising from fraudulent checks nondischargeable when replacement checks merely provide another way to pay it.

Tate v. Tabers (In Re Tabers) · filed 1983-01-17(a)(2)(A)

There is little question but that the original transactions by and between the parties would result in the debt being found to be within the nondischargeability provisions of § 523. ... Without the requisite intention, it is apparent that the issuance of the replacement checks was not the creation of a new debt but rather a substitute method of payment. The return of the replacement checks marked “account closed” was therefore simply a further failure of payment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation to deceive the lender, who relies on it and suffers damage.

Cottrell v. Crouse (In Re Crouse) · filed 1983-01-19(a)(2)(A)

The second issue which must be decided is whether or not the Plaintiff’s loan was procured “by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud” sufficient to bring his Complaint within the nondischargeability provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Five separate elements must so be proved: (1) that the representations were made by the Defendant; (2) that they were false and he knew them to be false (or made with such reckless disregard for the truth as to be tantamount to a wilful misrepresentation); (3) that they were made with the purpose and intention of deception; (4) that the Plaintiff relied on the representations; and (5) that the Plaintiff was damaged thereby. ... Accordingly, judgment is being entered in Plaintiff’s favor upon the Complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make an existing loan nondischargeable merely because the debtor later gives a bad check without obtaining money, property, services, or credit.

Fleming v. Preston (In Re Preston) · filed 1983-01-27(a)(2)(A)

Here, Fleming parted with nothing of value. Preston neither obtained money, property, services, nor an extension, renewal or refinance of credit. Fleming made no change in his position.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers fraudulent representations made with reckless disregard for their truth.

Jacobs v. Ballard (In Re Ballard) · filed 1983-02-07(a)(2)(A)

Since “actual fraud” reflects prior law which encompassed reckless representations, the debtor’s reliance on the phrase “actual fraud” in Code section 523(a)(2)(A) is misplaced.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor tenders checks without sufficient funds as an implied false representation intended to induce reliance.

Bear Stearns & Co. v. Kurdoghlian (In Re Kurdoghlian) · filed 1983-03-15(a)(2)(A)

Kurdoghlian knew (or should have known) there were insufficient funds to cover two or more of the three checks. Tendering the checks was an implicit representation the checks were good. The representation was false. ... Defendant knew that plaintiff would cut off his trading if the checks were not issued; thus, they were issued for the purpose of inducing reliance. The logic of these facts leads to only one ultimate finding of fact: defendant intended to deceive plaintiff when at least two of the checks were issued.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knowingly made a fraudulent representation on which the creditor relied.

American Bank & Trust Co. in Monroe v. Lamb (In Re Lamb) · filed 1983-02-25(a)(2)(A)

As to false pretenses or false representations stated in § 523(a)(2)(A), it is meant those involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong. Fraud implied in law which may exist without imputation of bad faith or immorality is insufficient. American Bank must affirmatively show that the debtors made the representations knowing that such representations were fraudulent and were relied upon by the bank.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a fraudulent representation and intent to defraud; a dishonored check alone does not establish either.

Jack Master, Inc. v. Collins (In Re Collins) · filed 1983-03-10(a)(2)(A)

In order for the dishonored check to be evidence of intent to defraud, Masters must prove the debtor represented the check was good for payment since an NSF check alone is not conclusive evidence of an intent to defraud within § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation to exist when the debtor obtains the loan; a later misrepresentation does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Barch v. Cokkinias (In Re Cokkinias) · filed 1983-03-25(a)(2)(A)

That evening is the critical point in time at which the representation referred to in § 523(a)(2)(A) is to be examined.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking an exception from discharge to prove that the debtor intended to deceive.

Burger King Corp. v. Levine (In re Levine) · filed 1983-04-01(a)(2)

In order to obtain an exception from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2), the plaintiff must demonstrate that Levine acted with the intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains payment through a knowingly false promise intended to deceive a creditor who relies on it and suffers loss.

Sbardella v. Proia (In re Proia) · filed 1983-05-11(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has established that each of the five elements of fraud required to render a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) was satisfied prior to her making the four payments to Proia in April 1981. The debtor made representations— which he knew at the time to be false — that if he received additional funds, he would complete the garage in April 1981. These representations were made with the intention of deceiving Sbardella, who relied on said representations and sustained loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made.