11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional deception; reckless or negligent conduct that creates a false impression is insufficient.

Household Finance Corp. v. Richmond (In Re Richmond) · filed 1983-04-15(a)(2)(A)

To except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Debtor’s conduct must be intentional, and mere reckless or negligent conduct which creates a false impression is insufficient.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through deliberate false pretenses or misrepresentation.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Brannon (In Re Brannon) · filed 1983-05-05(a)(2)(A)

It is, therefore, the specific finding of the Court that Debtor made false representations resulting in Plaintiff’s endorsement of its settlement check to Debtor, and that such misrepresentations were sufficient to constitute false pretenses as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card cash advances from discharge when the debtor obtains them by fraud without an intent or reasonable expectation to repay.

Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Klein (In Re Klein) · filed 1983-04-27(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that at the time he incurred the credit card advances the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of repaying and did not intend to repay the debt owing to Plaintiff, and that the credit card cash advances were obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud. Therefore, the debt is not dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt incurred through a false representation to obtain an extension of credit, even when the credit benefits a corporation rather than the debtor personally.

D. Nagin Mfg. Co. v. Pollina (In Re Pollina) · filed 1983-05-31(a)(2)(A)

Turning to the statute involved, it is obvious that these admitted facts establish beyond dispute that the debtor, Pollina incurred a debt (by reason of the guarantee) for obtaining an extension, renewal or refinance of credit (for the benefit of the corporation) by a false representation that the jewelry previously bought from Nagin and in inventory was free and clear. It comes within the bar to discharge specified by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor obtained money or property through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

In Re Cerrato · filed 1983-07-12(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff has chosen to rest upon the Surrogate’s decision and judgment and has failed to come forward with any evidence that the judgment against the debtor reflects a debt “for obtaining money ... by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud ...” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Hence, the plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proving an essential element of his case, namely that the debtor obtained the funds in question by reason of fraudulent conduct.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats knowingly allowing a creditor’s false impression to persist as false pretense.

Minority Equity Capital Corp. v. Weinstein (In Re Weinstein) · filed 1983-07-13(a)(2)(A)

Weinstein’s fostering of, and knowing failure to dispel, MECCO’s misimpression as to the existence of the GECC equity cushion, was false pretense as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts for fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance benefits nondischargeable.

New York v. Reinstein (In Re Reinstein) · filed 1983-09-12(a)(2)(A)

I find that both of these debts are non-dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and judgment is granted in favor of the State of New York against Howard Reinstein in the sum of $25,595 and against Sharon Reinstein in the sum of $13,260.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable to the extent the creditor proves a monetary loss caused by the debtor’s fraudulent representations.

Sbardella v. Proia (In re Proia) · filed 1983-10-20(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff has failed to show proof of any other damage proximately resulting from the debtor’s fraudulent representations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the loss resulting from Proia’s misrepresentations is $2,000, plus interest and costs. This amount is nondischargeable, pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false representations to prove every element, including the debtor’s knowledge of falsity and the creditor’s reliance.

Mercer v. Bailey (In Re Bailey) · filed 1983-11-21(a)(2)(A)

To prevail in a complaint to determine dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must establish all of the five elements discussed previously. Having failed to establish the second element, this Court finds sufficient basis to declare the debt in question dischargeable. However, to further bolster this determination, this Court points particularly to the reliance element and the plaintiff’s own testimony. Under oath, the plaintiff testified that even if payments in excess of the $6,000.00 loan were required for Van Dyke to obtain the mobile home she would have signed the loan obligation to help Van Dyke and Bailey. Thus, even if the representations were false, absent reliance by the plaintiff the debt in question must be declared dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt to be held nondischargeable when a debtor takes money for a specified purpose without intending to use it for that purpose.

Band of Knights Booster Club v. Norton (In Re Norton) · filed 1983-11-29(a)(2)(A)

Where debtor is entrusted with money to be used for a specific purpose, and has no apparent intention of using the money for that purpose, a misrepresentation clearly exists upon which a debt may be held nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a showing that the debtor intended not to pay for credit card purchases before the debt can be excepted from discharge as fraud.

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Schmidt (In Re Schmidt) · filed 1983-12-30(a)(2)(A)

This statement is clearly an erroneous statement of the law in that a showing of intent not to pay for the goods purchased on credit is required.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive; an assurance that funds will cover future checks does not alone establish that intent.

Skinner v. Teal (In Re Teal) · filed 1984-01-05(a)(2)(A)

As stated above we hold that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the debtor acted with intent to defraud Skinner. The mere fact that the debtor assured Skinner that the account would contain adequate funds to cover the checks when Skinner would ultimately cash them, is insufficient for us to infer that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent when the debtor made the representation; a later failure to pay does not alone establish that intent.

Control Power Systems, Inc. v. Reddington (In re Reddington) · filed 1984-01-17(a)(2)(A)

Without a showing of fraudulent intent as of the time the representations were made, a critical element of the cause of action is missing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove actual intent to deceive or defraud, even when a check drawn on insufficient funds makes a prima facie case of false representation.

Rederi v. Tingley (In Re Tingley) · filed 1984-02-17(a)(2)(A)

I agree with the plaintiff that the debtor’s negotiation of a check at a time when there were insufficient funds in the account to honor the check makes a prima facie case of false representation and that after that proof, the debtor had the obligation to offer an exculpatory explanation. The debtor has done so. I do not agree with the plaintiff that it is relieved of the burden of proof that the debtor had an actual intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiff. That burden remains with the plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires intent to deceive; a state fraud judgment that may rest on negligent misrepresentation does not alone establish that a debt is nondischargeable.

Schwartz v. Renville Farmers Co-Op Credit Union · filed 1984-01-31(a)(2)(B)

Bankruptcy fraud, in short, requires an intent to deceive. By contrast, Minnesota allows simple negligent misrepresentation to support an action for fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when a fraudulent misrepresentation materially causes the creditor's loss, even if other factors also contributed.

Montalvo v. Florence N. Sobel, Inc. (In Re Florence N. Sobel, Inc.) · filed 1984-02-16(a)(2)(A)

As long as fraudulent misrepresentation is a material cause, it need not be the only factor for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) except a check guarantee debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently induces the bank to cover checks and intentionally injures its property without justification.

Security Bank of Nevada v. Singleton (In Re Singleton) · filed 1984-02-21(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The plaintiff has met its burden of showing that the debtor’s actions relating to the use of the check guarantee card justify the exception of this debt from the debtor’s general discharge, pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The debt of $5,860.56 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor sells prepaid services while insolvent and falsely represents an ability to provide them.

Kelley v. Sclater (In Re Sclater) · filed 1984-03-22(a)(2)(A)

By continuing to sell memberships after it was insolvent, the spa falsely represented to membership purchasers its ability to honor its contract with them; such misrepresentation constitutes fraud within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money by concealing a material fact with intent to deceive and the creditor relies on that concealment and suffers a loss.

Emrich v. Samford (In Re Samford) · filed 1984-04-17(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, it is well established that silence or concealment of a material fact may constitute a materially false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Braman v. Samford (In re Samford) · filed 1984-04-18(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, it is well established that silence or concealment of a material fact may constitute a materially false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge for a false representation when the creditor proves the debtor knew it was false, intended to deceive, and caused the creditor to rely on it and suffer a loss.

Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Lipscomb (In Re Lipscomb) · filed 1984-05-29(a)(2)

It is well established that such an obligation may be rendered nondischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) provided that the objecting creditor can show each of the following elements: 1) that the debtor made the representations; 2) that at the time he knew they were false; 3) that he made them 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 a creditor to prove that the debtor’s misrepresentation proximately caused the claimed loss.

Rezac v. Maier (In Re Maier) · filed 1984-03-21(a)(2)(A)

The proximate cause element of section 523 requires simply that the action of the debtor was the act, without which the claimant would not have suffered the loss complained of.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a seller’s undisclosed odometer rollback as false pretenses that can make the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Devoe v. Cheatham (In Re Cheatham) · filed 1984-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Thus, silence in this regard creates an implied misrepresentation that is tantamount to an overt false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a seller’s knowing concealment of liens nondischargeable when the concealment deceives the buyer.

Heinold Hog Market, Inc. v. Hogan (In Re Hogan) · filed 1984-04-11(a)(2)(A)

Agricultural commerce, no less than general mercantile commerce, requires such lien disclosure, to the buyer, by the seller who, as here, knows of the lien(s); and failure to disclose, where the seller is (as here) knowledgeable as to the existence of liens at the time of the sale, is the equivalent, for dischargeability purposes, to an overt fraudulent representation, nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires evidence from which the debtor’s fraudulent intent in submitting a financial statement can reasonably be inferred.

First National Bank of Sikeston v. Masters (In Re Masters) · filed 1984-04-18(a)(2)(B)

Hence, although Plaintiff in its complaint, as amended, alleges that Mrs. Masters knew or should have known of the alleged inaccuracies in these financial statements and that she caused the financial statements to be submitted to Plaintiff with the intent to deceive Plaintiff, Plaintiff must now produce some evidence from which fraudulent intent on the part of Mrs. Masters could be reasonably inferred. After reviewing the record before the Court on this motion, the Court finds and concludes that Plaintiff has produced no such evidence and that, therefore, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the dis-chargeability of Mrs. Masters’ liability to Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to seek an exception from discharge for a debt obtained by fraud.

Cohen v. Lopez (In Re Lopez) · filed 1984-04-18(a)(2)(A)

The obtaining of goods through fraud is a ground, not for objection to discharge, 11 U.S.C. § 727, but for a determination of the dischargeability of particular debts, 11 U.S.C. § 523. Since the debts in question are owed to Newport National Bank and Peerless Co., the trustee lacks standing to object to discharge based upon claims which are personal to the creditors.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit purchases incurred without the intent or ability to repay nondischargeable as fraudulent pretenses.

Mid-American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Higgs (In Re Higgs) · filed 1984-04-19(a)(2)(A)

Credit purchases made without the requisite intent or ability to repay the obligation created thereby are actions which constitute fraudulent pretenses within the contemplation of the nondischargeability provisions.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt from credit purchases nondischargeable when the buyer obtains goods through false pretenses or fraud by knowingly taking on obligations the buyer cannot meet.

Associated Dry Goods Co. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1984-06-04(a)(2)(A)

Anyone who purchases on credit and knows or should know that he is unable to meet the credit obligations obtains those goods through false pretenses and fraud and the debt incurred through the credit extension is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor procures money for a corporation he heads, even if he receives none personally.

Citizens & Southern International Bank, Inc. v. Oswald (In re Oswald) · filed 1984-06-11(a)(2)(A)

I am satisfied, however, that it is not necessary that the property or money be actually procured for the debtor himself. It is sufficient that the money was procured for the benefit of the corporation he headed.

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

American Bank & Trust Co. of Pa. v. Lipsey (In Re Lipsey) · filed 1984-06-26(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail under § 523(a)(2)(A), the plaintiff/creditor must prove that: (1) the debtor made a materially false representation; (2) with the intent to deceive; and (3) that the creditor relied on that false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraudulently incurred credit card debts from discharge even when the issuer negligently fails to revoke the card.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Senty (In Re Senty) · filed 1984-08-14(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the wording of the Code, the goals of bankruptcy (one of which is to give good faith debtors a fresh start and a second chance to succeed in our society), and public policy all militate against allowing a debtor to discharge fraudulently incurred debts in bankruptcy irrespective of the issuer’s mere negligence in failing to revoke the card.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s knowing use of a revoked credit card as a false representation that can make the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Essex Bank v. Bono (In Re Bono) · filed 1984-07-25(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Debtor’s presentation of her Visa card to merchants subsequent to August 16, 1979, when she knew her credit card privileges had been revoked, constituted a false representation within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor obtained money through a false representation before the resulting debt can be excepted from discharge.

Zahn v. Uyehara (In re Uyehara) · filed 1984-07-26(a)(2)(A)

The burden is on Creditor to prove his case, and, in the instant case, Creditor has failed to prove that Debtor obtained the $28,000.00 from Creditor on Debtor’s representation that said $28,000.00 would be deposited in escrow to purchase the Premises. ... Based on the foregoing it is hereby found that no violation of Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code has been established by Creditor, that the debt to Creditor is dischargeable, and that Debtor is entitled to judgment against Creditor for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to be granted upon submission of proper timesheets.

Forbearance from calling a demand loan in exchange for additional security is an extension of credit under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

First Bank (N.A.) v. Eaton (In Re Eaton) · filed 1984-08-27(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Larsen’s acceptance of the diamonds as security in exchange for continuance of Eaton’s loans was an extension or enlargement of credit.

Section 523(a)(2) makes a judgment note debt nondischargeable when it directly results from the debtor’s earlier fraud.

Lincoln Bank v. Scardino (In re Scardino) · filed 1984-09-19(a)(2)(A) and (B)

It is abundantly clear to us that the judgment note debt is the direct result of Mr. Scardino’s prior grossly fraudulent conduct and cannot be considered separately from such conduct for dischargeability purposes. Therefore, we conclude that the debt is nondischargeable as to Mr. Scardino.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers an extension of credit obtained by deceiving a creditor into delaying collection, even when the creditor did not voluntarily grant more time.

Takeuchi Mfg. (U.S.), Ltd. v. Fields (In Re Fields) · filed 1984-09-24(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that the statute cannot be interpreted in a manner which would protect only a creditor who grants an extension of credit voluntarily and not one who is deceived into forbearing from collection without being given an opportunity to grant or deny the extension of credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make credit card debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor exceeded the credit limit.

Bank of Virginia v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1984-09-26(a)(2)(A)

Overreaching the credit limit, however, is insufficient to infer an intent not to pay.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except credit card debt from discharge for misuse of credit when the creditor fails to prove that revocation of card privileges was effectively communicated to the debtor.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Moore (In re Moore) · filed 1984-10-15(a)(2)(A)

Applying the foregoing legal principles as stated by the highest Court of this Circuit, it is clear that the Plaintiff failed to establish or furnish any proof that in this particular instance the right to possess and use the card was ever effectively communicated to this debtor. Therefore, it is clear that'the claim of non-dischargeability cannot be sustained.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor obtained money, property, services, credit, or a benefit through fraud.

Simmons v. Wade (In Re Wade) · filed 1984-11-29(a)(2)(A)

In this case there was no evidence that Wade, the Debtor herein, ever obtained any money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit, or any benefits in connection with the pet products loan. Any benefits the court could possibly attribute as accruing to Wade would be pure speculation. The Plaintiffs have, quite simply, failed in their burden of proof under subsection (2) of § 523(a) on the pet products loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an unsecured loan from discharge when the debtor uses the proceeds for a different business purpose than promised.

Piekarczyk v. Nantz (In Re Nantz) · filed 1984-12-07(a)(2)(A)

A debtor’s false statement that loan proceeds will be used for capital improvements is not a fraudulent representation which excepts the debt from discharge when the proceeds are used for an alternative business purpose and the loan is unsecured.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires reliance on an alleged false statement to except a debt from discharge.

Duo Metal & Iron Works, Inc. v. General Iron Works Corp. (In Re Duo Metal & Iron Works, Inc.) · filed 1984-12-13(a)(2)(A)

This lack of reliance is fatal to a cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debtor did not intend to keep a promise when making it for the promise to make a debt nondischargeable.

Seepes v. Schwartz (In Re Schwartz) · filed 1985-01-02(a)(2)(A)

A fraudulent promise requires proof that at the time the debtor made it he did not intend to perform as promised.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to seek an exception from discharge for a debt arising from alleged fraud in obtaining a loan.

Framingham Uaw Credit Union v. Kelley (In Re Kelley) · filed 1985-01-09(a)(2)(A)

In this case the Court finds that the plaintiff Framingham alleged a fact situation which would make out a claim cognizable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), but due to a mistake of out-of-state counsel in following the wrong form, local counsel for the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a § 523 fact situation pleaded under 11 U.S.C. § 727.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats reckless disregard for a statement’s truth as a false representation and makes the resulting debt nondischargeable in full.

BIRMINGHAM TRUST NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking Association, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. CASE, Jr., Defendant-Appe · filed 1985-03-25(a)(2)(A)

Since the Debtor advances no sound reason for distinguishing the rule established in those cases from the instant case, we hold that reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement constitutes a “false representation” under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly held the entire amount of the debt to BTNB to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card charges obtained through intentional deceit from discharge while allowing other charges on the same account to be discharged.

City National Bank of Baton Rouge v. Holston (In Re Holston) · filed 1985-02-14(a)(2)(A)

This case holds that because the Debtors practiced the intended deceit when some goods or services were purchased by credit card, but not when other goods or services were purchased on the same card, then the total debt on the credit card is bifurcated into dischargeable and non-dis-chargeable portions. This arises from the language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) that refers to a “debt ... for obtaining property [or] services ... by ... actual fraud.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud involving moral turpitude; a judgment that may rest on a claim without scienter does not establish that exception to discharge.

Trynz v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1985-02-25(a)(2)(A)

As has already been indicated, there must be proof of actual fraud involving moral turpitude to support exception from discharge. The State court judgment does not furnish a basis for any such finding.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation intending the creditor to rely on it and the creditor reasonably does so.

Milwaukee Boston Store v. Lampien (In re Lampien) · filed 1985-06-10(a)(2)(A)

Lampien’s debt to the Milwaukee Boston Store is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. McLellan (In re McLellan) · filed 1985-04-24(a)(2)(A)

As is required by B.R. 9021(a), a separate judgment will be entered excepting from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) plaintiffs claim which was reduced to judgment in the State court on September 18, 1984, in the present amount of $88,733.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains payment through a fraudulent promise on which the creditor relies.

Seiders v. Fenninger (In Re Fenninger) · filed 1985-05-17(a)(2)(A)

Having concluded that the debtor signed the contract with Seiders with actual intent of defrauding her, he implicitly represented that he would do the intended work. On this material misrepresentation Seiders reasonably relied to her detriment by parting with her deposit of $11,537.33. Since Seiders has proved her entitlement to relief under § 523(a)(2) we will enter an order excepting as nondischargeable the $11,537.33 debt to Seiders.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud, which may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Brennenstuhl v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1985-05-28(a)(2)(A)

As stated above, under § 523(a)(2)(A) proof of actual fraud is required although such fraud may be proved by direct as well as circumstantial evidence, since palpable evidence of the mental state of an individual is rarely, if ever, available.

Section 523(a)(2) does not make a debt arising from an insufficient-funds check nondischargeable when the debtor had a good faith and reasonable belief that he could make the check good.

Timberline Systems, Inc. v. Hammett (In Re Hammett) · filed 1985-05-28(a)(2)

If, at the time of making of the check, the defendant had a good faith and reasonable belief that he could make the check good before the drawee would present it for payment, then whatever deception is contemplated is of an insubstantial nature.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained through false representations made with intent to deceive.

Cass v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1985-06-25(a)(2)(A)

By reason thereof, the Court determines the debt created is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(C) makes qualifying consumer debt for luxury goods incurred shortly before bankruptcy nondischargeable.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Ashton (In Re Ashton) · filed 1985-06-26(a)(2)(C)

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED for the foregoing reasons that debtors’ obligation to pay Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. the sum of $2,209.40 for the above referred to items within forty days of the filing of the bankruptcy petition is non-dischargeable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(C) and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. and against the Defendants Thomas Ashton and Linda Ashton for the sum of $2,209.40 and costs and interest as moved for and it is directed that a certified copy hereof be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court of the within District, sec. reg.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly and fraudulently makes a false representation involving intentional wrong and the creditor relies on it.

Frits Loonsten, Inc. v. Mullin (In Re Mullin) · filed 1985-07-15(a)(2)(A)

For a debt to be determined non-dis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A), the false representation or false pretense must involve moral turpitude or intentional wrong. The representations must be knowingly and fraudulently made, and they must be relied upon by the other party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a promise to repay a loan as a false representation when the debtor makes it without intending to repay.

Campana v. Ray (In Re Ray) · filed 1985-07-29(a)(2)(A)

The Court here finds that, when Debtor borrowed the $5,000.00 on December 28, 1981 and promised to repay such loan, she knew that she was unable to pay her debts and that she had no intention to pay her debts. The Court finds that the misrepresentation, concerning her intention to repay when she borrowed such $5,000.00 on December 28, 1981, constitutes false representation under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on a promise of future conduct.

MacK v. Dixie-Shamrock Oil & Gas, Inc. (In Re Dixie-Shamrock Oil & Gas, Inc.) · filed 1985-08-30(a)(2)(A)

This representation was a promise as to a future activity and, accordingly, may not provide the basis for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual fraud to except a debt from discharge; a mere breach of contract does not establish it.

Hein v. Emery (In Re Emery) · filed 1985-09-06(a)(2)(A)

A necessary element under § 523(a)(2)(A) is actual fraud rather than merely fraud implied in law.

Section 523(a)(2) permits a nondischargeability claim based on actual fraud when the complaint adequately alleges a fraudulent scheme to deprive creditors of their interests.

Execuflite Services, Inc. v. Byrd (In Re Byrd) · filed 1985-09-09(a)(2)

The sufficiency of the complaint in making out a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), which refers to a claim arising from actual fraud, is even clearer. While there is much alleged in the complaint which might be considered extraneous, there does appear adequate allegation with regard to a fraudulent scheme perpetuated by defendant to deprive plaintiffs of their interests.

Section 523(a)(2)(C)’s presumption does not apply to refinanced debt because refinancing does not involve goods or services.

Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1985-10-01(a)(2)(C)

Because the refinancing portion of the transaction did not involve goods or services, it cannot be a basis for invoking subparagraph (C).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional wrongdoing for a debt to be excepted from discharge on the basis of false pretenses or false representations; fraud implied by law is insufficient.

Newberry Feed & Farm Center, Inc. v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1985-10-10(a)(2)(A)

However, under § 523(a)(2)(A), “a false misrepresentation or false pretense 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) does not treat a creditor’s forbearance from pursuing collateral or enforcing a debt, standing alone, as an extension, renewal, or refinance of credit.

Northern State Bank of Virginia v. Hames (In Re Hames) · filed 1985-10-17(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff’s forbearance from pursuing its prior security or enforcing Debtor’s personal liability on the Note, standing alone, is not an “extension, renewal or refinance of credit”.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through a false representation nondischargeable when the creditor relied on that representation to its detriment.

Molo Oil Co. v. Botten (In Re Botten) · filed 1985-10-18(a)(2)(A)

That section provides that a debt for property is nondischargeable to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud. ... Plaintiff relied on the representation of a separate, normally-operated corporation to its detriment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not prevent discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor obtained money or property through fraud.

Chaffin v. Dunn · filed 1985-12-04(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that plaintiff failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a fraudulent transfer of money or property from the plaintiff to the debtor, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove actionable fraud and reliance on the alleged misrepresentation.

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Fordyce (In Re Fordyce) · filed 1985-12-17(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that since the ownership issue is irrelevant to the matters under consideration, (whether that was true or false makes no difference), and in light of the fact that the anticipated income statement by the Debtor would not qualify to be an actual gross disregard in the reckless fashion of the truth of an existing fact, this Court finds that Chase did not carry its burden and, thus, its claims of non-dischargeability must fail.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for credit obtained through a false and fraudulent representation.

Borock v. Bidlofsky (In Re Bidlofsky) · filed 1985-12-20(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Janises against the Bidlofskys, declaring the debt to be nondis-ehargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523’s fraud exception requires proof of a false representation and intent to deceive.

Smith v. Lawson (In re Lawson) · filed 1985-10-22(a)(2)(A)

Since there was no proof of a false representation and no proof of an intent to de-cieve, plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof of two of the elements of fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money obtained through a fraudulent representation nondischargeable.

Navarra v. Maggi (In re Maggi) · filed 1985-11-14(a)(2)(A)

For purposes of entry of judgment against defendant, plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing that the defendant obtained money from them based upon a fraudulent representation within 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except credit card charges above a pre-approved limit from discharge when the debtor obtains them by false pretenses and the creditor reasonably relies on the debtor’s representations.

First National Bank of Atlanta v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 1985-11-27(a)(2)(A)

ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) representing the pre-approved credit line is determined to be a dischargea-ble debt, but that the amount of Three Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-nine Dollars and Thirty-six Cents ($3,689.36), being the sum in excess of the pre-approved credit line, is determined to be a nondischargeable debt in these Bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card charges nondischargeable when the debtor made them without intending to pay or without a reasonable prospect of repayment.

American National Bank & Trust Co., of Chattanooga v. Daugherty (In re Daugherty) · filed 1985-12-27(a)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code did not change the statute in such a way as to undo this rule. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The question is whether at the time of making the charges the debtor did not intend to pay the debt or did not have a reasonable prospect of being able to pay the debt.

Exceeding a credit card limit alone does not establish fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Dominion Bankshares Services v. Shrader (In Re Shrader) · filed 1985-12-05(a)(2)(A)

In light of these standards, the evidence before this Court is not sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiffs heavy burden of proof. The Debtors did in fact exceed their credit limit but, from the evidence, unknowingly so.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from money or property obtained through intentional false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Geoghagan v. Lambert (In re Lambert) · filed 1986-01-02(a)(2)(A)

The sole question before the court here is whether or not the federal test under Section 523(a)(2) has been met by the plaintiff. That test requires the obtaining of money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credity by false pretenses, false representations or actual fraud. This means a showing of intentional or wilful activity known to be false or fraudulent by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a broker’s failure to explain the legal effect of subordination documents as a false representation.

Hufford v. Griesgraber (In re Griesgraber) · filed 1986-01-14(a)(2)(A)

Defendant broker’s failure to explain the legal effect of a Subordinated Deed of Trust and a Subordination Agreement, does not equate to a false representation actionable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires additional proof of misrepresentation when a creditor relies on a check issued with insufficient funds.

Ray E. Friedman & Co. v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins) · filed 1986-02-14(a)(2)(A)

Thus, REFCO cannot rely solely on the existence of an NSF check to establish misrepresentation; there must be additional proof in connection with the issuance of the check to establish a misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains credit while concealing an intent to replace the agreed payment terms with a Chapter 13 repayment plan.

Sea West Federal Credit Union v. Peacock (In Re Peacock) · filed 1986-02-19(a)(2)(A)

His undisclosed unilateral intent to convert the payment provisions of this agreement to a three to five year payout under a chapter 13 plan, undisclosed to the lender and unapproved by the lender, clearly constitutes obtaining credit under false pretenses under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(C) treats a recreational three-wheeler as a luxury good for purposes of excepting its purchase debt from discharge.

Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hussey (In Re Hussey) · filed 1986-02-25(a)(2)(C)

A three-wheeler of the type purchased by Hussey is the kind of luxury goods contemplated by Subsection (C), of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual deceitful intent; a check that is later dishonored does not by itself establish fraud.

Western Petroleum Co. v. Burgstaler (In Re Burgstaler) · filed 1986-03-14(a)(2)(A)

A judgment of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) must be supported by a finding of “deceit, artifice or trick which involves a direct and active operation of intellect which is designed to mislead”.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when false representations satisfy the fraud test and are legally attributable to the debtor.

Laborers Clean-Up Contract Administration Trust Fund v. Kay (In Re Kay) · filed 1986-04-02(a)(2)

For the reasons stated, I conclude that the false statements of the Uriarte brothers and Mercado are chargeable to Kay for purposes of this dischargeability complaint and that the judgment is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the creditor proves the debtor used the card to deceive the creditor about an intent to repay.

Harris "Charge It" Systems v. Deloian (In Re Deloian) · filed 1986-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Under this standard, the burden is on the creditors to prove that the Debtor used his credit card to deceive the creditor into believing that the Debtor could and would repay the debt although, in fact, the Debtor did not intend to do so.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud, rather than fraud implied by law, to except a debt from discharge.

Morin v. McIntyre (In Re McIntyre) · filed 1986-04-07(a)(2)(A)

Successful proof of a claim that a debt is nondischargeable under this section of the Bankruptcy Code requires proof of actual fraud, as contrasted with mere fraud implied in law.

Section 523(a)(2) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a debtor signed another joint account holder’s name when the signature caused the creditor no damage.

Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Mills (In Re Mills) · filed 1986-06-11(a)(2)

Therefore, although the signatures were false representations, in writing, upon which Sears relied, Sears suffered no damages on account of the signatures.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts credit card debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation with intent to defraud and the creditor relies on it.

First Community Credit Union v. Cullen (In Re Cullen) · filed 1986-05-05(a)(2)(A)

In the circumstances, the Court finds and concludes that whenever Debtor used her credit cards after her credit limit had been exceeded, she knowingly made a false representation that she had the means and intention to pay for her purchases and that she made each false representation with the intent to defraud her creditors. ... Finally, the Court concludes that the creditors relied upon the Debtor’s false representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats each credit purchase as an implied representation that the debtor intends and is able to pay.

LaFata v. Burklow (In Re Burklow) · filed 1986-05-13(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, each time Burklow charged an item to his account he impliedly represented that he had both the intention and the ability to pay for those purchases.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a debtor fails to keep a promise of future action; the creditor must prove fraudulent intent when the promise was made.

Keeling v. Roeder (In Re Roeder) · filed 1986-05-22(a)(2)(A)

Since Roeder’s promise related to a future action, the assignment of the income tax refund, his failure to carry out that promise is not a false representation or false pretense for purposes of Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on fraud implied by law without proof of fraudulent intent.

Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. Pochel (In Re Pochel) · filed 1986-06-04(a)(2)(A)

Most importantly, § 17-la does not require proof of fraudulent intent or intent to deceive. If there is any fraud in § 17-la, it is implied in law and does not require a showing of bad faith or immorality. This is not sufficient to establish a false pretense, false representation, or actual fraud as required under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

M.P. Industries, Inc. v. Holzman (In re Holzman) · filed 1986-05-22(a)(2)(A)

I find, therefore, that the debt fixed by the Missouri court to the four plaintiffs is for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud on the debtor’s part and each such debt is, therefore, excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523 allows a court to look behind a refinancing note that merely evidences an earlier debt to determine whether the debt remains nondischargeable because it was obtained through a false financial statement.

Omnibank Aurora, N.A. v. Konopka (In re Konopka) · filed 1986-05-29(a)(2)(B)

Thus, if a note is given merely as evidence of a prior debt, the Court may look behind the note to the debt to determine if it was incurred by way of a false financial statement or would otherwise be nondischargeable under Code § 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show reliance on an alleged misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge.

Koltman v. Hammill (In Re Hammill) · filed 1986-06-03(a)(2)(A)

However, regardless of whose testimony we believe, this argument cannot succeed under § 523(a)(2)(A) because the plaintiffs have not shown that they relied on Mr. Hammill’s alleged statement in entering into the agreement of sale.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt incurred through a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Soto v. Cabrera (In Re Cabrera) · filed 1987-03-23(a)(2)(A)

Because Cabrera’s obligation to Soto under the Circuit Court Judgment was incurred through his participation in a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses, false representation, and actual fraud, that obligation is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when it was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Cogan v. Barney (In Re Barney) · filed 1987-03-24(a)(2)(A)

Finally, Mr. Cogan’s assertion that the Barney, Jr.’s indebtedness to him should be excepted from discharge, under 11 U.S.C. § 523, is without merit. No proof of “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” has been offered in connection with the loan from Mr. Cogan to Mr. Barney, Jr. Testimony by Mr. Cogan showed that the loan was not, in any way, obtained by fraudulent means.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor to seek an exception from discharge for a debt arising from money, property, services, or credit obtained through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. A later note and guaranties do not automatically defeat that claim.

Colonial Bank v. McLeod (In re McLeod) · filed 1987-04-09(a)(2)(A)

In order to state a claim for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a plaintiff must allege that the debtor obtained “money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or renewal, or refinance of credit by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud....” Thus, the issue before the court is whether, as a matter of law, the execution of the promissory note and personal guarantees cancelled the original obligations and the plaintiffs fraud claims so that the debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523 excepts debts arising from fraud, embezzlement, and willful and malicious conversion from discharge.

Holmes v. Mangel (In Re Mangel) · filed 1987-04-21(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

In summary, the Court finds the Florida state court judgment to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. sections 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a breach of contract nondischargeable without a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Alvine v. Keller (In Re Keller) · filed 1987-04-30(a)(2)(A)

Failure to comply with these terms would show a breach of contract, and not a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a debtor failed to fulfill a promise; fraud requires proof that the debtor intended to break it when made.

Soukup v. Ionna (In Re Ionna) · filed 1987-05-15(a)(2)(A)

It has not been found in cases where all that has been proved is a failure to fulfill a promise, without proof of an intent to break the promise at the time that it was made. ... We find the present case to be in the latter category.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that a misrepresentation was made with intent to deceive.

Fiser v. Croteau (In re Croteau) · filed 1987-05-20(a)(2)(A)

It is plaintiffs’ burden under § 523(a)(2)(A) to prove that a misrepresentation was made “with the purpose and intention of deceiving the creditor.” In re Hunter, 780 F.2d 1577, 1579 (11th Cir.1986).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation or false pretense to show that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor and that the creditor relied on the representation.

McNamara v. Austin (In re Austin) · filed 1987-05-27(a)(2)(A)

In order to bar discharge of a debt for a false representation or false pretense, the creditor must show the debtor’s purpose and intent was to deceive the creditor, and that the creditor relied on the representations.

Section 523(a)(2) does not except a preexisting debt from discharge merely because the creditor subordinates its collateral to enable the debtor to borrow from another lender.

Cosper v. Frederick · filed 1987-06-25(a)(2)

Such strict construction results in this Court’s conclusion that a creditor’s execution of a subordination agreement does not constitute the debtor’s acquisition of money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the debtor’s knowledge and intent to deceive; a check returned for insufficient funds alone does not establish those elements.

Castilla v. Gonzalez Seijo (In Re Gonzalez Seijo) · filed 1987-07-09(a)(2)(A)

The fact that the checks were returned for insufficient funds cannot, by itself, establish the knowledge and intent necessary to bar the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Conibear v. Alspach (In Re Alspach) · filed 1987-08-12(a)(2)(A)

The debtor’s participation in creating false pretenses and in giving false representations regarding the financial status of PGP Inc. is the type of fraud included under Section 523(a)(2)(A). Pursuant to the Code, these representations must have been made knowingly and fraudulently and must have been relied upon by the other party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through intentional false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud on which the creditor relied and suffered a loss.

Bishop v. Herwig (In Re Herwig) · filed 1987-09-21(a)(2)(A)

These findings clearly establish that defendant used false pretenses and made false representations, that he did so with the intent to deceive, that plaintiffs relied on such representations, and that they were injured as a result thereof. These findings further demonstrate that defendant obtained money from plaintiffs through actual fraud as defined by case law interpreting section 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains an account transfer by promising to pay without intending to do so.

Sears v. Tipple (In Re Tipple) · filed 1987-09-25(a)(2)(A)

Clearly, the Defendant induced Sears to assign the account balance to her with no intention to repay the amount owed. Such an act amounts to both “false pretenses” and “fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual fraud, rather than constructive fraud, to except a debt from discharge.

Forstall v. McCall (In Re McCall) · filed 1987-08-06(a)(2)(A)

I agree with the debtor’s premise, i.e., that the plaintiff must establish that the debt arises from actual, not constructive, fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats intentional silence about a material fact as fraud when it induces a creditor to renew a loan.

In the Matter of Michael VAN HORNE. Margaret CASPERS, Appellee, v. Michael VAN HORNE, Appellant · filed 1987-08-17(a)(2)(A)

Under those circumstances, Van Horne’s failure to disclose his intention to divorce Caspers’ daughter constituted a material omission actionable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove reliance on the debtor's fraudulent misrepresentations, but does not require that reliance to be reasonable.

In Re Ophaug · filed 1987-08-26(a)(2)(A)

We hold that under section 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor need prove only that he relied on the debtor's fraudulent misrepresentations in extending credit to the debtor; the creditor need not prove that his reliance was reasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) treats a lender’s decision not to call a demand note in reliance on a debtor’s financial statement as an extension of credit.

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Mancini (In Re Mancini) · filed 1987-08-27(a)(2)(B)

For this reason it is clear that not to exercise a legal right when it could have been exercised and to permit the borrower to continue to enjoy credit is tantamount to an extension of credit which is clearly one of the elements of a claim of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor fraudulently misrepresented the intended use of the money when receiving it; later misuse alone is insufficient.

Writer v. Mistry (In Re Mistry) · filed 1987-09-09(a)(2)(A)

It also should be underscored that the Plaintiff must establish not only that his money was. misappropriated by the Defendant but that the Debtor fraudulently misrepresented the purposes for which he intended to use the funds at the time he received them.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor used a worthless check to buy goods.

City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Pike (In re Pike) · filed 1987-09-28(a)(2)(A)

The issuance of a worthless check to purchase goods does not, in itself, constitute fraud so as to preclude the discharge of the debt pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive or defraud for a false pretense or false representation; recklessly issuing a check without that intent is insufficient.

Charlie Kelton's Pontiac, Cadillac, Oldsmobile & Isuzu Truck, Inc. v. Roberts (In Re Roberts) · filed 1987-11-19(a)(2)(A)

It was well established under § 17a(2) of the prior Act, and the case law appears uniform under § 523(a)(2)(A), that the false pretense or false representation must be made with an intent to deceive or defraud in order for the statute to apply.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) allows intent to deceive to be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including reckless disregard of the facts.

AVCO Financial Services v. Lesher (In Re Lesher) · filed 1987-11-24(a)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Code does not require direct proof of fraudulent intent in order to render nondischargeable a debt. Such intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and it is sufficient to show that the false statement was rendered with reckless indifference and disregard of actual facts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through fraudulent representations that caused the creditor’s loss nondischargeable.

B.K. Medical Systems, Inc. Pension Plan v. Roberts (In Re Roberts) · filed 1987-12-09(a)(2)(A)

Based on the record, therefore, we find that Debtor’s activities in relation to the class of judgment creditors were of the type anticipated when the drafters enacted § 523(a)(2)(A) and their judgment will be held nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a knowingly false representation made with intent to deceive, creditor reliance, and resulting loss.

Burroughs v. Pashi (In Re Pashi) · filed 1988-01-06(a)(2)(A)

A party alleging nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) must prove' five basic elements incident to the creation of the debt. These elements are: (1) that the debtor made representations; (2) at the time he made them he knew of their falsity; (3) they were made with the intent and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained loss and damage as a proximate result of the representations having been made.

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

Transouth Financial Corp. v. Duncan (In Re Duncan) · filed 1987-12-30(a)(2)(B)

This Court finds that Transouth has failed to prove the element of reasonable reliance. Accordingly, this Court finds the $10,000 unsecured debt owed by the Debtors to Transouth is a dischargeable debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for fraud merely because the debtor issued a worthless check.

Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Hunter (In Re Hunter) · filed 1988-02-26(a)(2)(A)

The issuance of a worthless check to purchase goods does not, in itself, constitute fraud so as to preclude the discharge of the debt pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the elements of common law fraud to bar discharge of a debt.

Morgan v. Kanak (In Re Kanak) · filed 1988-03-16(a)(2)(A)

Unlike the Illinois Act, the elements of Code § 523(a)(2)(A) mirror the requirements for proof of common law fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may treat a creditor’s forbearance from collection as an extension of credit.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Cerar (In Re Cerar) · filed 1988-03-22(a)(2)(A)

This Court believes the better view to be that forbearance may constitute an extension of credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s trickery and forgery amount to actual fraud.

Van Roy v. Watkins (In Re Watkins) · filed 1988-03-22(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that these acts of trickery and forgery, rise to the level of actual fraud sufficient to deny discharge of this debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).