11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require the debtor to benefit from the fraud when the creditor suffers a resulting loss.

Miami Citizens National Bank & Trust Co. v. Weitzel (In Re Weitzel) · filed 1988-04-27(a)(2)(A)

There is no requirement that the Debtor benefit. Case law simply requires that the Creditor suffer some loss or injury as a result of the fraudulent conduct.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly makes a false statement to induce a creditor’s reliance and that reliance causes a loss.

In Re Barbara Jean DALLAM, Debtor. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Barbara Jean DALLAM, Appellee · filed 1988-06-29(a)(2)

We conclude that Lawyers Title produced evidence establishing fraud and a nondis-chargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2): Dallam obtained payment of her business’ debts by knowingly making a false statement in order to induce Lawyers Title to rely on it, and Lawyers Title’s reliance on the statement caused it to lose money.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat delivery of a check that is later dishonored, without more, as an actionable representation.

Tosco Corp. v. Tuggle (In Re Tuggle) · filed 1988-06-06(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court adopts the position that delivery of an ultimately-dishonored check, without more ... does not constitute an actionable representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan debt nondischargeable when the debtor fraudulently misrepresents how the loan proceeds will be used.

Kansas National Bank & Trust Co. v. Kroh (In Re Kroh) · filed 1988-06-17(a)(2)(A)

For all these reasons the Court holds that John and George made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the use of the loan proceeds to obtain credit from the Bank for themselves. Accordingly, neither John’s debt nor George’s debt is discharge-able under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false and intended to deceive; unresolved facts on those elements preclude summary judgment.

Hoffman v. Sheahan (In Re Sheahan) · filed 1988-06-28(a)(2)(A)

This record provides no evidence that the Debtor knew that the representations with regard to the title to the automobile were false. Nor is there conclusive evidence of the Debtor’s intent to deceive. ... In the matter here, there remain material issues of fact which are necessary to this Court’s determination of whether the debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves that it was incurred through fraud.

Palatine National Bank v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 1988-07-11(a)(2)(A)

It has not been shown by clear and convincing evidence that Olson’s debt to Palatine was incurred through fraud, rendering it nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). In fact, none of the essential elements of nondischargeable fraud has been proven.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof of intent to deceive; carelessness in a financial statement does not establish that intent.

Pan-Western Life Insurance v. Ross (In Re Ross) · filed 1988-07-11(a)(2)(B)

No knowing misrepresentation was shown, and the carelessness did not approach a level which could appropriately be equated with fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)'s intent-to-deceive requirement can be met by reckless disregard for the accuracy of a financial statement.

Fleet Consumer Discount Co. v. Liptak (In Re Liptak) · filed 1988-08-04(a)(2)(B)

The standard for decision includes recklessness, indifference, and/or disregard for accuracy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Ganis Corp. of California v. Jackson (In Re Jackson) · filed 1988-08-12(a)(2)

Like section 523(a)(2)(A), section 523(a)(2)(B) requires Ganis to demonstrate an intent to deceive on the part of the Debtors. Thus, for Ganis to prevail under either exception, it must prove that the Jacksons knowingly made false representations or made such representations so recklessly as to warrant the conclusion that the Debtors intended to deceive Ganis.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to have obtained money through a false representation; a creditor’s resulting loss alone is insufficient.

K.D. Homes, Inc. v. Fritz (In Re Fritz) · filed 1988-07-14(a)(2)(A)

Although (it is alleged that) the plaintiff creditor suffered a monetary loss resulting from the debtor’s false representation, there is no allegation, nor can plaintiff allege, that the debtor obtained, either directly or indirectly, any of the lost money by his false misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor to except a debt from discharge for false representation.

United States v. Singleton · filed 1988-09-29(a)(2)(A)

There is no sufficiently probative evidence to show the Debtor knew the property description in the note and mortgage were incorrect. The Court cannot infer intent in the face of Debtor’s unrefuted testimony and the lack of credible evidence presented by FmHA.

For a debt arising from an insufficient-funds check, § 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove intent to deceive; the burden does not shift to the debtor to prove an intent to cover the check.

Comerica Bank-Detroit v. Nahas (In Re Nahas) · filed 1988-11-03(a)(2)(A)

In each case, the Court should weigh the course of the debtor’s conduct in issuing the NSF check against the reasonableness of his expectation that the check would be covered. In weighing these considerations, the Court must keep in mind that the plaintiff retains the burden of proving the debtor’s intent to deceive, and that the burden never shifts to the debtor to establish his intent to cover the check.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor made a written financial statement with intent to deceive.

Household Finance Corp. v. Herke (In Re Herke) · filed 1988-11-21(a)(2)(B)

Therefore, the Court finds that debtor did not intent to deceive the creditor by failing to list her medical bills on the financial statement. Based upon the foregoing facts, this. Court finds that the creditor has failed to prove the elements under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) and, therefore, the debt is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) can make a debt nondischargeable as false pretenses when a debtor knowingly and deliberately fails to fulfill a continuing duty to report newly incurred debts to a creditor.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance v. Barber (In Re Barber) · filed 1988-12-21(a)(2)

Finally, nondischargeability, under the facts of this case, can be predicated exclusively on the separate and independent ground of defendant’s knowing and deliberate failure to perform his continued duty to notify plaintiff of any debt incurred between October 9, 1987, and October 15, 1987. Such knowing and deliberate conduct constitutes false pretenses under the provisions of § 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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

First National Bank of White Sulphur Springs v. Bastrom (In Re Bastrom) · filed 1989-02-13(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court finds that the Debtors made false and fraudulent representations in order to obtain credit from the Bank in violation of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for breach of a promise when the debtor did not misrepresent his intent to perform it.

J-W Operating Co. v. Rothrock (In Re Rothrock) · filed 1989-01-10(a)(2)(A)

While the Court finds that RRR breached the best efforts contract, it does not find that, at the time same was entered into, RRR had no intention of exerting his best efforts. ... Nor would same constitute fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false or was grossly reckless about its truth.

Bowyers True Value Hardware, Inc. v. Beverly (In re Beverly) · filed 1989-01-23(a)(2)(A)

A debtor must either have known the representations were false at the time they were made or have been grossly reckless as to the truth of such representations. In this case, the Court does not find the Debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiff when he promised to pay the account with his tax refund. The Court is persuaded that the Debtor initially intended to pay the account with his refund.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge.

Zell v. Kalra (In re Kalra) · filed 1989-01-27(a)(2)(A)

After reviewing the stipulation of facts entered in this case, we conclude that plaintiffs have not met their difficult burden of establishing the elements required under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, we find that the debt owed to plaintiffs is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains a lien release through a knowingly false promise to pay.

Del Conte Contracting, Inc. v. Kerner (In Re Kerner) · filed 1989-03-20(a)(2)(A)

I also find that the debtor obtained the release of plaintiff’s lien with an actual intent to defraud plaintiff by a deliberately false representation that he knew to be false when he made it. ... I reject plaintiff’s contention under § 523(a)(4), but find that its proof entitles it to judgment under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a tacit agreement to forego collection, made possible by a fraudulent note, as an extension of credit.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Cerar (In Re Cerar) · filed 1989-02-22(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy judge’s finding that there was a tacit agreement that the Bank would forego collection efforts and that this forebearance was an extension of credit under § 523(a)(2)(A) is affirmed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent; a mere breach of contract is insufficient.

Allied Video Corp. v. Fitch (In re Fitch) · filed 1989-03-20(a)(2)(A)

A mere breach of contract by the debtor without more is insufficient to prove an intent to defraud for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from fraudulent representations used to obtain money.

Pitts v. Pitts (In re Pitts) · filed 1989-05-10(a)(2)(A)

As is required by B.R. 9021, a separate judgment will be entered for plaintiff against the debtor in the amount of $60,000 and that claim is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) requires an intentional act and an intent to injure; under § 523(a)(2)(A), an insufficient-funds check alone does not establish an actionable false representation.

ITT Consumer Financial Corp. v. Judge (In re Judge) · filed 1989-04-06(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

To sustain an action under Section 523(a)(6), there must be a showing of both an intentional act and an intent to injure. ... The delivery of an NSF check “without more does not constitute an actionable representation under Section 523(a)(2)(A).”

Section 523(a)(2)(C)’s presumption of fraudulent intent is rebutted by sufficient evidence that the debtor lacked that intent.

J.C. Penney Co. v. Leaird (In Re Leaird) · filed 1989-04-07(a)(2)(C)

To rebut a presumption of fraudulent intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(C), the debtor must directly attack the presumed fact with sufficient evidence to support a finding that the fraudulent intent did not exist.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for a broken promise to deliver title without proof of intent to deceive.

Cowher's Trucking, Inc. v. Zack (In Re Zack) · filed 1989-05-08(a)(2)(A)

Assuming Zack promised to deliver title to the truck at the time of delivery or at a time certain, the result is a dischargeable breach of contract or breach of warranty. Furthermore, there is no evidence from which to infer that Zack had an intent to deceive at the time of the initial transaction. On these facts, we find that the plaintiff, Diane Cow-her, has not proven that the defendant obtained money, property, services or credit by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud. Accordingly, the plaintiffs request for an exception to discharge based on section 523(a)(2)(A) is denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a promise made with a present intent not to perform.

In Re Philip Rubin, Debtor. Philip Rubin v. Hugh E. West Yasue West · filed 1989-05-19(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, even though Rubin can characterize the second representation as a promise, a promise made with a positive intent not to perform or without a present intent to perform satisfies § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts cash advances and overdraft credit from discharge when the debtor obtains them through false pretenses without intending to repay.

Barnett Bank of Pasco County v. Decker (In Re Decker) · filed 1989-05-25(a)(2)(A)

Looking at the picture as a whole, this Court is satisfied that the February cash advance of $1,000.00 as well as overdraft protection in the amount of $1,050 was obtained by false pretenses. The close proximity of time in retaining an attorney and receiving these monies sustains the inference that the Debtor knew he had no reasonable prospect of being able to pay, and therefore no intention of actually paying the obligation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may except a debt from discharge when a debtor pays for a contemporaneous purchase with a dishonored check and the required elements of fraud are proved.

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1989-06-07(a)(2)(A)

This court agrees with those decisions which recognize that the contemporaneous purchase and the delivery of a check drawn against insufficient funds may give rise to a non-dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof that the creditor relied on the debtor’s representation or financial statement to except a debt from discharge.

Kernozek v. Rubenstein (In re Rubenstein) · filed 1989-06-20(a)(2)

Without having to consider first whether or not the Debtor, in fact, made a false representation or submitted a false statement to the Court, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs failed to prove with the requisite degree of proof that they relied on either the financial statement or any representations by the Debtor when they purchased the shares of the Essex corporation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor fraudulently obtains an extension of credit by inducing a creditor to delay collection, causing the creditor loss.

Alessio v. Adkins (In Re Adkins) · filed 1989-06-27(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that the debtor’s conduct in inducing Ms. Alessio to forebear from collecting on the notes until after the applicable statutes of limitation had expired on the underlying obligations constitutes “actual fraud” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) requires actual intent to deceive, which may be inferred from admitted facts despite a debtor’s unsupported claim of honest intent.

Signet Bank v. Wingo (In Re Wingo) · filed 1989-07-12(a)(2)(B)(iv)

While it is true that Signet must establish that the Wingos committed actual fraud, it is equally true that the Wingos’ unsupported assertions of an honest intent will not overcome the natural inferences from admitted facts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt incurred through intentional false representations, including the resulting judgment and attorney’s fees.

Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v. Rechichi (In Re Rechichi) · filed 1989-09-25(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the debtor knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to the creditor his intention and ability to cover the option transactions he ordered. Therefore, the Court finds that the final judgment and award of attorneys’ fees owing to the creditor are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can treat a personal guarantee as property obtained from the guarantor, who becomes a creditor with a contingent claim when she gives it.

Woolley v. Sprague (In Re Sprague) · filed 1989-08-21(a)(2)(B)

This court concurs with the reasoning of the McShirley court and concludes that Sprague obtained property from Wool-ley at the time she extended her personal guarantee to First Interstate Bank to guarantee the loan made by First Interstate Bank to the joint venture. It follows that when the personal guarantee of Woolley was given to First Interstate, she became a creditor of Sprague holding a contingent claim against him.

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

Ohio Savings Bank v. Larson (In Re Larson) · filed 1989-09-12(a)(2)(A)

The Court found that Movant failed woefully to establish the essential elements of its case under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The evidence, irrespective of testimony regarding approval of a cash disbursement, failed to demonstrate that the Debtors made a representation that was false or with gross disregard for its truth, that Debtors intended to deceive Movant, or that Movant relied on any false or grossly negligent misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)’s intent requirement can be satisfied by reckless disregard for the truth.

North Community Bank v. Boumenot · filed 1989-09-15(a)(2)

A showing of reckless disregard can satisfy the intent requirement of § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive or defraud the creditor.

Schwartz v. Goldstein (In re Goldstein) · filed 1989-09-19(a)(2)(A)

It has long been settled that to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), plaintiff must prove that the debtor’s conduct involved moral turpitude or intentional wrong, that he had an actual intent to deceive or defraud the plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud nondischargeable.

COQ v. Heckenkamp (In Re HECKENKAMP) · filed 1989-12-28(a)(2)(A)

Having concluded that the trial procedure of using the parties declarations as the means of presenting the direct testimony is proper and that the evidence is overwhelming that Heckenkamp defrauded Coq., I hold that the debt of $270,000 plus interest from October 15, 1985 is nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

James v. McCoy (In Re McCoy) · filed 1990-05-10(a)(2)(A)

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and the elements required for proof under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Court concludes that the Debtor’s debt to James is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to prove reasonable reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation.

Household Finance Corp. v. Schoeff (In Re Schoeff) · filed 1990-06-04(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Plaintiffs reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation was not reasonable. Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B)(iii).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes unemployment benefits nondischargeable when a debtor obtains them through knowingly false certifications intended to deceive an agency that reasonably relies on them.

Illinois Department of Employment Security v. Winston (In Re Winston) · filed 1990-05-30(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby grants the motion for default judgment and finds the debt owed to IDES by the Debtor, in the amount of $1,145.85, including unpaid principal plus interest accrued to the date of the petition, nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising when a debtor obtains funds through fraud and diverts them from their represented use.

Custer v. Dobbs (In Re Dobbs) · filed 1990-05-30(a)(2)(A)

However, the Court determines that all payments made by Dobbs on “non-Custer” accounts were from funds fraudulently appropriated by Dobbs, and the corresponding obligation to the Custers is not dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) covers a fraudulently induced loan to a business when the debtor has a financial interest in the business and benefits from the loan, even if he does not receive the funds directly.

In Re Robert Floyd Ashley, AKA Robert Ashley, Debtor. Robert Floyd Ashley, AKA Robert Ashley v. C. Eugene Church Helen L · filed 1990-06-11(a)(2)

Thus, although slightly attenuated, Ashley’s link with AMM placed him in a position to benefit from any infusion of capital to that enterprise. Under these circumstances, inducing the Churches to invest in AMM was indeed obtaining something for himself.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debtor’s fraud liability nondischargeable even when the loan went to a corporation rather than to the debtor personally.

Fonfara v. Dowd (In Re Dowd) · filed 1990-06-27(a)(2)(A)

It is also immaterial that the debtor’s fraud involved a loan to a corporation in which he was a major stockholder rather than to himself personally.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor orders goods on credit knowing he cannot pay under the agreed terms and the creditor reasonably relies on his implied promise to do so.

Cornwell Quality Tools v. Rodgers (In re Rodgers) · filed 1990-06-27(a)(2)(A)

Here, Rodgers has admitted that he could not pay according to the terms of the Agreement. ... When Rodgers placed the purchase orders, he impliedly represented that he would pay in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Cornwell reasonably relied upon this representation in shipping the tools. A contrary result would undercut commercial agreements of this type. Accordingly, I hold that the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor uses false pretenses to induce a creditor to transfer property or extend credit; false pretenses can include silence when the debtor has a duty to speak.

Evans v. Dunston (In Re Dunston) · filed 1990-08-06(a)(2)(A)

This Court construes “false pretense” in the context of Section 523(a)(2)(A) to mean, generally, a series of events, activities or communications which, when considered collectively, create a false and misleading set of circumstances, or false and misleading understanding of a transaction, in which a creditor is wrongfully induced by the debtor to transfer property or extend credit to the debtor. “False pretense” may, but does not necessarily, include a written or express false representation. It can consist of silence when there is a duty to speak.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a statement made with reckless disregard for its truth as a false representation.

Arney v. Moran (In Re Moran) · filed 1990-10-26(a)(2)(A)

Reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of a statement constitutes a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through actual fraud nondischargeable, including when the debtor makes misrepresentations to obtain the creditor's money.

In Re Jack R. Black, Jr. In Re Cathy T. Black, Debtors. Wilbur R. Pleasants Shirley P. Pleasants v. Jack R. Black, Jr. · filed 1990-09-25(a)(2)(A)

The district court found that Black made several misrepresentations in obtaining money from the Pleasants and, thus, committed actual fraud as contemplated by Sec. 523(a)(2)(A). ... After a review of the record, we agree for the reasons stated by the district court that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Because we affirm the district court's clearly erroneous determination, we need not reach the legal issue of whether Black's conduct amounted to embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains money through actual fraud or false pretenses.

Krenowsky v. Haining (In Re Haining) · filed 1990-09-26(a)(2)(A)

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Judgment, Order, and Decree of the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in favor of Hildegard Krenowsky and against Eleanor Haining is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove reliance on it and a loss proximately caused by it.

Tran v. Vasquez (In re Vasquez) · filed 1990-10-01(a)(2)(A)

The Trans have failed to show that they relied on Dr. Vasquez’ representation of his marital status to make the loan or that their loss was a proximate result of the misrepresentation. To the contrary, the Trans’ testimony revealed that they relied on Vasquez’ status as a professional to make the loan. Because of this failure of evidence their complaint under § 523(a)(2)(A) must also fail.

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof of the debtor’s intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge for a false representation or a false written financial statement.

Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1990-10-05(a)(2)

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Smith did not knowingly intend to give false information to or intend to defraud Worthen, and his debt to the bank, by virtue of his personal guarantee, should be discharged in this Chapter 7 proceeding. ... ORDERED that Worthen’s Complaint to declare the debt owed to it by the debtor nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) is denied, and the debt is discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not bar discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor's written financial statement was false or misleading or made with intent to deceive.

Bank of Washington v. Hunter (In re Hunter) · filed 1990-10-19(a)(2)(B)

This Court finds that the Plaintiff has not established that any item in the written statement prepared by the Debtor was false or misleading or that the statement made was made with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive when the representation is made; intent formed later does not suffice.

Lawyers Title Insurance v. Pitt (In Re Pitt) · filed 1990-11-29(a)(2)(A)

Here the debtors represented payment of suppliers and subcontractors and the creditor sustained loss; however, since the representation was made up front at the time of the loan, it was not then untrue. The facts must show intent at the time and not later.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s false representation intended to deceive causes loss through the creditor’s reasonable reliance.

Cain v. Whitley (In re Whitley) · filed 1990-12-18(a)(2)(A)

Having found the State Court’s judgment to be based on factual findings of fraud for willful or reckless misrepresentation of material fact, this Court accepts the factual findings of fraud of the State Court verdict and finds the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) to be met and the debt to be non-dischargeable.

An unjust-enrichment judgment alone does not make a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6); the creditor must prove the required deception or willful and malicious injury.

Ellis v. Shear (In Re Shear) · filed 1991-01-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The upshot of this analysis is that the jury in the State Court could, and probably did, find for the plaintiff under the judge’s instructions and under applicable Ohio law without finding “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” under subsection 523(a)(2)(A) or a “willful and malicious injury” under 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes refinanced debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains the refinancing by false pretenses or a false representation.

Ameritrust Co. v. Rudicil (In Re Rudicil) · filed 1991-01-17(a)(2)(A)

In summary, the aforementioned testimonies reveal, collectively, that the Debtor incurred the refinanced debt by means of false pretenses as well as a false representation. On either basis, the exception to discharge of debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) is satisfied, and it is hereby so found to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt based on material omissions, and § 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for willful and malicious injury.

Smith v. Price (In Re Price) · filed 1991-02-19(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

A debtor’s silence regarding material facts may constitute false representations under Section 523(a)(2)(A). ... Pursuant to Section 523(a)(6), a debt is nondischargeable if it is for willful and malicious injury. The elements necessary to prove nondischargeability under this section are: 1) willful actions with 2) the intention or full expectation of harm to the economic interests of the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knowingly made a false representation with intent to deceive and that the creditor relied on it.

Citizens & Southern National Bank v. DeLisle (In Re DeLisle) · filed 1991-02-22(a)(2)(A)

This Court is satisfied that there is no evidence to prove the Debtor made representations about his income with the intention to deceive or knowing they were false.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats affidavits that are false when used to obtain loan draws as false representations, even if they were true when signed.

Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Pitt · filed 1991-04-17(a)(2)(A)

While mindful of the clear error deference which governs our review of the lower court’s findings in a proceeding involving dischargeability of debt, see Bankruptcy Rule 8013; In re Allen, 65 B.R. 752 (E.D.Va.1986), we nevertheless REVERSE the court’s finding that the Pitts’ use of the affidavits did not amount to a false representation for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s knowledge element is satisfied when a debtor makes a false representation with reckless disregard for whether it is true.

Visotsky v. Woolley (In Re Woolley) · filed 1991-03-29(a)(2)(A)

The knowledge element for exception to discharge is satisfied if the debtor’s representation was known to be false or recklessly made without knowing whether it was true or false.

A debtor’s failure to ask enough questions about her finances does not, by itself, make a cash advance nondischargeable as false pretenses or fraud.

First Deposit National Bank v. Houfek (In re Houfek) · filed 1991-04-01(a)(2)(A)

That Melinda Houfek asked too few questions is not equivalent to false pretenses or fraud, however. Her serious illness further supports this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Melinda Houfek neither knew nor, given her circumstances, should have been expected to know that First Deposit’s debt would not be repaid.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) keeps a debt obtained through a materially false written financial statement nondischargeable when a later repayment agreement merely extends the original loan, even if the creditor has discovered the fraud.

Merrill Lynch Business Financial Services, Inc. v. Kim (In Re Kim) · filed 1991-04-09(a)(2)(B)

This Court does not believe that Merrill Lynch should be penalized for “its attempt to make the best of a bad situation.” Here, Merrill Lynch approved the loan to the debtor based on the submission of false financial documents. It wasn’t until the debtor defaulted under the loan agreement that the falsity was discovered. Instead of calling the loan, Merrill Lynch accepted a 15-month payback. ... Thus, the debt to Merrill Lynch is nondis-chargeable in its entirety under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) since the original loan was obtained by use of a statement in writing that is materially false respecting the debt- or’s financial condition, on which the creditor reasonably relied, and that the debtor caused to be made with intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats presenting checks to a bank for discounting as an implied representation that they are third-party checks.

In Re Union Bank of the Middle East, Ltd. · filed 1991-05-22(a)(2)(A)

Based on the particular circumstances involved with the process of discounting, this Court finds that the mere act of presenting checks to a bank for discounting carries with it an implied representation that such checks are, in fact, third-party checks.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove that the debtor knowingly made it with intent to defraud, that the creditor relied on it, and that it caused injury.

Montgomery v. Montgomery (In Re Montgomery) · filed 1991-06-20(a)(2)(A)

The objecting creditor under § 523(a)(2)(A) must show that the debtor knowingly made a false representation with the intent to defraud, which the creditor relied upon, and which proximately caused the injury to the creditor. ... The element that is completely absent in Plaintiffs case is the proof of injury.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar discharge merely because a debtor gives a check drawn on insufficient funds, without more.

Goldberg Securities, Inc. v. Scarlata (In Re Scarlata) · filed 1991-05-30(a)(2)(A)

This court agrees with the court’s reasoning in Horwitz and therefore concludes that a check drawn on insufficient funds, without more, does not constitute an implied representation that there are funds on account to cover the check sufficient to bar discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on a promise to act in the future unless the debtor intended not to fulfill the promise when it was made.

Bank of Louisiana v. Bercier (In re Bercier) · filed 1991-07-03(a)(2)(A)

With these unchallenged fact findings, BOL could not establish that Bercier's debt is nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(2) because at the time the debt was entered into, Bercier did not make a false representation of a current or past fact when he said the bond was lost or a false representation or promise when he said that he would furnish it when he found it, or duplicate it if he could not find it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove actual reliance on an alleged fraudulent representation.

Smith v. Meyers (In Re Schwartz & Meyers) · filed 1991-08-07(a)(2)(A)

More importantly, the statements regarding the New York properties and the alleged omissions concerning Teleculture are not actionable because Smith has failed to establish that she relied on them at the time she invested her money.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a false financial statement; reliance is unreasonable when an employee of the creditor’s parent company masterminded the fraud.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Cohn (In Re Cohn) · filed 1991-08-27(a)(2)(B)

However, we find troublesome the fact that INA is attempting to have a debt declared nondischargeable based upon the fraud masterminded by an employee of its own parent company. For this reason, we conclude that any reliance placed upon the application by INA was done at its own risk and must be found unreasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a check that later bounces as a false representation merely because it was presented for payment.

Jarboe Sales Co. v. Degraffenreid (In Re Degraffenreid) · filed 1991-08-26(a)(2)(A)

Following Williams, this Court finds the Debtors did not make false representations merely by presenting checks for payment which later bounced.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a loan debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains the loan without intending to repay it or knowing he cannot meet its terms.

ITT Financial Services v. Szczepanski (In Re Szczepanski) · filed 1991-09-04(a)(2)(A)

Although mere breach of contract without more does not evince an existence of actual fraud or false representation for purposes of nondischargeability, obtaining a loan with no intentions of repaying it or with the knowledge of an inability to comply with the terms of the loan agreement may deem the debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a loan debt obtained through a false representation from discharge.

Hecker v. Franklin National Bank of Washington, D.C · filed 1991-10-23(a)(2)(A)

Appellant contends that the District Court erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that a $50,000 loan advanced by the predecessor-in-interest of appellee Franklin National Bank was not dischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Appellant had argued below that the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings were clearly erroneous and that the Bankruptcy Court misapplied the legal test used to determine whether appellee reasonably relied upon appellant's alleged false representation. We affirm, essentially for the reasons discussed in the District Court's Memorandum Opinion, filed September 25, 1989. Any error in the district court's concept of reasonable reliance (assuming any such requirement was applicable) was not unfavorable to the bankrupt, and its finding of reasonable reliance was not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a fraudulent promise nondischargeable only if the debtor did not intend to perform when making the promise; breach of contract alone is insufficient.

McPheron v. Bice (In re Bice) · filed 1991-09-05(a)(2)(A)

Mere breach of contract, without more, does not render a consequent debt nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A). A fraudulent promise under Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that at the time the debtor made the promise, the debtor did not intend to perform as required.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a false financial statement, but the statement need only be a substantial factor in the creditor’s decision to extend credit.

Arkansas Aluminum Alloys, Inc. v. Joyner (In Re Joyner) · filed 1991-09-10(a)(2)(B)

The creditor does not have to prove that the financial statement was the sole reason for extending credit; partial reliance is sufficient. ... It is sufficient for the creditor to show the false financial statement was a substantial factor in causing the extension of credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for money obtained under false pretenses when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation intending to deceive the creditor, who relies on it to its detriment.

In Re Dale Luthi and Marcia Luthi, Debtors. Westway Partners v. Luthi · filed 1991-09-26(a)(2)(A)

In order to establish that defendant obtained the money underlying this debt under false pretenses, plaintiff had to establish that defendant made a false representation, knowing at the time that he made the representation that it was false, with the intent to deceive plaintiff, and that plaintiff relied upon the misrepresentation to its detriment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a debtor fails to fulfill a promise of future performance.

Kotan v. Austin (In Re Austin) · filed 1991-10-04(a)(2)(A)

A bare promise to be fulfilled in the future, which is not carried out, does not render a consequent debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge money obtained by falsely representing an intent to use funds for the purpose for which they were advanced.

Fensick v. Segala (In Re Segala) · filed 1991-10-18(a)(2)(A)

If funds are deemed to have been entrusted to the debtor for a specific purpose, the debtor is regarded as impliedly representing his intention to use the funds accordingly. ... I find that in requesting the funds and in saying what he did, the Debtor impliedly represented that the funds would be used on the job, and that the Plaintiffs relied on that representation. ... A separate judgment has issued declaring that $51,500 of the Plaintiffs’ judgment against the Debtor is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt obtained through fraud or false pretenses; fraud may include concealment or nondisclosure of a material fact.

Ticor Title Insurance v. Reitz (In Re Reitz) · filed 1991-11-12(a)(2)(A)

Under the fraud nondis-chargeability provision of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), these allegations, if proved, would not permit discharge of this debt. Fraud may consist of silence, concealment, or non-disclosure of a material fact.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a causal connection between the debtor’s false representation and the creditor’s loss.

In Re C. Wendell Collins, Debtor. C. Wendell Collins v. Palm Beach Savings & Loan · filed 1991-11-08(a)(2)(B)

Collins correctly asserts that there is a causation requirement implied in the exception to discharge provided in § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require a creditor to plead actual reliance on the alleged fraud; subsection (B) also requires reasonable reliance.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Calhoun (In Re Calhoun) · filed 1991-11-25(a)(2)(A) and (B)

Therefore, the FDIC must plead under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) that NBW relied on the fraudulent assertions and financial statements that it received from the debt- or’s partners and plead that such reliance was reasonable for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B). Having failed to do so, the complaint is defective with respect to both § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual reliance; the FDIC cannot use the D’Oench, Duhme estoppel rule to satisfy that requirement.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1991-12-05(a)(2)(A)

This court respectfully declines to adopt the prevailing rule that D’Oench, Duhme excuses the FDIC-Receiver from proving actual reliance by the failed institution or by bank regulators in a nondischargeability action brought under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a debt is nondischargeable because of a false representation to prove reliance on the representation and a resulting loss.

Applebaum v. Henderson (In Re Henderson) · filed 1991-12-10(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has certainly not proven that she relied on the Debtor’s misrepresentations, if any, as opposed to relying on her own knowledge of the transactions in deciding whether to provide further services to the Debtor. The damages suffered by the Plaintiff resulted from the Debtor’s unforeseen inability to pay her, not his representations to her regarding the Realty.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the creditor relied on the debtor’s representation to except a fraud debt from discharge.

Beneficial of Missouri, Inc. v. Shurbier (In Re Shurbier) · filed 1991-12-31(a)(2)(A)

Since reliance is a necessary element to a finding of fraud, the Court finds that § 523(a)(2)(A) does not operate to make the subject loan debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the debtor obtain money, property, or services through reliance on false pretenses.

Ellerman v. Ellerman (In re Ellerman) · filed 1992-01-03(a)(2)(A)

To succeed under section 523(a)(2)(A), however, money, property, or services must have been obtained as a result of the reliance on the false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s silence about material facts as a false representation when the other fraud requirements are met.

Mercantile Bank of Joplin N.A. v. Nicsinger (In Re Nicsinger) · filed 1992-01-27(a)(2)(A)

A debtor’s silence regarding material facts can constitute a false representation under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat the mere issuance of a worthless check, without more, as fraud.

Supercom, Inc. v. Levitsky (In Re Levitsky) · filed 1992-01-17(a)(2)(A)

Although there is a split of authority, this court believes the better view is that the mere issuance of a worthless check, without more, is not fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional fraud or deceit; a securities award that could rest on negligence does not establish those elements.

Swanson v. Tam (In Re Tam) · filed 1992-01-28(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) includes only those frauds involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong, and does not extend to fraud implied in law which may arise in the absence of bad faith or immorality. ... Thus, such a finding would not establish the element of knowingly committing actual fraud or intent to deceive as required by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor obtained property through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; any one of the three suffices.

Germain Lincoln Mercury of Columbus, Inc. v. Begun (In Re Begun) · filed 1992-01-29(a)(2)(A)

As the statute is framed in the disjunctive, while a plaintiff asserting a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim must demonstrate that property was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, a showing of only one of the three offending conducts is required.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the evidence fails to establish that the provision applies.

Weiner v. Clement (In Re Clement) · filed 1992-02-05(a)(2)(A)

The evidence presented did not show that ... § 523(a)(2)(A) would apply.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through a knowingly or recklessly false representation made with intent to defraud, on which the creditor actually and reasonably relied.

Dornik v. Maurice (In Re Maurice) · filed 1992-03-31(a)(2)(A)

In order to except the Debtor’s debt under this section, Dornik must establish three elements: (1) the Debtor obtained the $20,000.00 through representations either knowingly false or made with such reckless disregard for the truth as to constitute willful misrepresentation; (2) the Debtor possessed an actual intent to defraud; and (3) Dornik actually and reasonably relied upon the false representation. ... Accordingly, the Court will allow the relief sought under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraud, including a knowing misrepresentation or wrongful act, intended and actual creditor reliance, and resulting damage.

United Counties Trust Co. v. Knapp (In Re Knapp) · filed 1992-02-28(a)(2)(A)

In order to prove actual fraud, the creditor must show that the debtor either made a misrepresentation or did an act which was wrong. The proofs must show that the debtor knew that it was wrong, that she intended the creditor to rely on the act or misrepresentation and that the creditor did, in fact, rely on such act or misrepresentation and, finally, that the creditor was damaged thereby. ... Under the circumstances this court finds and concludes that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and the complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained by actual fraud nondischargeable, including when a debtor knowingly withdraws another’s money and conceals that fact.

Fidelity Service Co. v. Grocki (In Re Grocki) · filed 1992-03-12(a)(2)(A)

The Court is satisfied by the preponderance of the evidence that Grocki knew he was withdrawing far more money from the account than was his, and his failure to mention this fact to Fidelity was an omission which amounts to actual fraud. ... Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff in the amount of $23,796.70 plus interest is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a promise to repay can be a false representation when the borrower could not reasonably expect to perform it.

Cordeiro v. McDermott (In Re McDermott) · filed 1992-03-17(a)(2)(A)

In order to satisfy elements two and three, McDermott’s representations concerning his ability to repay the loan must be established as objectively false or deceptive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts previously extended credit from discharge when a debtor fraudulently induces the creditor to renew it, even if the original credit was extended without fraud.

Codisco, Inc. v. Marx (In Re Marx) · filed 1992-03-31(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court holds that the exception to discharge provision of § 523(a)(2) is not limited to new value.

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

Fields v. Nemovitz (In Re Nemovitz) · filed 1992-04-08(a)(2)(A)

To state a claim based on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must allege that the Debtor obtained money, property, or an extension of credit by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained through false representations, including an FTC judgment for consumer redress.

Matter of Namer · filed 1992-04-08(a)(2)(A)

Namer is not entitled to a discharge of the FTC debt because it is a debt for “money ... obtained by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,” as described in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for actual fraud merely because the debtor later breached a contract.

Garza v. Baker (In Re Baker) · filed 1992-04-09(a)(2)(A)

A breach of contract by the debtor does not imply existence of actual fraud for the purposes of Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts obtained by fraud nondischargeable.

Oldham v. Morris · filed 1992-05-19(a)(2)(A)

Debt obtained by fraud is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... We do not find that the application of section 523(a)(2)(A) was clearly erroneous, and affirm the district court's holding that Gary Oldham's debts to Pensula and Morris's were not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove a false representation, intent to deceive, and reliance.

Sunbank/North Florida National Ass'n v. Podzamsky (In Re Podzamsky) · filed 1992-06-30(a)(2)(A)

Having failed to meet its burden on the falsity of the representation, the intent to deceive, and reliance on the representation, plaintiff has not fulfilled the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Consequently, the debt of $189,444.43 owed by defendant to plaintiff is covered by defendant’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a present intent not to perform a promise; a later failure to pay does not itself establish fraud.

Roebuck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Mahinske (In Re Mahinske) · filed 1992-06-02(a)(2)(A)

That he subsequently did not apply the funds to his checking account as he had planned does not convert his actions to fraud, as fraud under Section 523 requires a present intent not to perform as promised.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor issued a check backed by insufficient funds; the creditor must prove a fraudulent representation.

P & W Foreign Car Service, Inc. v. Edwards (In Re Edwards) · filed 1992-06-17(a)(2)(A)

This court therefore adopts a more flexible approach in determining whether a debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Under this approach, “[t]he issuance of a check upon insufficient funds is not, standing alone, a fraudulent misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a nondischargeable claim under § 523(a)(2)(A)”.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts incurred through false pretenses or false representations nondischargeable when consumers rely on them and suffer a loss.

In Re Fravel · filed 1992-07-29(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the debtor’s indebtedness to the consumers is nondischargeable pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor gave a bad check; the debtor must have obtained something in exchange for it.

Snap-On Tools Corp. v. Couch (In Re Couch) · filed 1992-08-21(a)(2)(A)

In this case, because there is no allegation that the Defendant obtained anything in exchange for the bad check he allegedly gave the Plaintiff, the Complaint fails to state a claim under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes an overpayment nondischargeable when a debtor intentionally represents continued eligibility by accepting benefits after becoming ineligible.

Public Employees Retirement System v. Gadus (In Re Gadus) · filed 1992-09-15(a)(2)(A)

The Court does find however that Defendant’s acceptance of PERS benefits to which she was not entitled is tantamount to an intentional false representation in writing. Therefore Defendant’s overpayment is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false representation to prove that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when obtaining credit.

Citibank, N.A. v. Wiener (In Re Wiener) · filed 1992-08-26(a)(2)(A)

In the case at hand, Citibank has not proven that Wiener actually or impliedly possessed an intent to deceive. The Court concludes that at the time Wiener incurred these debts, he had access to funds beyond his employment income, and therefore, the Defendant’s acts of making minimum payments to these accounts, without other affirmative acts or badges of fraud, cannot support a finding of intent to defraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor's representations in light of the creditor's circumstances.

In Re Ronald Kirsh in Re Paula Kirsh, Debtors. Eugene Parks Law Corporation Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Kirsh · filed 1992-08-31(a)(2)(A)

Thus, we conclude that a creditor must prove justifiable reliance upon the representations of the debtor. In determining that issue, the court must look to all of the circumstances surrounding the particular transaction, and must particularly consider the subjective effect of those circumstances upon the creditor.

A debtor’s failure to disclose a bankruptcy filing can be a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) when the debtor has a duty to disclose it.

Trizna & Lepri v. Malcolm (In Re Malcolm) · filed 1992-09-22(a)(2)(A)

Debtors’ failure to comply with their duty to disclose their Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding to Trizna & Lepri satisfied the first element of false representation or actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can except a debt arising from a lease from discharge because a lease is property within the section’s meaning.

S.P. Investments Ltd. Partnership v. O'Connor (In Re O'Connor) · filed 1992-09-25(a)(2)(B)

For the purpose of this proceeding, the lease was property as intended by Congress in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

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

Estate of Eckel v. Narciso (In Re Narciso) · filed 1992-10-07(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that the $33,952.40 obtained from Sara 0. Eckel by Kathleen McMillon and Albert Narciso was obtained by actual fraud such that the debt is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make an earlier debt nondischargeable based on fraud committed after the credit was extended.

P.H.H. U.S. Mortgage Corp. v. McDowell (In Re McDowell) · filed 1992-10-08(a)(2)(A)

The debt owed to Herrman by the McDowells is on account of credit extended to McDowell during the construction of the house; the debt does not arise from the fraudulent transaction. Therefore, Herrman cannot plausibly claim that the extension of credit was obtained by fraud because the credit was given prior to the fraudulent activity complained of.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knowingly or recklessly made a false representation with intent to deceive; a later decision to break a promise does not suffice.

Lutz v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 1992-11-02(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has failed to establish elements (2) and (3). He has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the credible evidence that debtor, at the time they so represented, either knew that they would not pay plaintiff from the proceeds of the award or were reckless in so representing. In addition, plaintiff has not demonstrated that they so represented with intent to deceive him. Debtors did not decide to refuse to pay plaintiff until after they had taken control of Lutz Enterprises.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt arising from a false representation only if the debtor intended to deceive or defraud the creditor when making it.

Cundiff v. Wiethuchter (In Re Wiethuchter) · filed 1992-11-17(a)(2)(A)

Given the Eighth Circuit’s discussion in Ophaug, this court, like the majority of courts cited above, holds that for section 523(a)(2)(A) to bar the discharge of a debt incurred for a false representation, debtor must have intended to deceive or defraud the complaining creditor when the debtor made the false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can cover money paid to a debtor’s wholly-owned corporation when the debtor’s financial interest is sufficient to treat the money as obtained by the debtor through fraud.

Riumbau v. Colodner (In Re Colodner) · filed 1992-11-13(a)(2)(A)

As a 100 percent shareholder of IPM, the debtor had a sufficient financial interest in IPM so that the debt owed to the plaintiffs by IPM could qualify as money obtained by the debtor through fraud or false representations for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to have obtained money through the false representation; later misrepresentations do not make an earlier payment nondischargeable.

MacAulay v. Shields (In Re Shields) · filed 1992-11-30(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a showing that the individual debtor obtained money from the plaintiffs. There is no such showing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from knowingly false representations made to deceive a creditor who relies on them and suffers a resulting loss.

Wages v. Robson (In re Robson) · filed 1992-12-15(a)(2)(A)

The Rob-sons clearly took advantage of the Wages, of the Wages’ limited understanding, and committed fraud against them. For this reason the debt owed by the Robsons to the Wages must be excepted from discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove the debtor intended to defraud.

Citibank F.S.B. v. Cox (In Re Cox) · filed 1992-12-23(a)(2)(A)

The issue may be disposed on Citibank’s failure to prove by'a preponderance of the evidence an essential element common to all § 523(a)(2)(A) analytical schemes: the debtor’s intent to defraud.

Section 523 excepts a refinanced debt obtained through a false representation and a debt arising from willful and malicious injury to collateral from discharge.

ITT Financial Services v. Suydam (In Re Suydam) · filed 1992-12-28(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Based upon the evidence presented, this Court can reach but one conclusion: Defendant permitted Plaintiff to rely upon his false representation regarding the collateral so that he could obtain refinancing. Pursuant to Section 528(a)(2)(A), Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff should not be discharged. ... The injury to the collateral was a result of Defendant’s intentional wrongful acts. Therefore, Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff is similarly Nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraudulently obtained credit from discharge; hopeless insolvency can support an inference of fraudulent intent when it rules out good faith.

Western Union Corp. v. Ketaner (In Re Ketaner) · filed 1992-12-31(a)(2)(A)

For insolvency to be used to draw an inference of fraudulent intent in credit card abuse cases, it must be hopeless insolvency sufficient to rebut any possibility of good faith. ... Accordingly, the plaintiff has proven that only the CMT charges incurred as of November 28, 1989, were procured by fraud and should be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers debts for money obtained by actual fraud.

Estate of Eckel v. Narciso (In re Narciso) · filed 1993-01-04(a)(2)(A)

The evidence clearly showed that the defendants obtained $33,952.40 from Mrs. Eckel by actual fraud within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to prove fraudulent intent and reasonable reliance on the debtor’s representation.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Delgado (In Re Delgado) · filed 1993-01-08(a)(2)(A) and (B)

Under these circumstances ALLSTATE has failed to establish actual or positive fraud as required under § 523(a)(2)(A), (B). ... The Court also concludes that there was not reasonable reliance by ALLSTATE on the financial statement furnished.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when a false representation was not made to obtain property, money, services, or credit from the creditor.

Hardy v. McCaffrey (In Re McCaffrey) · filed 1993-02-03(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the entire record, we conclude that said representation was not made to obtain property, money, services, or credit from the Plaintiffs.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from false representations or actual fraud from discharge.

Bernstein v. Miranda (In re Miranda) · filed 1993-02-09(a)(2)(A)

That section denies a discharge of any debt which arises out of false representations or actual fraud. ... Therefore, this court finds that, based on these facts, Miranda should be denied a discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Motta v. Bernard (In Re Bernard) · filed 1993-01-15(a)(2)(A)

Under the circumstances the Court is not convinced that the Debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiff and, therefore, proof of the exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) fails.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv)'s intent-to-deceive element is satisfied when a debtor knowingly submits a false financial statement about property ownership.

Shawmut Bank v. Lyons (In re Lyons) · filed 1993-01-21(a)(2)(B)(iv)

Looked at either objectively or subjectively, or both, the Court has already determined that this debtor had a present and personal knowledge that the financial statement he submitted to Shawmut was false as a matter of fact. This finding requires a conclusion that he had the requisite intent to deceive under § 523(a)(2)(B)(iv).