11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud based on a payment promise to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor knew the promise was false or made it recklessly and intended to deceive the creditor.

McMillen v. Jarmul (In Re Jarmul) · filed 1993-01-29(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has failed, however, to establish required elements (2) and (3) by a preponderance of the evidence. He has failed to establish that debtors knew on October 18, 1990 that plaintiff would not be paid as promised (or were reckless in so promising) and has failed to establish that they intended to deceive him when they so promised.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when binding findings establish fraud through written financial statements under (B) or oral misrepresentations under (A).

Gibson v. Gibson · filed 1993-01-20(a)(2)

Judge Johnston’s findings on Pacesetter’s written financial statements establish a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B); those on Defendant’s oral representations establish one nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove actual fraud by a preponderance of the evidence; an implied representation alone does not establish it.

ITT Financial Services v. Hulbert (In Re Hulbert) · filed 1993-01-27(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that creditor has not born its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate debtor committed actual fraud. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Creditor relies on a theory of implied representation. Since this Court may not follow that theory in this jurisdiction, proof must be of actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a preexisting debt from discharge based on a later alleged misrepresentation that did not obtain the debt or the underlying services.

Industrial Design Associates v. Blount (In re Blount) · filed 1993-02-03(a)(2)(A)

As such, neither the $94,-270.75 debt nor the services which underpin the debt were obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud. The debt had been incurred and the services obtained before the letter was ever submitted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that it actually relied on the debtor’s false representation to prevent discharge of the debt.

In the Matter of Richard C. Scarlata, Debtor. Goldberg Securities, Inc. v. Richard C. Scarlata, Debtor-Appellee · filed 1993-03-26(a)(2)(A)

Because Goldberg failed to prove that it relied on Scarlata's misrepresentation, it may not bar the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge money obtained through false pretenses or a false representation.

Galvin v. Cole (In Re Cole) · filed 1993-05-20(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant obtained money from Plaintiff by false pretenses and a false representation. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), money so obtained is excepted from discharge.

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

Maneval v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1993-05-26(a)(2)(A)

Nondischargeability of debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) requires the plaintiff to establish that the debtor made representations, which he knew to be false at the time they were made, with the intent to deceive a creditor who relied on the false representations and which were the proximate result of the loss.

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof of intent to defraud to except a debt from discharge.

Chicago Title Insurance v. Barral (In Re Barral) · filed 1993-04-14(a)(2)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Judge held the debt involved dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), a result this appeal seeks to overturn. I affirm Judge Schwartzberg’s ruling. ... In a case such as that at bar, if the factfinder determines that there is insufficient proof of bad faith, then whether the broker involved was or was not actually an agent for the lender is irrelevant to the issue of intent to defraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit card debt nondischargeable as actual fraud when the debtor incurs it knowing he cannot repay it.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Sparks (In Re Sparks) · filed 1993-04-15(a)(2)(A)

If he used the credit card knowing he was unable to pay for the purchases [or debts incurred], the cardholder has obtained money by actual fraud. ... Under these holdings, the debt owed to plaintiff is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from actual fraud from discharge.

Itano Farms, Inc. v. Currey (In Re Currey) · filed 1993-06-03(a)(2)(A)

After a review of the facts and record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant based upon the fraudulent tender of the worthless checks, and that such liability is excepted from discharge under the “actual fraud” provisions of Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the creditor proves all the elements of fraud.

119th & Halsted Currency Exchange v. Blake-Ware (In Re Blake-Ware) · filed 1993-05-11(a)(2)(A)

The court holds that Currency Exchange has proven all the elements of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), and thus the debt owed by the Debtor to Currency Exchange is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) requires the debtor to have obtained property through the alleged wrongful act.

Barber v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1993-05-18(a)(2)

One of the elements of a cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) is that the defendant obtained property by the alleged wrongful act.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of an auto loan debt when the debtor deceives the lender by promising a vehicle lien while concealing that someone else will own the vehicle.

Buffalo Fire Department Federal Credit Union v. Butski (In Re Butski) · filed 1993-05-27(a)(2)(A)

In this Adversary Proceeding, the Buffalo Fireman’s Credit Union (“Credit Union”) seeks to have the auto loan debt of William Butski (“Debtor”) declared non-dischargea-ble for fraud, under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)). The Court finds that the Debtor concealed from the Credit Union the fact that the vehicle, a van, was intended to be someone else’s property, and thereby promised the Credit Union a Ken which it thereafter could not perfect. As a result, the debt to the Credit Union is declared non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation nondischargeable.

Follett v. Follett (In re Follett) · filed 1993-06-03(a)(2)(A)

Despite the difficulties of proof inherent in such a fact situation, the evidence was clear that the debtors committed fraud. ... ORDERED that judgment will be entered determining that the debt owed by the debtors to plaintiff is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud elements identical to those of Missouri common law fraud.

Hartsfield v. Barkley · filed 1993-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff sought but failed to prove the necessary elements in bankruptcy court to succeed under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Those elements are identical to the elements of common law fraud in Missouri, Norden, 756 S.W.2d at 164, and to those pleaded by Plaintiff in state court. We believe the issue of fraud was the same in both courts as contended by Defendants.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for a mere breach of promise without fraud.

Kelly v. Religa (In Re Religa) · filed 1993-06-10(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds for the Debtor as to the Plaintiff’s demands based on fraud. ... Breaches of promise are the reason that bankruptcy exists. If every breach of promise were non-dischargeable, there would be no reason for any individual to file a bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge money a debtor obtains through false pretenses.

Gerad v. Cole (In Re Cole) · filed 1993-06-15(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendant obtained money from Plaintiff by false pretenses. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), money so obtained is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a claim to proceed when a creditor alleges a false representation made with intent to deceive, reliance, and resulting loss.

DeRosa v. Jacone (In Re Jacone) · filed 1993-07-27(a)(2)(A)

Thus, because the complaint sets forth a viable claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the debtors’ motion to dismiss the First Cause of Action must be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor knowingly makes a false representation intending to deceive, the creditor relies on it, and the reliance proximately causes loss.

Hile v. Lewis (In re Lewis) · filed 1993-07-27(a)(2)(A)

All of the five (5) required elements under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) have been met, and there are no genuine issues as to any material facts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor fraudulently induced the creditor to provide services; later receiving payment for the work does not alone make the debt nondischargeable.

Best Repair Co. v. Raper (In re Raper) · filed 1993-08-06(a)(2)(A)

However, if plaintiff is to prevail, it must prove that Best undertook to perform the work in question under the terms of the original contract as a result of debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations. This means that debtor must have committed fraud at that point in his dealings with Best — during his telephone conversation with Newsome. ... Thus, although debtor may have “put one over” on Best, I find that his conduct did not rise to the level of fraud sufficient to except Best’s claim against him from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained through knowing material misrepresentations on which the creditor relied, proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

In Re William Eric Charles Susanna D. Charles, Debtors, William Eric Charles Susanna D. Charles v. Catlettsburg Federal · filed 1993-10-08(a)(2)(A)

Finally, we conclude that Catlettsburg established by the preponderance of the evidence that: 1) the debtors obtained money from it through material misrepresentations; 2) at the time, the debtors knew their actions were false; and 3) Catlettsburg relied on the false representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to defraud; a debtor’s existing credit card debt alone does not establish that intent.

Signet Bank/Virginia v. Gelagay (In re Gelagay) · filed 1993-10-25(a)(2)(A)

Excepting the debt from the discharge on the basis of this inference contradicts the strict construction accorded to 11 U.S.C. § 523. Moreover, Signet offered no evidence suggesting Gela-gay incurred the charges with the requisite intent to defraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money obtained by fraud nondischargeable.

David Stone and Colleen Stone v. John Wilson Kirk and J.W.K. Land and Cattle Company, Inc. · filed 1993-11-01(a)(2)(A)

The jury found here as a fact that the defendants “acted with fraud and deceit” in connection with the tax shelter sales. As a matter of law, a debt for money obtained by fraud is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). We therefore conclude that the defendants’ debt to the Stones was not dischargeable as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor fails to disclose facts needed to make his statements not misleading.

In Re Delton Olson, Debtor. Richard A. Anschuetz, Trustee, of the Richard A. Anschuetz, M.D., A.P.C., Pension and Profit · filed 1993-12-01(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that Olson's debt should not be discharged because of his failure to disclose facts necessary to make statements he did make not misleading.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor gave a bad check; the creditor must prove intent to deceive when the check was given.

Clarkson v. Elibuyuk (In Re Elibuyuk) · filed 1993-12-28(a)(2)(A)

With respect to the issuance of a bad check, most courts hold that this is not in itself a sufficient act to establish that a resulting debt is excepted from discharge. The creditor must still establish that the debtor had the intention to deceive the creditor at the time the check was given.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses or a false representation must show that the debtor knowingly misled the creditor with intent to deceive.

Hile v. Lewis (In Re Lewis) · filed 1994-01-18(a)(2)(A)

Construing this evidence in a light most favorable to Defendants, this.Court can only conclude that Defendants did not intend to deceive Plaintiff as they were without the requisite knowledge to make a false representation or create a false pretense.

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

Spanel International, Ltd. v. Mayer (In Re Mayer) · filed 1994-02-07(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court’s error does not require reversal of its ruling since recklessness is sufficient to establish the first element of a prima facie case under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof that a debtor made a false representation knowing it was false and intending to deceive the creditor.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Segal (In re Segal) · filed 1994-02-10(a)(2)

Although the Court can infer that Debtor made an implied representation as to her financial ability to pay for the airline tickets she ordered, no evidence was adduced, and thus the Court cannot hold, that this implied representation was false, that it was made with knowledge that it was false, and that it was made with intent to deceive Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor implicitly represented an ability to repay or lacked that ability.

Chemical Bank v. Sigrist (In Re Sigrist) · filed 1994-02-18(a)(2)(A)

Despite deep respect for other Courts that have held to the contrary, this Judge of this Court cannot agree that an “implied misrepresentation of ability to repay” can ever, of itself, sustain a judgment in favor of a creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), nor can an “implied misrepresentation of intent to repay” sustain such judgment if based solely on a lack of ability to repay.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor failed to fulfill a promise to provide a mortgage.

Schreiber v. Selby (In re Selby) · filed 1994-03-11(a)(2)(A)

The failure or inability of Debtor to grant a mortgage against the Bay-view Apartment complex is not an actionable misrepresentation under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent and fraud in fact; a statutory presumption of fraud from failure to pay money is insufficient.

Hemelt v. Pontier (In Re Pontier) · filed 1994-02-28(a)(2)(A)

In order for a debt to be determined to be nondisehargeable for fraud, the misconduct which gave rise to the debt must have been committed with fraudulent intent and must amount to fraud in fact, and may not merely be a failure to pay money which is presumed to be fraudulent per se by statute.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can treat an omission as a representation when the debtor knows the circumstances create a false impression.

John J. O'Connor, CPO, Inc. v. Booker (In Re Booker) · filed 1994-03-24(a)(2)(A)

This Court believes that omissions can constitute representations for purposes of nondischargeability, especially where the circumstances of the case create a false impression which is known by the debtor.

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

Giacalone v. Malget (In Re Malget) · filed 1994-04-04(a)(2)(A)

However, to prevail in this action, the plaintiffs must establish not only that Pipher knowingly made the false representation but that Giacalone relied upon the representation and, additionally, that the reliance was justifiable.

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

McGrath v. McGrath (In re McGrath) · filed 1994-05-06(a)(2)(A)

Specifically, a fraudulent promise under Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that at the time the debtor made it, he or she did not intend to perform as required.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s intent-to-deceive requirement is met when a false statement is made with knowledge of its falsity, reckless disregard for its truth, or under circumstances in which the debtor should have known it was false.

Page v. Carozza (In Re Carozza) · filed 1994-05-10(a)(2)(A)

The Court holds that the requirement that the statement be made with intent to deceive is satisfied where the statement was made with knowledge that it is false, where the statement was made with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, or where made under circumstances where the maker should have known of its falsity.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves the debtor obtained money, property, or services by fraud.

Automotive Financial Services, Inc. v. Youngblood (In Re Youngblood) · filed 1994-05-19(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has met the burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) of proving that debt- or/defendant obtained money, property, and services by fraud, where debtor caused his wife’s signature to be forged on loan guaranty documents and where debtor misrepresented his financial condition, such that the debt should be declared nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false when made; a pending chapter 11 case alone does not establish that an implied promise to pay was false.

Laurelton Electric & Mechanical Corp. v. Battinelli (In re Battinelli) · filed 1994-07-19(a)(2)(A)

Without confronting Debtor’s financial status as of the time of the implied representation, Plaintiff cannot establish that it was false at the time it was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits reckless disregard for the truth to establish intent to deceive when a debtor deliberately avoids reading a document containing material false representations.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. v. Homer (In Re Homer) · filed 1994-06-06(a)(2)(A)

To choose to remain ignorant of one’s representations in a document upon which another is likely to rely is to choose to deceive, if the document contains materially false representations. Homer acted so recklessly in failing to read the loan application that his conduct is the equivalent of an intent to defraud First Union.

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

Beneficial Florida, Inc. v. Futch (In re Futch) · filed 1994-10-13(a)(2)(A)

In the instant case, there is not a scintilla of evidence in this record that the Debtor obtained anything from Beneficial let alone by false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by an intentional false representation on which the creditor relied to their detriment.

McDaniel v. Border (In Re McDaniel) · filed 1994-11-14(a)(2)(A)

In connection with § 523(a)(2)(A) plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that McDaniel made false representations to Border that he was an architect with the intent of deceiving her, she relied to her detriment on those representations and suffered injury as a result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor intentionally misrepresents an existing fact, causing a creditor to reasonably rely and lose its collateral.

O'Donnell v. Floyd (In Re Floyd) · filed 1995-02-05(a)(2)(A)

Considering defendant’s purpose, to obtain the satisfaction of mortgage and defendant’s failure to reveal that the closing had taken place and the insufficiency of the funds, the Court finds that defendant made a false representation with the intent to deceive plaintiff. ... Consequently, the $50,000.00 debt owed by defendant to plaintiff will be excepted from defendant, Jerry L. Floyd’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of fraud; a debtor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment alone cannot establish it.

Trustmark National Bank v. Curtis (In Re Curtis) · filed 1995-02-07(a)(2)(A)

However, the invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to constitute probative proof of a plaintiffs case. If a plaintiff offers no evidence of fraud, as is the situation in this case, the inference drawn from invocation of the Fifth Amendment does not by itself establish fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a statement made in reckless disregard of its truth as a misrepresentation.

Mendez v. Cram (In Re Cram) · filed 1995-02-28(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that defendants’ statement that the bills related to plaintiffs house were paid was made without regard to its truth or falsity, in reckless disregard for the truth and constitutes a misrepresentation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for services from discharge only when a fraudulent representation precedes the creditor’s reliance and resulting damage.

Fellow, Read & Associates, Inc. v. Rieder (In Re Rieder) · filed 1995-02-28(a)(2)(A)

This subsection excepts from discharge (1) a debt (2) for services (3) obtained by fraud. Thus, the misrepresentation must come first, the reliance second and the damage last.

Summary judgment on a § 523(a)(2)(A) fraud claim is unavailable when material questions about the debtor’s intent and representations remain.

Midlantic National Bank v. Lerner (In re Lerner) · filed 1995-03-06(a)(2)(A)

Did Mr. Lerner possess just enough knowledge and manifest just enough wide-eyed innocence that would allow him to maneuver through the refinancing transaction, further allowing him unfettered access to thousands of dollars? Mr. Lerner did knowingly continue to draw on the account. For all of the questions that have arisen from the pleadings, and the answers that cannot be provided, summary judgment is DENIED.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not prevent discharge for a merely negligent misrepresentation; the creditor must prove a knowingly false or willful misrepresentation.

Bielecki v. Nettleton · filed 1995-04-10(a)(2)(A)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that Nettleton should have known that there was a problem with the tanks. However, this conclusion does not necessarily translate to a finding that the representation Nettleton made to the contrary was known to be false when made, or that it amounted to a willful misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a false representation made with intent to deceive the creditor.

Lewis v. Chew (In re Chew) · filed 1995-05-10(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff failed to prove not only that the Debtor made a false representation with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff but that the Debtor deceived the Plaintiff at any time, whether intentionally or not.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor intentionally conceals material facts to induce a creditor to lend.

Loomas v. Evans (In Re Evans) · filed 1995-04-20(a)(2)(A)

The facts withheld were material facts, facts to which the plaintiff undoubtedly would have attached importance in deciding whether or not to make the loan, facts that the debtor intentionally concealed to mislead the plaintiff. The failure to make these facts available to the plaintiff constitutes fraud actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor who relied on a material misrepresentation to investigate its truth when the creditor lacked access to the truth and had no warning of the fraud.

In the Matter of John E. Mayer and Deborah Mayer, Debtors-Appellants v. Spanel International Ltd. And Bank One-Rockford, · filed 1995-04-24(a)(2)(A)

A victim who lacks access to the truth, and has not been alerted to facts that would alert him to the truth, is not to be denied recovery under the securities laws — or be blocked by a discharge under the bankruptcy laws — just because he did not conduct a more thorough investigation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a bad-check debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly creates a false pretense that the check is backed by funds, even without an express statement.

Check Control, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1995-05-16(a)(2)(A)

Though the casino’s check-cashing personnel never even inquired of the Defendant as to whether his checks were “good,” and though the Defendant never affirmatively represented anything of the sort, the Plaintiffs case does not fail. By blithely issuing dozens of his checks to a long succession of such personnel, allowing them to process them, and then readily accepting the cash that he sought, the Defendant actively created the semblance that every single check was backed by value on deposit which the casino could recover by presenting the check for payment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming nondischargeability based on a false representation to show that the debtor knowingly made it with intent to deceive, that the creditor relied on it, and that it caused damage.

Bebber v. J.M. Westall & Co. (In Re Bebber) · filed 1995-06-28(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail on a nondischargeability claim pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must show (1) that the debtor made representations; (2) that at the time of so making, the debtor knew them to be false; (3) that the representations were made with intent to deceive; (4) that the creditor relied on the representations; and (5) that the creditor was damaged as a result thereof.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual reliance on a debtor’s fraud, but a creditor’s failure to investigate further does not by itself permit discharge.

Union Bank of the Middle East, Ltd. v. Luthra (In Re Luthra) · filed 1995-05-26(a)(2)(A)

Mere failure by the creditor to conduct a more thorough investigation, however, does not without more provide a sufficient basis to foreclose § 523(a)(2)(A) relief.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly fails to disclose a fact the debtor has a duty to reveal, intending to deceive a creditor who reasonably relies on the silence to its detriment.

Drake Capital Securities, Inc. v. Larkin (In Re Larkin) · filed 1995-06-12(a)(2)(A)

His silence, when he had a duty to disclose the injunction, qualifies as a misrepresentation made with knowledge of its falsity under section 523(a)(2)(A).

When loan proceeds need not be segregated, a debtor may use equivalent funds for the promised purpose without creating a false pretenses claim based on diversion of the loan proceeds.

In the Matter of Robert Sheridan, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of City National Bank of Florida · filed 1995-06-19(a)(2)(A)

Rather, the court appropriately recognized the fungibility of money and found that absent a segregation provision, the important question is whether the debtor made use of equivalent amounts of money in the required manner.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor broke a promise to provide collateral later; the creditor must prove a misrepresentation.

Carlan v. Dover (In re Dover) · filed 1995-07-11(a)(2)(A)

It remains a settled point of fraudulent non-dischargeability analysis that the breach of a promise to perform some future act does not amount to a misrepresentation. ... The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish false representation, false pretense or actual fraud which would operate to except this debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A)'s mental state requirement can be met by recklessness or intent.

Bell v. Douglass · filed 1995-07-19(a)(2)(A)

So § 6 requires deliberation or intent, and § 2A requires a recklessness or intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a material nondisclosure to support nondischargeability without a fiduciary relationship.

In Re Momtaz A. Abas, Debtor. Atef Rafla v. Abas · filed 1995-07-20(a)(2)(A)

Further, the BAP determined that a material nondisclosure is actionable under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2)(A) without regard to the existence of a fiduciary relationship. ... After a review of the record and the briefs on appeal, we conclude for the reasons stated by the BAP that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that Rafla's loan was nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a promise made with intent to deceive nondischargeable.

Porterfield v. Cornner (In Re Cornner) · filed 1995-08-18(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the judgment rendered on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Porterfield against Mr. Cornner by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, in Civil Action No. 93-1945, is a debt which, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from an intentionally deceptive promise from discharge.

Dorian v. Cornner (In Re Cornner) · filed 1995-08-18(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Cornner owes a debt to Dorian in the amount of $10,000 and that, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the debt is not dis-chargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based solely on a dishonored check; an actionable statement about the debtor’s funds or intent to pay must accompany the check.

Tusco Grocers, Inc. v. Coatney (In Re Coatney) · filed 1995-08-21(a)(2)(A)

Any positive statement regarding the nature of Defendant-Debtors’ bank balance or their intent to pay the debt could only be actionable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) if the statements were made at the same time that the checks at issue were cut and transferred.

Section 523(a)(2) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor fraudulently induces an extension of its repayment date, even if the creditor lends no new money.

Cho Hung Bank v. Kim (In re Kim) · filed 1995-08-23(a)(2)

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that fraudulently inducing a creditor's extension of the due date for repayment of a loan was sufficient under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2) to support a claim of nondischargeability against a debtor in bankruptcy, and it was not necessary for the creditor to show that "new money" was lent to the debtor. We agree. The opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in In re Kim, 163 B.R. 157 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor deposits a check without authority and intends to deceive the bank, even without forging an endorsement.

Bank of the West v. Barre Barnes, Individually and Dba B & C Construction · filed 1995-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Under these circumstances, the trial court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that Barnes acted with "the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor." Although Barnes did not forge endorsements and it is possible that the Bank might not have been able to recover for breach of presentment warranties, 1 the evidence was sufficient for a finding of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof of reliance by each party in the chain between the original merchant and its successors when a creditor seeks to except an assigned debt from discharge.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Bui (In Re Bui) · filed 1995-10-02(a)(2)

From a policy point of view, a case such as that now before the Court presents no good reason to depart from the general rule that each element of a claim for relief must be established, including reliance by each party in the chain between the original merchant and its successors.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor knowingly issued checks with insufficient funds, absent a positive statement that the account held enough money.

Banner Oil Co. v. Bryson (In Re Bryson) · filed 1995-10-19(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, as a matter of law, Bry-son’s knowing issuance of the insufficient funds checks cannot support the denial of Bryson’s discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). That is so because, as a matter of law, in the absence of a positive statement regarding the sufficiency of the bank account, Bryson’s issuance of the checks to Banner does not constitute a false pretense or false representation within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show justifiable reliance on a debtor's misrepresentation to prevent discharge of the debt.

City Bank & Trust Co. v. Vann · filed 1995-10-19(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth below, we join the Ninth Circuit in adopting justifiable reliance as this circuit's standard of reliance by a creditor on the debtor's misrepresentations to prevent discharge of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge to show justifiable, but not reasonable, reliance on the misrepresentation.

Field v. Mans · filed 1995-11-28(a)(2)(A)

While the Court of Appeals followed a rule requiring reasonable reliance on the statement, we hold the standard to be the less demanding one of justifiable reliance and accordingly vacate and remand.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge to the extent false pretenses enable the debtor to obtain a secured creditor’s property.

In Re Baietti · filed 1995-11-30(a)(2)(A)

As a result, Baietti's debt to Bombardier is nondischargeable insofar as he acquired Bombardier's property after unreported sales were first concealed through false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging actual fraud to plead more than a bare assertion that the debtor did not intend to pay.

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Herring (In Re Herring) · filed 1995-12-14(a)(2)(A)

A complaint that seeks a determination that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2) need not be elaborate, but if it is based on “actual fraud,” the allegations must be more specific than the mere assertion that the debtor did not have the intention to pay.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for a debt arising from fraudulent misrepresentation to be excepted from discharge.

Stone v. Parriman (In Re Parriman) · filed 1995-12-19(a)(2)(A)

The record does not demonstrate that reliance is an element that was proven or considered by the trial court. Therefore, an element of fraud required under § 523(a)(2)(A) has not been shown to have been considered by the trial court and the doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be applied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a credit card creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s implied representation of repayment when the card was used.

FCC National Bank v. Willis (In Re Willis) · filed 1996-01-16(a)(2)(A)

As indicated previously, each use of a credit card carries with it the implied representation that the debtor is willing and able to pay the charges incurred. Similarly, as to each such use, the creditor must prove that it justifiably relied on such implied representation. ... Since First Card offered no evidence to show that its reliance was justifiable, it has not met its burden under the fourth element, and the debt is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor makes a false statement intending to deceive a creditor, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor suffers damage.

Fuller v. Johannessen · filed 1996-02-28(a)(2)(A)

The elements of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) are: the debtor made a false statement with the purpose and intention of deceiving the creditor; the creditor relied on such false statement; the creditor's reliance on the false statement was justifiably founded; and the creditor sustained damage as a result of the false statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through intentional misrepresentations that cause the creditor loss; intent to deceive may be inferred from the circumstances.

Marunaka Dainichi Co. v. Yamada (In Re Yamada) · filed 1996-02-01(a)(2)(A)

Because debtor has not overcome the inference that he intended to deceive plaintiff when he entered into the agreement, the court finds that all of the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) have been met. Accordingly, the debt will be declared excepted from discharge, with a $2,900.00 credit given to the debtor for the payment already made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor intentionally conceals known, material defects that the debtor had a duty to disclose.

Starr v. Reynolds (In Re Reynolds) · filed 1996-02-05(a)(2)(A)

Because Appellants could satisfy their burden if they establish, ... that: (1) the Debtor knew the Property had structural defects; (2) the Debtor intentionally concealed this information; and (3) a reasonable man would attach importance to the alleged omission in determining his course of action, ... this Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of law by not making such findings.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a finding of justifiable reliance on fraud even by an educated, trained creditor when the debtor’s deception gives the creditor no reason for suspicion.

Kukulka-Stone v. Ekrem (In Re Ekrem) · filed 1996-02-15(a)(2)(A)

The scheme of the debtor was such that even a highly intelligent, well-educated and specially trained creditor’s reliance was justified. In light of the foregoing, Stone has established the elements required by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a bailee’s receipt of possession as obtaining property by fraud.

Kaufman v. Vamvakaris (In Re Vamvakaris) · filed 1996-02-20(a)(2)(A)

Because a bailee’s rights in property subject to a bailment are so limited, the court does not find that debtor as a bailee has “obtained” property as contemplated by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation and a causal connection between that misrepresentation and the creditor’s loss.

Barristers Abstract Corp. v. Caulfield (In Re Caulfield) · filed 1996-02-28(a)(2)(A)

In addition, there has been no showing whatsoever that Barristers relied in any manner, no less justifiably, on this alleged representation, or that there is any causal connection between the misrepresentation and the loss suffered. Caulfield’s debt to Barristers is therefore dischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of intent to deceive to except a debt for actual fraud from discharge; default alone does not establish that intent.

FCC National Bank v. Roberts (In Re Roberts) · filed 1996-03-20(a)(2)(A)

As the party bearing the burden of proof in this matter, it was incumbent upon the Bank to produce evidence at the hearing. Even if the Court were to accept as proof counsel’s statements regarding the dates of the cash advances and purchases, no proof was offered as to the “intent to deceive,” an element necessary to a finding of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). Indeed, a default judgment based on such allegations would amount to a judgment of fraud implied in law, a result not permitted under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive; signing a false document alone does not establish that intent.

In Re Max Wendel and Linda Wendel, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company v. Max Wendel and Linda Wendel · filed 1996-03-29(a)(2)(A)

This is not an appropriate basis for the imposition of liability upon Linda Wendel. ... On remand, Linda Wendel's dischargability must be reconsidered in accordance with the criteria set out in these cases.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a credit card issuer to prove justifiable reliance; merely extending credit does not establish reliance.

American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Christensen (In Re Christensen) · filed 1996-03-28(a)(2)(A)

A credit card company’s mere passive extension óf credit does not constitute any form of reliance, much less that the reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan from discharge when the debtor fraudulently induces it and the creditor justifiably relies on the misrepresentations.

Daly v. Braizblot (In Re Braizblot) · filed 1996-04-08(a)(2)(A)

However, the Plaintiffs have met their burden under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code as they have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendants fraudulently induced the Plaintiffs to loan them the funds, upon which the Plaintiffs’ reliance was justifiable given the facts and circumstances of this ease.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt from a dishonored check nondischargeable solely because the check was issued against insufficient funds.

Union National Bank & Trust Co. of Souderton v. Guest (In Re Guest) · filed 1996-04-01(a)(2)(A)

Under that approach, the issuance of a check upon insufficient funds is not, standing alone, a fraudulent misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a nondisehargeable claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor failed to fulfill a contractual obligation.

Rezin v. Barr (In Re Barr) · filed 1996-04-03(a)(2)(A)

Failure to fulfill a contractual obligation by itself does not establish a misrepresentation for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud to plead a knowingly false material representation intended to deceive, justifiable reliance, and a resulting loss.

Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1996-05-16(a)(2)(A)

In order to state a claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must allege: (1) the debtor made a materially false representation; (2) that at the time made, the debtor knew it to be false; (3) that the debtor made the representation with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor justifiably relied on the false representation; and (5) that the creditor sustained a loss as a result of its reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt for services performed before a fraudulent representation, because those services were not obtained by the fraud.

Fellows, Read & Associates, Inc. v. Rieder · filed 1996-04-18(a)(2)(A)

In the end, appellant’s argument must fail because it basically seeks to recover the damages arising from Debtor’s failure to comply with the guarantees he signed. Such damages, however, cannot properly fall under Section 523(a)(2)(A) because Debtor only obtained whatever services were induced after the guarantees had been signed.

Using a credit card represents an intent to pay, but taking cash advances while owing other debts alone does not prove fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A).

At & T Universal Card Services v. Richards (In Re Richards) · filed 1996-05-10(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that the debtor, by use of the credit card, represented that she intended to pay the charges. However, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the debtor made the representation knowing it was false. The only evidence before the Court is that she drew down $3,900 through cash advances on her credit card and used the funds while owing other debts. These bare facts are insufficient to carry creditors’ burden on the element of fraudulent intent such that the creditor fails in its burden of proof.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by fraud from discharge even without an overt misrepresentation.

Griffin v. Felton (In Re Felton) · filed 1996-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2) also clearly contemplates that fraud can occur without overt misrepresentations, by providing that a debt is nondischargeable when obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor intended to induce reliance, even when the claim rests on a failure to disclose a material fact.

Starr v. Reynolds (In Re Reynolds) · filed 1996-06-10(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, whether this court finds that the debtor knowingly failed to disclose a material fact or not, the plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving all of the elements under 523(a)(2)(A). Even if the debtor knew the property had structural defects, intentionally concealed the information and a reasonable man would attach importance to the alleged omission, the plaintiffs still have not established that the debtor intended for the plaintiffs to rely on his representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from knowing, intentional misrepresentations nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relies on them and suffers a resulting loss.

Brandenberger v. Chinnery (In Re Chinnery) · filed 1996-06-10(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, both because the Court finds that creditor proved the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) exception to discharge in this proceeding and because the Court finds that the prior proceedings in the Federal District Court in Kansas created collateral estoppel as to creditor’s allegations in this proceeding, the Court concludes that the obligation of debtor to creditor is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a debt arising from a fraudulently obtained renewal or refinancing of credit, even when no new money is advanced.

Locke v. United States Trustee (In Re Locke) · filed 1996-06-21(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2) includes not only money, but also “an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,” to the extent obtained by the false representations. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The Indemnity Agreement and Second Letter of Credit at a minimum constituted a renewal or refinancing of the First Letter of Credit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of a debt arising from fraud in which the debtor participated, even when the debtor benefited only indirectly.

Arm v. Morrison · filed 1996-06-21(a)(2)(A)

We make clear, what we have not held before, that the indirect benefit to the debtor from a fraud in which he participates is sufficient to prevent the debtor from receiving the benefits that bankruptcy law accords the honest person.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud to prove reliance on the debtor’s representation; an assurance made after the challenged transactions does not establish reliance.

Arndt v. Hanna (In Re Hanna) · filed 1996-06-25(a)(2)(A)

There is but one clear instance where it appears that the Defendant did in fact state that he would get Plaintiffs approval prior to initiating any transactions and this was during the parties’ February 1989 telephone conversation. However, this conversation transpired after the alleged unauthorized transactions had occurred and, therefore, does not validate the Plaintiffs claim that she relied on the Defendant’s statements.

A debt arising from a fraudulent transaction can be nondischargeable even if a forgery revealing the deceit did not itself cause the creditor’s injury.

Pittman v. Miller (In re Pittman) · filed 1996-06-25(a)(2)(A)

That Miller’s signature was forged only serves to underscore the deceit motivating the transaction, regardless of whether it was the act that actually caused injury. Thus, this argument is unavailing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through a false representation nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relies on it; a lie that exploits sentimental concerns can be material.

Lance v. Tillman (In Re Tillman) · filed 1996-07-03(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court concludes that Lance did justifiably rely on the debtor’s misrepresentation. Thus, the plaintiff has satisfied the necessary elements of her complaint for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud to show justifiable reliance on the debtor’s false representations to except the debt from discharge.

FCC NATIONAL BANK v. Willis · filed 1996-08-07(a)(2)(A)

After Debtor filed for bankruptcy, First Card sought to have this debt declared nondis-ehargeable, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), because it was allegedly obtained by fraudulent means. The bankruptcy court held that First Card could not demonstrate that it had justifiably relied on the false representations made by Debtor and, therefore, could not satisfy one of the five elements necessary to establish fraud. ... Furthermore, the bankruptcy court’s legal analysis and decision were sound. Accordingly, this Court will not disturb the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the detain question is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; a creditor need not investigate further when the circumstances do not warrant it.

Field v. Mans (In Re Mans) · filed 1996-08-29(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that these Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Debtor’s representations and no further investigation by them was warranted or required. The debt owed by Debt- or to Plaintiffs is, therefore, nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts specific debts obtained through fraud or false financial statements from discharge.

State Bank of India v. Chalasani (In re Chalasani) · filed 1996-08-13(a)(2)

As such, § 523 relief was appropriate, and the specific debts owed by Chalasani to State Bank were not discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge for actual fraud only when the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; an inability to repay does not itself establish that intent.

Rembert v. Citibank (South Dakota), NA · filed 1996-09-25(a)(2)(A)

The type of fraud which comes within the ambit of § 523(a)(2)(A) is actual fraud, which involves moral turpitude or intentional wrong.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove the debtor intended to deceive; without that proof, the fraud claim fails.

At & T Universal Bank v. Hensley (In Re Hensley) · filed 1996-09-30(a)(2)(A)

This is, of course, an essential element of the plaintiffs case, and plaintiffs failure to establish the element of fraudulent intent renders moot a discussion of the other elements of proof under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and entitles the defendant/debtor to summary judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove reckless falsity, intent to deceive, and justifiable reliance.

Palmacci v. Umpierrez · filed 1996-09-26(a)(2)(A)

Where an allegation of false representation has been made, creditor has the burden to prove all three elements, that is, creditor must prove that: (1) debtor made a false representation with reckless disregard of the truth; (2) the representation was made with the intent to deceive; and (3) the creditor justifiably relied on the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when the creditor’s reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation is justifiable, even if the creditor was negligent in failing to discover it.

In Re: Sateesh Apte, Debtor. Sateesh Apte v. Romesh Japra, M.D., F.A.C.C., Inc., a California Corporation · filed 1996-09-30(a)(2)(A)

We cannot agree with the bankruptcy court that Japra’s reliance on Apte’s assurances was not justifiable. ... Japra may have been negligent in continuing construction without Rosewood’s written approval, but negligence in failing to discover a misrepresentation is not a defense to fraud. ... We affirm the BAP’s order that the bankruptcy court enter judgment for Japra on his section 523(a)(2)(A) claim. Apte’s debt to Japra is nondischargeable under that section.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debtor’s promise to have been knowingly false when made for a debt based on that promise to be nondischargeable.

Kuan v. Lund (In Re Lund) · filed 1996-10-11(a)(2)(A)

A debtor must make a promise while knowing it to be false at the time in order to support a nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation intending to deceive the creditor, the creditor relies on it, and the representation causes the creditor’s loss.

First Deposit National Bank v. Gonzales (In Re Gonzales) · filed 1996-11-08(a)(2)(A)

For a debt to be determined non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), the following elements must be shown: (1) that the debtor made false representations; (2) the debtor knew the representations to be false; (3) that the representations were made with the intention of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied on the representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged injury as a proximate result of the representations having been made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove justifiable reliance; a bank that shows no reliance cannot prevail.

Bank One Columbus, N.A. v. McDaniel (In Re McDaniel) · filed 1996-11-04(a)(2)(A)

First, the Bank must show that it justifiably relied on the Debtor’s false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud. ... In this case the Bank offered no evidence of reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent; poor construction alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Leger v. Semora (In Re Semora) · filed 1996-12-11(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the testimony, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence before the Court, the court cannot find there was any intent to defraud or deceive the plaintiffs. The debtor had no intent to defraud or deceive the plaintiffs when they entered into the contract or during the construction project.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a debtor’s failure to volunteer information about his financial condition as a false pretense or false representation.

In Re Ira Laurence Hunter, Debtor. Edwin Schweig v. Hunter · filed 1986-01-30(a)(2)(A)

The absence of explicit representations concerning financial conditions by the bankrupt requires a holding that there have been no false pretenses or false representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not impose an affirmative duty to disclose financial difficulty on the eve of a bankruptcy filing.

Shea v. Heckaman (In re Heckaman) · filed 1987-03-23(a)(2)(A)

The Houtman case does not provide for any affirmative duty to disclose financial difficulty on the eve of a bankruptcy filing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when alleged fraud merely induces forbearance from collecting an existing dischargeable claim.

Gore v. Kressner (In Re Kressner) · filed 1997-02-12(a)(2)(A)

Any alleged forebearing of collection efforts of an underlying dischargeable claim by Hilda Gore does not constitute the extension of credit or the receipt of property or money within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code governing non-dischargeability on the basis of fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentation nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relied on it and suffered a resulting loss.

Blascak v. Sprague (In Re Sprague) · filed 1997-02-21(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants, in whatever amount the state court may find, is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt arising from fraud nondischargeable when the debtor diverts the creditor’s money to a corporation he controls, even if he does not receive the money personally.

In Re: James A. Brady, Debtor. James A. Brady v. McAllister · filed 1997-02-21(a)(2)(A)

We therefore reject debtor’s implication that a debt is nondisehargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) only when the creditor proves that the debtor directly and personally received every dollar lost by the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not automatically except debts arising from securities fraud from discharge; the creditor must prove every element of actual fraud, including justifiable reliance.

Kinsler v. Pauley (In Re Pauley) · filed 1997-02-24(a)(2)(A)

The foregoing authority from within this Circuit mandates the conclusion that debts arising from securities fraud should not be deemed nondischargeable per se. Rather, the creditor must prove each of the elements required under the fraud exception contained in section 523(a)(2)(A), including the element of justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for fraud from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes false representations intending to deceive the creditor; it does not require a separate finding of moral turpitude.

In Re James D. Kennedy, Jr., Debtor. Alan D. Cowen and Josephine Cowen v. James D. Kennedy, Jr. · filed 1997-03-21(a)(2)(A)

Second, Kennedy argues that the bankruptcy court used the wrong standard in concluding that a debt is non-dischargeable for fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because it failed to make a specific finding of moral turpitude. We are unpersuaded. The bankruptcy court correctly applied the applicable test which requires a finding that the debtor knowingly made false representations with the intention of deceiving the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor made a false representation recklessly or knowing it was false.

Wegmans Food Market, Inc. v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1997-04-02(a)(2)(A)

To establish a false representation within the meaning of the statute, however, the plaintiff must show that the debtor made this implied statement either recklessly or with knowledge of its falsity.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt created by fraud nondischargeable, and a guilty plea to that fraud can prevent the debtor from contesting dischargeability.

PCS Health Systems, Inc. v. Carro (In Re Carro) · filed 1997-04-10(a)(2)(A)

Mr. Bou Carro pled guilty to committing fraud against PCS. As such, it is clear that under § 523(a)(2)(A) the debt created by this fraudulent behavior is not dischargeable. His guilty plea collaterally estops him from contesting that issue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge for false pretenses or actual fraud even without a false representation, but the debt must result from that conduct.

Chemical Bank v. Marcou (In Re Marcou) · filed 1997-05-01(a)(2)(A)

Nonetheless, by its words, section 523(a)(2)(A) is not limited to a debtor’s making of false representations but may also be triggered by “false pretenses” or “actual fraud.” The difficulty presented is that the complaint does not allege a debt owed by the Debtor to the bank that came about as a result of the Debtor’s alleged “false pretenses” or “actual fraud.”

Sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) require the debtor to have committed actual fraud for a debt to be nondischargeable.

United Orient Bank v. Green (In re Green) · filed 1997-05-01(a)(2), (a)(4)

In order to render a debt nondischargeable under either section, the debtor must have committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove actual and justifiable reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge.

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Walters · filed 1997-05-02(a)(2)(A)

At some point in time, there must be actual and justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and the creditor bears the burden of proof with respect to this issue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance; a sophisticated lender may fail to meet that requirement when it skips its usual title search.

Sanford Institution for Savings v. Gallo (In Re Gallo) · filed 1997-05-21(a)(2)(A)

SIS is a sophisticated plaintiff and, under the standards set forth in Field v. Mans, it had an obligation to conduct the most cursory of investigations, i.e., a title search. By failing to follow its own practice, SIS assumed the risk that its security would be worthless.

Section 523(a)(2) does not require a creditor to prove that the debtor’s misrepresentation proximately caused its damages.

Fleet Resources v. Zwick · filed 1997-05-27(a)(2)

contrary to Zwick’s assertions on appeal, in the Tenth Circuit a creditor need not prove that it was damaged as a proximate result of the debtor’s misrepresentations in order to prevail on a nondischargeability action under section 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive for a debt based on failure to disclose, even if the debtor had a duty to disclose.

Wilder v. Waller (In re Waller) · filed 1997-06-12(a)(2)(A)

But this Court does not have to decide whether or not the Defendant violated Rule 1.8, because it finds that even if the Defendant breached a duty to disclose, there was no intent to deceive the Plaintiff.

A creditor seeking to except credit card debt from discharge for fraud must prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation; ignoring apparent warning signs can defeat that showing.

F.C.C. National Bank v. Cacciatore (In Re Cacciatore) · filed 1997-06-18(a)(2)(A)

In light of FCC’s failure to pursue the explicit warning signs presented by Defendant’s completed credit card Invitation and his use of the card, the Court finds that any reliance on Defendant’s alleged implicit misrepresentation as to his intention to repay the charges was unjustifiable. Because FCC cannot under these circumstances prove by a preponderance of the evidence each of the elements required for a finding of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A), Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a merchant actually and justifiably relied on a worthless check when transferring property; an expectation of reimbursement does not satisfy that requirement.

Checkcare Systems v. Alexander (In Re Alexander) · filed 1997-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Checkcare must prove that the merchants actually and justifiably relied on the worthless cheeks in transferring property (food and clothing) to the debtor. ... The court concludes that the merchants relied not on the worthless checks but on the expectation of reimbursement from Checkcare which in turn relied on the expectation of damages under Alabama’s worthless check law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a creditor’s failure to accelerate a debt as an extension of credit.

Field v. Mans (In Re Mans) · filed 1997-06-25(a)(2)(A)

In sum, treating a failure to accelerate as an “extension” distorts the common meaning of this statutory term and presumes a causal connection which may not be present.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge even when the fraud did not occur in a credit transaction.

Small v. Bottone (In Re Bottone) · filed 1997-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Implicit in the First Circuit’s reasoning was that the reverse could be true; namely, that a claim based on fraud other than in connection with a credit transaction could be brought under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a credit card debt nondischargeable when the debtor incurred it with fraudulent intent not to repay.

Petilla v. First Card National Bank · filed 1997-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a) (2)(A) precludes discharge of any debt obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud." ... Given the evidence in the record, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Petilla did not have the intent to repay his debt to First Card.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor obtained money through a representation he believed was false and made with intent to deceive the creditor.

Morris Street Associates v. Welch (In Re Welch) · filed 1997-07-29(a)(2)(A)

The court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the debtor obtained money from them through representations which he believed to be false at the time he made them with the intent to deceive each plaintiff. Accordingly, the claims owed the plaintiffs are dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) makes a distributive award nondischargeable when it compensates a spouse for assets lost through the debtor’s false representations.

Apte v. Marathe (In re Marathe) · filed 1997-07-23(a)(2)

The basis for the distributive award was Marathe’s false representations causing dissipation and fraudulent disposition of Apte’s assets. Thus, the distributive award is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debt from discharge only to the extent it was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; fraudulent checks tendered later do not make an earlier debt nondischargeable.

Forbes v. Four Queens Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-07-25(a)(2)(A)

Forbes’s post-tender debt, totaling $9,205, qualifies as nondischargeable under the statute. ... Accordingly, the pre-existing balance of $16,000 fails to qualify as an exception to dischargeability, as it does not meet the criteria required by statute.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a promise was fraudulent when the debt arose; failing to carry it out later is insufficient.

Palmacci v. Umpierrez · filed 1997-08-11(a)(2)(A)

Nor does failure to carry out one's intentions constitute a basis for finding a debt nondischargeable under S 523(a)(2)(A) absent a showing that the claimed fraud existed at the inception of the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor makes a fraudulent misrepresentation and the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kane (In Re Kane) · filed 1997-08-12(a)(2)(A)

The judgment in the civil action and the guilty plea in the criminal action each make out a fraud ease under section 523(a)(2)(A) under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s silence about a material fact constitutes a fraudulent representation.

Lester v. Meadows (In Re Meadows) · filed 1997-08-21(a)(2)(A)

It is the contention of plaintiff that the facts which we have delineated entitle him to summary judgment because those facts show that the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) have been met. We agree. ... We hold that defendant’s failure to communicate to plaintiff anything about that action to be a false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a finding that credit card debt is nondischargeable when the debtor incurred it with fraudulent intent not to repay.

In Re: Rodolfo Enriquez Petilla, Debtor, Rodolfo Enriquez Petilla v. Bank One Lafayette, N.A. · filed 1997-09-03(a)(2)(A)

Given the evidence in the record, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Petilla did not have the intent to repay his debt to Bank One.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent and reliance to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Marco Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Reeb (In Re Reeb) · filed 1997-09-22(a)(2)(A)

While the Court believes that the plaintiff in this case is somewhat less remote to the transaction than the materialman was in McDowell, it nevertheless concludes that the plaintiff likewise has failed to satisfy the intent and reliance elements necessary to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) on grounds of false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive and reliance to except a debt based on misrepresentation from discharge.

Marshall v. McCaffrey (In Re McCaffrey) · filed 1997-10-03(a)(2)(A)

In view of all of the foregoing, that plaintiffs have failed to prove the essential intent to deceive and reliance elements of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), their claim based on that statutory provision fails.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s reliance element is satisfied when a debtor knows another person lacks material facts that a reasonable person might consider important to a decision.

In re Demarest · filed 1997-09-22(a)(2)(A)

Here appellants clearly knew that the buyers were acting without knowledge that they were receiving property that was encumbered. We held in Apte, indeed quoting the bankruptcy court's opinion in this very case, that "where an individual knows ... that another is acting without knowledge of material facts, the reliance element is satisfied by objective proof, i.e., whether a reasonable person might have considered the facts important to his or her decision." Apte, 96 F.3d at 1323 (quoting In re Demarest, 176 B.R. 917, 922 (Bankr.W.D.Wash.1995)). There is no question in this case that the existence of an encumbrance on the property would have been important to the buyers' decision.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes a false representation to obtain the loan and the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Planters & Growers Golden Leaf Warehouse v. Baird (In Re Baird) · filed 1997-10-01(a)(2)(A)

Looking to the past course of dealing between the Debtor and Planters, coupled with the clear representation by the Debtor that the debt would be secured by a tobacco crop and paid when the tobacco was sold with Planters, which representation included the Debtor’s promised delivery of the UCC-1 Financing Statement, Planters’ reliance appears to be justified. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Planters has met its burden of proof pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) treats a creditor’s delay in demanding payment of a due note, induced by a debtor’s false financial statement, as an extension of credit.

National City Bank v. Plechaty (In Re Plechaty) · filed 1997-10-07(a)(2)(B)

The Debtor, however, could not submit a false financial statement, causing National City to delay demand for payment of an obligation which was due, and then successfully assert this delay did not amount to an extension of credit under § 523(a)(2).

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

American General Finance, Inc. v. Philippi (In re Philippi) · filed 1997-10-15(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons outlined herein, American General was not justified in relying upon Mr. and Mrs. Philippi’s representations to the extent such were made. Based on these factors, the Court concludes that American General is not entitled to recovery under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) provides an independent ground for finding a debt nondischargeable.

In the Matter of John R. Meyer, Drbtor-Appellant, Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. John R. Meyer, Debtor-Appellant · filed 1997-10-21(a)(2)(A)

Since § 523(a)(2)(A) provides an independent reason to affirm the nondischargeability of the debt.