11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a material omission as a false representation when the debtor has a duty to disclose.

In Re Carl L. Schudde Sylvia Schudde, Debtors. Beth Vernell v. Carl L. Schudde Sylvia Schudde · filed 1997-11-25(a)(2)(A)

Silence or omissions regarding a material fact can constitute a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) when there is a duty to disclose.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor’s fraud gave rise to the debt; a finding of fraudulent transfer alone does not establish that requirement.

Nate B. & Francis Spingold Foundation, Inc. v. Halperin (In Re Halperin) · filed 1997-11-03(a)(2)(A)

There is a crucial distinction between engaging in a fraudulent transfer of property and incurring a debt through fraud. The September, 1992 state court decision does not find that the Defendant owed a debt to the Plaintiffs based upon any fraud she committed, as required by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar discharge of a debt based on negligent supervision alone.

Keams v. Tempe Technical Institute, Inc. · filed 1997-12-15(a)(2)(A)

As a matter of federal bankruptcy law, however, negligence does not constitute fraud and is insufficient to bar discharge of debts under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to obtain money; causing a creditor to spend money defending against fraudulent claims does not satisfy that requirement.

Golant v. Care Comm, Inc. · filed 1997-12-30(a)(2)(A)

Inducing Care Comm to expend money to defend against fraudulent claims and arguments is not enough, even under the third view, to prove that Golant obtained any money from Care Comm.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor fails to disclose a material fact that the debtor had a duty to disclose.

In Re Norman Docteroff, Debtor, Bert L. Wolstein Lady Iris Corporation v. Docteroff · filed 1997-12-30(a)(2)(A)

A debt is not discharge-able under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) if it is obtained by “actual fraud.” ... Docteroff fails to recognize that a finding of fraud does not require an affirmative statement by him of his purpose in the .diversion and may be predicated on a failure to disclose that material fact.

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

Mills v. Hyman (In Re Hyman) · filed 1998-01-08(a)(2)(A)

The subsequent inability or even refusal to pay does not conclusively indicate an intention not to pay at the time of the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a debtor used business proceeds for expenses instead of repaying a loan.

Bropson v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1998-01-12(a)(2)(A)

There is no doubt that the manager possessed extremely inadequate business skills and used the proceeds obtained from the sale of the lot’s vehicles to pay his own business expenses rather than to repay the plaintiff’s loans. However, these grounds do not amount to fraud and are not sufficient for an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor's fraud, assessed in light of the creditor's knowledge and experience.

In Re Gallo · filed 1998-01-16(a)(2)(A)

Justifiable reliance is a subjective standard. ... Given the facts of this particular case and the qualities of this particular plaintiff, we find that reliance was not justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) may treat an attorney’s failure to make disclosures required by professional conduct rules as a false representation.

Tallant v. Kaufman (In Re Tallant) · filed 1998-02-18(a)(2)(A)

We adopt the reasoning in Young and hold that an attorney’s failure to disclose information that he has a duty to disclose under the professional responsibility rule may constitute a false representation of nondisclosure under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains it through a deceptive promise on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Fleming v. Sagan (In Re Sagan) · filed 1998-03-18(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money to the extent the debt was obtained by false pretense, false representation or actual fraud. ... Therefore, I find that Mr. Sagan intended to deceive Mr. Fleming, and did, in fact deceive Mr. Fleming. I find further that Mr. Fleming justifiably relied upon the deception. I find, therefore, that Mr. Fleming was entitled to a portion of the fee in the amount of $18,600, and that the debt is nondischargeable.

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

Star Banc Finance, Inc. v. Bird (In Re Bird) · filed 1998-03-31(a)(2)(A)

The Court cannot say that Defendants had the subjective intent to deceive this creditor when cashing the loan checks in this case. We find that the Plaintiff failed to prove the first element—that the Defendants made a false representation—thus the Court does not need to consider the other of the four elements articulated by the Sixth Circuit as they are moot.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a credit card issuer to prove reliance on the debtor’s representations. When the issuer did not rely on those representations in issuing a pre-approved card, reliance does not arise from the debtor’s later use of it.

At & T Universal Card Services v. Mercer (In Re Mercer) · filed 1998-02-26(a)(2)(A)

The court concludes that without the establishment of reliance on the debtor’s representations at the time the card was issued, reliance will not attach to the representations, if any, made by the debtor with the subsequent use of the card. Under the circumstances of this case, where the credit card was pre-approved, based solely on AT & T’s screening process, performed through various credit bureaus and the FICO score, there was no actual reliance by AT & T on representations made by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s representation, while § 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance on a written financial statement.

Beneficial California, Inc. v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1998-03-03(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Applying the foregoing to the evidence at bar, the Court finds that Beneficial has not met its burden of proof under either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(2)(B). Beneficial has failed, under both its claims for relief, to establish that it either justifiably relied on Sandra’s representations or reasonably relied on Sandra’s written financial statements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s representation.

At & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Reynolds (In Re Reynolds) · filed 1998-03-09(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, AT & T’s claim in this lawsuit must be DENIED, since the plaintiff failed to prove the justifiable reliance required for fraud nondischargeabilify under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove detrimental reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation to establish that a debt is nondischargeable.

Cedric M. Richeson and Emily Richeson v. Saltzman · filed 1998-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor also must establish detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2) requires actual reliance on a false representation before a debt can be excepted from discharge.

Wayne Lumber Co. v. Peternel (In Re Peternel) · filed 1998-04-07(a)(2)

This Court does not have to reach the issue of whether the reliance was justifiable under § 523(a)(2)(A), or reasonable under § 523(a)(2)(B), as there simply was no reliance at all.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a gambling debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor expected to repay it with winnings.

At & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Scocozzo (In Re Scocozzo) · filed 1998-04-17(a)(2)(A)

Until that time, it would be an untoward detour by judicial activism for this Court to create a provision barring the discharge of loans incurred to gamble where repayment is intended from the anticipated winnings.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not prevent discharge of rent debt when the debtor did not commit fraud in connection with the rent owed.

In re Garcia · filed 1998-04-22(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that the Garcias did not commit fraud in connection with rents owed and properly concluded that the Garcias were entitled to discharge their debt. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 727(a)(4)(A); In re Claremont, 113 F.3d at 1031.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a finding that the debtor did not sincerely intend to repay; an unreasonable hope of repayment alone does not establish fraud.

Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A. v. Michel · filed 1998-05-07(a)(2)(A)

A bankruptcy judge attempting to determine the applicability of § 523(a)(2)(A) must evaluate the subjective intent of the debtor: there is no fraud when a person makes a representation that he sincerely believes is true.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires each debt claimed to be nondischargeable for false pretenses to result from money obtained through those false pretenses.

Novartis Corp. v. Luppino (In Re Luppino) · filed 1998-05-18(a)(2)(A)

The analysis under Section 523(a)(2)(A) must focus on each debt which is sought to be held non-dischargeable, and each must pass the test of being “a debt ... for obtaining money ... to the extent obtained by ... false pretenses.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s representation.

Waterman v. Haumaier · filed 1998-06-11(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the justifiable reliance necessary to support the claim is not present in the record.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; a creditor cannot justifiably rely on it once its falsity is obvious upon cursory examination.

Mercantile Bank v. Canovas · filed 1998-06-12(a)(2)(A)

The court believes that Bank’s reliance was justifiable during the month of July, 1996, when defendant ran up $10,543.08 in mostly small charges (August 7 statement). ... The court finds that Bank did not justifiably rely on defendant’s misrepresentation after August 7, 1996 because it relied on a misrepresentation, the falsity of which was obvious upon cursory examination.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for actual fraud, including damages and attorney’s fees arising from the fraud.

Big River Properties, Inc. v. Stafford (In Re Stafford) · filed 1998-06-18(a)(2)(A)

All of the ancillary damages awarded over and above the actual damages for fraud represent “any liability” arising from the debtor’s § 523(a)(2)(A) fraudulent conduct, and all are therefore nondischargeable pursuant to the mandate of Cohen v. de la Cruz.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual fraudulent intent to except credit card debt from discharge; inability to repay alone does not establish that intent.

At & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Searle · filed 1998-07-09(a)(2)(A)

Contrary to Universal’s assertion, the actual intent element of common law fraud cannot be established by showing that a debtor knew or should have known that he did not have the money available to fulfill his promise. The correct focus, rather, is whether in good faith he intended to keep his promise.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) except a fraud debt from discharge when a prior judgment conclusively establishes the fraud.

McCart v. Jordana (In Re Jordana) · filed 1998-06-19(a)(2)(A) & (B)

As the issue of fraud on the part of the debtor-defendant will not be permitted to be relitigated, as a matter of law, this court holds that the debt falls within the exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) & (B). Thus, the debt of the debtor-defendant to the plaintiff is ordered to be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted this $20,000 debt from discharge after the court found false pretenses and misrepresentations.

Kadlecek v. Ferguson (In Re Ferguson) · filed 1998-07-24(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, Plaintiffs damages are fixed at $20,000, and judgment will be rendered for Plaintiff in that amount. Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), that debt will by separate judgment be held non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to rely on a debtor’s false representation without investigating it when there are no warning signs of its falsity.

Sanford Institution for Savings v. Gallo · filed 1998-09-04(a)(2)(A)

The law is clear that SIS was entitled to rely on the statements unless there were warning signs of their falsity, even if obtaining a title search was easy and a matter of bank policy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s misrepresentation and suffered a loss.

Clark & Gregory, Inc. v. Hanson (In Re Hanson) · filed 1998-09-17(a)(2)(A)

Having found the first three requirements for fraud, the final element of § 523(a)(2)(A) is whether C & G justifiably relied on Hanson’s misrepresentations thereby causing it financial harm. ... Because of the time lapse between the start of the business and the time Hanson started to defraud his employer, and the fact that adequate internal controls were in place, the court finds that C & G justifiably relied on Hanson’s misrepresentations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false statement made with intent to deceive for a debt to be excepted from discharge.

New Jersey v. Yeutseun Chen (In Re Yeutseun Chen) · filed 1998-12-18(a)(2)(A)

To determine that a debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the court must find that the debtor made the false statement with the intent to deceive the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) does not require a debtor to intend to deceive the particular creditor seeking to have the debt declared nondischargeable.

Tustin Thrift & Loan Ass'n v. Maldonado (In Re Maldonado) · filed 1999-01-13(a)(2)(B)(iv)

On the face of the statute, there is no requirement that the debtor make the statement with intent to deceive the plaintiff. The Debtor admitted that he intended to deceive Sonora’s auditors. The court erred in requiring Tustin Thrift to show that the Debtor intended to deceive Tustin Thrift.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a contractor’s false affidavit extinguishes a supplier’s lien rights on which the supplier justifiably relied.

Southern Concrete Construction Co. v. Lennard (In Re Lennard) · filed 1999-01-19(a)(2)(A)

Fourth, the court finds that Southern Concrete sustained a loss as a result of Debtor’s actual fraud because its lien rights were extinguished by Debtor’s false affidavits. Accordingly, for the Bishop and English jobs where Debtor executed false affidavits, the court finds that those debts are tainted with actual fraud and are therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor knowingly misrepresents professional credentials to induce a creditor to hire him and the creditor justifiably relies to its detriment.

Kendrick v. Pleasants (In Re Pleasants) · filed 1999-02-24(a)(2)(A)

For the following reasons, we conclude defendant knowingly misrepresented his professional status as an architect with the intent to deceive and to induce plaintiffs into hiring him to perform professional architectural services. Accordingly, we find plaintiffs’ claim nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a material misrepresentation on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Wings & Rings, Inc. v. Hoover (In Re Hoover) · filed 1999-03-26(a)(2)(A)

This reliance led directly to the loss suffered by the Plaintiff. On this basis, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of nondischargeability on this element of its complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s false representation element can be met when a debtor assigns invoices while falsely representing that they state accurate and undisputed debts.

Goetschel Funding Co. v. Redford (In re Redford) · filed 1999-04-12(a)(2)(A)

The Court further finds that when Debtor assigned each invoice to Movant and represented that it was an “accurate and undisputed statement of indebtedness owed to [Debtor] by a customer for a sum certain ... arising out of a bona fide sale,” Debtor made an actual overt false representation to Movant within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when intentional false representations induce the loan and cause the creditor’s loss.

Simek v. Erdman (In Re Erdman) · filed 1999-05-25(a)(2)(A)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the sum of $27,677.68 is declared nondis-chargeable in the Erdmans’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes credit obtained through false representations nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relied on them.

Holub v. First National Bank · filed 1999-04-28(a)(2)(A)

This provision renders debts nondischargeable when they are for money or extensions or renewals of credit obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud. ... The court also found that the bank justifiably relied on Holub’s representations. ... Based on our review of the briefs, the court’s opinion, and pertinent portions of the record, we find no clearly erroneous fact findings.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for property obtained through false pretenses.

Dos Santos v. Goulart · filed 1999-05-07(a)(2)(A)

Appellant Linda Dos Santos appeals an order of the Bankruptcy Court (Judge Ad-lai S. Hardin, Jr.) which determined that her indebtedness to her brother, Appellee Peter Goulart, arising from a note made by Dos Santos securing a purchase money mortgage on the home of their now deceased mother was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because it had been obtained under false pretenses. For the reasons that follow, the order is affirmed.

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

Wolford v. Ward (In Re Ward) · filed 1999-05-18(a)(2)(A)

There are material factual disputes as to each of the elements under § 523(a)(2)(A) that cannot be determined from the record at this time.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance on a false representation and that the representation proximately caused the claimed loss.

Parker v. Grant (In Re Grant) · filed 1999-07-07(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, while the court finds that Dr. Grant made a misrepresentation of his marital status with Hannis which he knew was false with the intent to deceive, the plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation and that the damages they claim were proximately caused by the misrepresentation of Dr. Grant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an attorney’s conduct to satisfy the elements of fraud independently of any violation of professional rules.

Minnesota Client Security Board Ex Rel. Minnesota Client Security Fund v. Wyant (In Re Wyant) · filed 1999-08-02(a)(2)(A)

An analysis of Wyant’s conduct under § 523(a)(2)(A) must stand or fall on its own. Because the conduct violated professional and ethical rules does not necessarily mean that the conduct amounted to fraudulent conduct pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to prove deceptive intent and justifiable reliance.

Renick v. Saint John (In Re Saint John) · filed 1999-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden as to two of these elements. First, Plaintiff has failed to prove that Defendant made a false statement with the purpose and intention of deceiving Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff has failed to prove that he justifiably relied on Defendant’s statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains credit by writing checks on a line of credit he knows should have closed.

Merchants National Bank of Winona v. Moen (In Re Moen) · filed 1999-09-15(a)(2)(A)

A review of the evidence submitted to the bankruptcy court reveals that its conclusion that Jerome Moen knew exactly what he was doing and that his conduct amounted to fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A) is not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly draws on an unavailable credit line with intent to deceive the lender.

Merchants Natl. Bank v. Moen · filed 1999-09-15(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court’s factual determinations that Jerome Moen knowingly committed fraud with the intent and purpose of deceiving Merchants within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A) are not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a loan debt nondischargeable when debtors conceal a pending bankruptcy to induce the lender to make the loan.

Leverett v. Oligschlaeger (In Re Oligschlaeger) · filed 1999-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Here, the Court determines that the Leveretts have proven all of the elements of their section 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action. The Oligschlaegers proceeded to close the loan transaction with the knowledge they were going to file for bankruptcy. The Oligschlaegers did not tell the Leveretts of the pending bankruptcy because they knew if they did so the Leveretts would not loan them the $20,000.00.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require the debtor to have personally benefited from the fraud.

Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Sikorski (In re Sikorski) · filed 1999-10-06(a)(2)(A)

Sikorski argues that the prerequisites to a finding of fraud under Vermont law are not identical to those under § 523(a)(2)(A) because § 523(a)(2)(A) requires the additional showing that the debtor benefitted from the misrepresentation. The argument is without merit because § 523(a)(2)(A) has no such requirement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a punitive damages award from discharge when the debtor’s deception obtained no money, property, services, or credit.

Metcalfe v. Waters (In Re Waters) · filed 1999-10-14(a)(2)(A)

This does not necessarily mean that the punitive damages award is also dischargeable, but it does mean that the court must separately analyze the facts supporting the award of punitive damages to determine whether each of the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) is present with respect to that debt. In this case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the debt for punitive damages arises from money, property, service or credit obtained by false pretenses or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2) covers professional services, including a physician’s services.

Charell v. Gonzalez (In Re Gonzalez) · filed 1999-11-18(a)(2)

Professional services, such as those of a physician, come within the scope of Section 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor makes a false representation with intent to deceive and the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Sullivan v. Hallagan (In Re Hallagan) · filed 1999-11-19(a)(2)(A)

The Debtor’s conduct of disobeying the provisions of the agreed order executed between he and Sullivan also evinced false representations. ... The circumstances between the parties surrounding the execution of the agreed order makes it apparent that the Debtor harbored an intent not to pay Sullivan which existed at the time he executed the agreed order. ... It is further found that Sullivan’s reliance upon the provision of the Agreed Order was justifiable. Accordingly, the subject debt is rendered nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor’s fraud to cause the creditor a loss of property before the debt is excepted from discharge.

LifeUSA Insurance v. Green (In Re Green) · filed 1999-11-22(a)(2)(A)

However, LifeUSA has not established that Green’s fraud damaged it in any way that would require nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A). Before § 523(a)(2)(A) applies, the debtor’s fraud must result in a loss of property to the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on a true statement.

In Re DeBaggis · filed 1999-12-01(a)(2)(A)

A true statement can not be the basis for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that a debt falls within the fraud exception to discharge.

Clark v. Bryant (In Re Bryant) · filed 1999-12-02(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth below, the court determines that the plaintiffs proof fails to meet the requirements of Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and that her claim has been discharged.

Section 523(a) requires a creditor to identify an applicable exception to discharge and prove that the claim falls within it.

Connell v. Sheehan (In Re Sheehan) · filed 1999-12-17(a)

The Plaintiffs have fallen short of this requirement by not mentioning one subsection of Section 523(a), and based on the evidence we must conclude that the Con-nells have failed to make out a prima facie case under any provision of Section 523.

A person’s failure to disclose material facts when under a duty to disclose is a false representation for the fraud exception to discharge.

Harmon v. Kobrin · filed 1999-12-10(a)(2)(A)

A failure to disclose material facts, by one under a duty to disclose, constitutes a false representation under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that a false written statement of financial condition proximately caused the creditor’s loss.

Woodstock Housing Corp. v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1999-12-23(a)(2)(B)

We can conceive of no reason why the common law requirement of proof of resulting injury as the proximate cause as a necessary element of a successful fraud claim should not carry over to § 523(a)(2)(B) as well as to § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Guske v. Guske (In Re Guske) · filed 2000-01-13(a)(2)(A)

However, because the record before us is devoid of any evidence regarding justifiable reliance, we find that Bankruptcy Court clearly erred in concluding that Ms. Guske met her burden of proving that element under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats conscious deceptive conduct calculated to obtain, or deprive another of, property as false pretenses.

Gentry v. Kovler (In Re Kovler) · filed 2000-01-14(a)(2)(A)

“False pretenses” for purposes of Section 523(a)(2)(A) then may be defined as conscious deceptive or misleading conduct calculated to obtain, or deprive another of, property.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers fraudulent misrepresentations made when collateral is substituted and the terms of a debt are changed as part of a refinancing of credit.

Collum v. Redden (In re Redden) · filed 2000-01-19(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) contemplates misrepresentations with respect to the refinancing of credit. The substitution of collateral and changes in the terms of a financial obligation constitute a refinance.

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

Schubbe Resch Chiropractic & Physical Therapy Centers v. Norton (In Re Norton) · filed 2000-02-15(a)(2)(A)

In the context of § 523(a)(2)(A), they must demonstrate that at the time the defendant signed the Financial Responsibility Form and obtained the medical services in question, she acted with an intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iv) allows a court to infer intent to deceive from a debtor's gross recklessness in submitting false financial statements.

Consolidated Bank v. Dalton · filed 2000-02-17(a)(2)(B)(iv)

Dalton's gross recklessness in submitting false financial statements creates an inference that he intended to deceive the Bank. ... We therefore hold that Dalton's debt to the Bank is nondischargeable under§ 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a debt arose from a false representation to prove that the debtor knew the representation was false when made.

AT&T Universal Card v. Baker · filed 2000-03-02(a)(2)(A)

Because we find that Appellee did not know his representation was false at the time he obtained the cash advance, this panel need not reach the questions of whether Appellee intended to defraud Appel- lant, whether Appellant relied on Appellee's representations, or whether Appellant sustained a loss as a proximate result of the mis- representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains money through fraudulent promises or material omissions.

Neugebauer v. Senese (In Re Senese) · filed 2000-03-06(a)(2)(A)

By reason of such conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment that her claim against the Debtor for the debt he owes her is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraudulently obtained debt from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s misrepresentation.

Auto Glass Wholesale, Inc. v. O'Brien (In Re O'Brien) · filed 2000-03-08(a)(2)(A)

AGW, which considered O’Brien a good customer and had no reason to distrust or disbelieve him, justifiably relied on O’Brien’s representation that his wife’s signature on the personal guaranty was genuine, see Gallo, 156 F.3d at 75, in the absence of warning signs that the representations were false. For these reasons, we conclude that the debt to AGW in the amount of $54,878.25 is nondisehargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Merely issuing a check that later bounces does not constitute a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Groetken v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2000-03-15(a)(2)(A)

A debtor does not make a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) merely by presenting a check for payment which later bounces.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can treat money fraudulently induced into a debtor’s corporation as obtained by the debtor when the debtor benefits from the investment.

Cutillo v. Hubner (In re Cutillo) · filed 2000-03-31(a)(2)(B)

Even though Cutillo may not have directly obtained the Hubners’ money, as president and a shareholder of EFS, he received the benefit of their money invested in EFS.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge on this ground.

Grady v. Turner (In Re Turner) · filed 2000-04-06(a)(2)(A)

There is no evidence before the court that defendant misrepresented to plaintiff how he would use the cards after authorization was extended to him to use them. We conclude therefore that plaintiff has failed to prove the first element required by the Rembert case, that there was a misrepresentation. The first count of the complaint is therefore dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s silence about a material fact, when the debtor has a duty to speak, as a false representation that can make a debt nondischargeable.

Ostertag v. Overall (In Re Overall) · filed 2000-04-28(a)(2)(A)

I find first that the debtor did make a false representation. It is well-established that a debtor’s silence as to a material fact, or when there is as an affirmative duty to speak, constitutes a representation for purposes of finding fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Lyons v. Wiggins (In Re Wiggins) · filed 2000-05-09(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant acted with fraudulent intent or that Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Defendant’s representations. Accordingly, the debt owed to Plaintiffs by Defendant is not excepted from Defendant’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for money obtained by actual fraud nondischargeable, including money taken for a vehicle when the seller fails to transfer title.

Ryan v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins) · filed 2000-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 523) provides that a bankruptcy discharge does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt “for money ... to the extent obtained by ... actual fraud.” The action of Mr. Jenkins in failing to transfer title constitutes actual fraud under Missouri law, and is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) requires evidence of fraud or false representations beyond the issuance of a bad check to except the debt from discharge.

In Re Strecker · filed 2000-06-07(a)(2)

There must be other acts, other evidence, supporting a claim for fraud or false representations in addition to the “bad check” to declare a debt on a “bad check” non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a contractor’s failure to protect a customer’s payment, coupled with false representations, as intentional deception.

Stifter v. Orsine (In Re Orsine) · filed 2000-06-14(a)(2)(A)

In particular, the Court feels that once a contractor accepts money for his or her services, that contractor must take reasonable steps to protect that creditor’s interest, and that the failure to do so, coupled with a contractor’s false representation(s), will rise to the level of an intentional deception for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from intentional participation in a fraudulent conveyance nondischargeable, even without a misrepresentation.

Cantrell, Bobbie D. v. McClellan, Harold W. · filed 2000-07-05(a)(2)(A)

The debt at issue here is the debt that the sister incurred to McClellan by committing a fraud against him. Because it was an actual fraud, the debt that it gave rise to is not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from an intentional fraudulent transfer nondischargeable even without a misrepresentation; constructive fraud is insufficient.

McClellan v. Cantrell · filed 2000-07-05(a)(2)(A)

The purpose of section 523(a)(2)(A) in confining nondischargeability to actual fraud is merely to recognize this difference and thus to exclude constructive fraud. ... This purpose is unrelated to whether the intent to defraud was implemented by a misrepresentation or by some other improper means.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes fraud-related damages nondischargeable even when no part of the creditor's claim was paid directly to the debtor.

Pleasants v. Kendrick · filed 2000-07-12(a)(2)(A)

This language is broad enough to encompass a situation in which no por- tion of a creditor's claim was literally transferred to the fraudulent debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains funds through a false promise intended to deceive and the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Sheikh v. Mukhi (In Re Mukhi) · filed 2000-11-01(a)(2)(A)

In order to except a debt from dischargeability for fraud or false pretenses or false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A), the following must be established: (1) that Debtor obtained the funds at issue through actual fraud or false pretenses or representations he either knew to be false, or made with such reckless disregard for the truth as to constitute willful misrepresentations; (2) that Debtor actually intended to deceive the Plaintiff; and (3) that to his detriment, Plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a homeowners association seeking to except delinquent dues from discharge to prove misrepresentation and reliance directly by a preponderance of the evidence.

In Re: Thomas John Slyman Debtor. Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Association v. Slyman · filed 2000-12-12(a)(2)(A)

A homeowners association must prove the elements of misrepresentation and reliance directly and by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Turtle Rock failed to meet this burden of proof, the bankruptcy court properly found that Slyman’s pre-petition debt for delinquent homeowners dues was dischargeable in his bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through promises made without an intent to perform.

Viking Dynamics Ltd. v. O'Neill (In Re O'Neill) · filed 2001-03-12(a)(2)(A)

The testimony of witnesses and the actions of the parties surrounding the execution of the AOA, convince this court that the Debtor’s promises to Viking to obtain the initial funding were made without an intent to perform such that the promises were knowingly false and rise to the level of culpability required by § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from an intentional check kiting scheme nondischargeable as actual fraud.

Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Vitanovich (In Re Vitanovich) · filed 2001-03-21(a)(2)(A)

The check kiting scheme engaged in by Debtor constituted actual fraud and the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on conspiracy to commit defalcation or fraud must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor agreed to the wrongdoing; receiving its benefits alone is insufficient.

Buchholz v. Dewey (In re Dewey) · filed 2001-03-28(a)(4), (a)(2)(A)

Buchholz must prove the elements of nondischargeable claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Buchholz has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Dewey conspired with Cook to accomplish the defalcation or the fraud. It is true that she received the benefit of Cook’s wrongful acts, but it has not been proven that she agreed with Cook to effect the harm to Buchholz.

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

Packaging Service Co. v. Siml (In Re Siml) · filed 2001-04-09(a)(2)(A)

Those findings establish a debt for money obtained by actual fraud and false representation, which squarely satisfies the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the creditor relied on a debtor’s false pretense or representation.

Gordon v. Bruce (In Re Bruce) · filed 2001-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has not established all of the above-enumerated required elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Even if debtors intended to induce her to falsely believe that they were married, plaintiff has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she actually, let alone justifiably, relied on the false representation or pretense.

A contractor’s false claim that he holds the required permits can make a resulting debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Curtis v. Stepp (In re Stepp) · filed 2001-06-19(a)(2)(A)

Informing Curtis that he possessed the required permits when, in fact, he did not, constituted a false representation. ... Thusly, an amount of $25,000.00 is hereby determined nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code.

Fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A) generally should not be resolved on summary judgment when reasonable inferences from the evidence support the creditor’s claim.

Bernard Lumber Co. v. Patrick (In Re Patrick) · filed 2001-05-29(a)(2)(A)

However, while this statement may ultimately be proved to be true, state of mind issues, such as fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A), are generally not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment unless all the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence clearly defeat the plaintiffs claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s deceptive representations cause a creditor loss through justifiable reliance.

Sweeney v. Lombardi (In Re Lombardi) · filed 2001-06-18(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that the debtor intended to deceive Mrs. Sweeney and her husband regarding the materials and their cost when he made these representations. Moreover, the Sweeneys justifiably relied on these representations. ... This debt shall not be discharged in the debtor’s bankruptcy as provided by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to establish that the debtor intended to commit fraud before a debt can be excepted from discharge.

Regency Motors, Inc. v. Barnes (In re Barnes) · filed 2001-07-03(a)(2)(A)

For a debt to be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) the creditor must establish that the debtor acted with intent to commit fraud. Such an intent was not established in this case.

A debtor’s promise to pay, without more credible evidence of fraud, does not establish fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Bernard Lumber Co. v. Patrick (In Re Patrick) · filed 2001-08-08(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, in the absence of more credible evidence of fraud, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiffs have met their requisite burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of intent to deceive, which may be inferred from the circumstances.

Duarte v. Atkinson · filed 2001-07-30(a)(2)(A)

The Duartes correctly posit that intent to deceive may be inferred from the circumstances, see, e.g., Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Hashemi (In re Hashemi), 104 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 1996), but here there was insufficient evidence from which to draw such an inference.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a false representation to except a debt from discharge on a false-representation claim.

Overly v. Guthrie (In Re Guthrie) · filed 2001-08-03(a)(2)(A)

First, he has failed to prove that Guthrie’s representation, as to the fact that Overly was a vice president, was false. Second, as no false statement was made, Overly necessarily fails to establish the remaining elements of his Section 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar discharge based on a debtor’s intended source of repayment when the debtor made no false representation about that source.

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Baumblit · filed 2001-08-06(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, there was no representation by Baumblit, explicit or implicit, with respect to the source of funds from which he intended to repay his debt to Caesars. Therefore, there was no false representation by Baumblit with respect to the source of the funds from which he expected to repay Caesars. The district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision that Baumblit’s debt to Caesars was dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the creditor's claim arises directly from the debtor's fraud.

McCrory v. Spigel (In Re Spigel) · filed 2001-08-13(a)(2)(A)

Though the first two elements of the Palmacci test describe the conduct and scienter required to show fraudulent conduct generally, the last four embody the requirement that the claim of the creditor arguing nondischargeability in an adversary proceeding must arise as a direct result of the debtor's fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor issued a check knowing the account lacked sufficient funds.

Park National Bank & Trust of Chicago v. Paul (In Re Paul) · filed 2001-09-14(a)(2)(A)

The issuance of a check when Debtor knew that the account had insufficient funds is not, by itself, sufficient to except the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows intent to deceive to be inferred from the debtor’s conduct and surrounding circumstances.

Crawford v. Monfort (In Re Monfort) · filed 2001-09-19(a)(2)(A)

However, as a debtor is unlikely to actually admit to acting with the intent to deceive, this requirement may be inferred from the debtor’s conduct and from other surrounding circumstances. ... In the instant case, the Court, after giving the Plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences, finds that sufficient evidence exists to reasonably infer that the Defendants acted with the intent to deceive the Plaintiffs.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a debtor’s silence about a condition she did not know about as a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Rowe v. Steinberg (In Re Steinberg) · filed 2001-09-20(a)(2)(A)

Because we find as a fact that defendant did not know of the basement running water problem at the subject residence, it cannot be said that she had a duty to disclose it to plaintiffs. There being no duty to disclose, her silence cannot be construed as a misrepresentation and the first element of the Rembert test is not met.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a judgment debt caused by intentional misrepresentations on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Durns v. Dawson (Dawson) · filed 2001-11-14(a)(2)(A)

FURTHER, Plaintiffs have proved their Iowa District Court judgment against Debtor is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for false pretenses when the debtor lacked intent to deceive.

Interstate Producers Livestock Ass'n v. Hammitt (In Re Hammitt) · filed 2001-10-05(a)(2)(A)

First, it is clear that Mrs. Hammitt did not have the intent to deceive IPLA. ... Therefore, her debt to IPLA is dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains a loan through a false representation made with intent to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor suffers a resulting loss.

Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. McCoy (In Re McCoy) · filed 2001-11-05(a)(2)(A)

The Court is persuaded that the creditor has met its burden of proof in this case that McCoy made the false representation to the bank that he was going to use the loan proceeds to purchase horses and that McCoy made these representations with the intention of deceiving the bank.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts from discharge the full debt directly caused by a debtor’s fraud, including amounts that another payer might have covered.

Fulton County Dept. of Human Services v. Dodd (In re Dodd) · filed 2001-11-05(a)(2)

Thus, to summarize, it is the position of this Court that the wrongful acts committed by the Defendant lead directly to the Defendant’s obligation to pay for Michael Dodd’s medical bills. As a result therefrom, the Court cannot find that the circumstances of this case call for this Court invoking its equitable powers under § 105(a) so as to partially discharge the Defendant of her obligation to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s entire obligation to the Plaintiff will be found to be a nondischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2) requires the money at issue to have been obtained through the alleged false representation.

Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Vinogradova (In Re Vinogradova) · filed 2001-11-16(a)(2)

Assuming that one rejects Kovalev’s explanation and concludes that his answer to this question constituted a false representation, it is perfectly obvious that Vladimirskiy’s failure to report sales of ARC traffic documents beginning in October 1998 and his subsequent failure to account to ARC for the proceeds of sales of those traffic documents did not result from Kovalev’s misstatement. It is frivolous to contend that the misappropriated sales proceeds constituted “money ... obtained by” Kovalev’s answer to question 5 on the CHANGE OF AGENCY NAME form within the meaning of subsection (2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a settlement note judgment from discharge when the debt arises from the debtor’s fraudulent conduct.

Baker v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2001-12-18(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, judgment is rendered in favor of Plaintiff Baker pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). The Cognovit Note judgment in the amount of $36,426.33, plus interest on said amount at the rate of 10% per annum, is hereby rendered nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive; a disciplinary finding of dishonest conduct does not establish that intent unless the earlier judgment necessarily decided it.

Cobb v. Lewis (In Re Lewis) · filed 2002-01-08(a)(2)(A)

Additionally, the finding that the Debtor had engaged in “dishonest conduct” does not necessarily incorporate the element of “specific intent.” ... For these reasons, the issue of the Debtor’s intent was not actually determined, and the bankruptcy court was not precluded from hearing whether the Cobbs’ Claim was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove both actual and justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; without actual reliance, the court need not decide whether reliance was justifiable.

Lentz v. Spadoni (In Re Spadoni) · filed 2002-01-09(a)(2)(A)

Both actual and justifiable rebanee are required for Lentz to prevail on his complaint. ... The bankruptcy court’s factual finding that Lentz did not actually rely on the Debtor’s promises precluded the need for any legal determination that any such reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for fraud from discharge; the creditor must prove fraud unless a prior judgment conclusively established it.

In Re: Aiping Huang, Debtor, the Bank of China v. Huang · filed 2002-01-14(a)(2)(A)

Liability for fraud is not dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). If Huang defrauded the Bank, her debt to it is non-dischargeable. To prevail, the Bank must prove the fraud, unless the Bank succeeds by collateral es-toppel.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a false representation made with intent to deceive causes loss through the creditor’s justifiable reliance.

Manucy v. Hartman (In Re Hartman) · filed 2002-03-12(a)(2)(A)

In order to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), a plaintiff must prove: (1) that defendant made a false representation with the purpose and intent of deceiving plaintiff; (2) that plaintiff justifiably relied upon the representation; and (3) that plaintiff sustained a loss as a result of the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor’s misrepresentation proximately caused the creditor’s loss.

Lightner v. Lohn · filed 2002-02-21(a)(2)(A)

Proof that the aggrieved party’s damage was proximately caused by the debtors misrepresentation is required by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly misrepresents ownership of collateral to obtain the loan and the creditor justifiably relies on that representation.

Maynard Savings Bank v. Banke (In Re Banke) · filed 2002-03-11(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the Bank has met its burden to prove that Mrs. Banke made a false representation which she knew to be false, with the intention and purpose of deceiving the Bank into entering into the loan transaction. ... The Bank has met its burden to show justifiable reliance under § 523(a)(2)(A). The loan debt to the Bank is excepted from Pamela Banke’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a malpractice debt caused by fraudulent misrepresentation of a doctor's license, and § 523(a)(4) excepts one linked to the doctor's failure to maintain financial protection required by a statutory trust.

Church v. Hanft (In Re Hanft) · filed 2002-03-20(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

In light of the fraud committed by Dr. Hanft in misrepresenting the status of his license, the malpractice judgment is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Thus, the Court finds that Ms. Church’s malpractice judgment is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an outstanding debt and, for a claim based on false representations, proof that the creditor actually relied on them and that the debtor intended to deceive.

Corradini v. Corradini (In Re Corradini) · filed 2002-04-19(a)(2)(A)

After the promissory note was satisfied by the $33,000 payment, no “debt” remained which could be excepted from discharge. Even if a debt remained, the Plaintiff failed to prove actual reliance upon the Debtor’s representations and that the Debtor intended to deceive him in the first loan transaction.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains credit through false pretenses, including false representations about who will possess and pay for the purchased property.

Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Dobek (In Re Dobek) · filed 2002-05-16(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Bombardier has shown that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Debtor made misrepresentations, which constitute false pretenses under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s intentional deception causes a creditor to lose money through justifiable reliance.

Farmers State Bank v. Diel (In Re Diel) · filed 2002-05-16(a)(2)(A)

This is clearly evidence of actual fraud — a statement or omission made with intent to deceive that the Bank justifiably relied on to its detriment. Therefore, $8,409.65, the amount of the Boever’s checks which should have been turned over to the Bank, is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt arising from a bad check from discharge without additional evidence of intent to defraud.

New Austin Roosevelt Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Sanchez (In Re Sanchez) · filed 2002-05-20(a)(2)(A)

It is well settled that the utterance of a bad check, without additional evidence of an intent to defraud a creditor, is insufficient to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on an unfulfilled promise to reconvey property when the debtor intended to perform the promise.

MacPhee v. Sullivan (In re Sullivan) · filed 2002-07-31(a)(2)(A)

Since the Court finds that the Debtor did not make a false misrepresentation to the Plaintiff because she did intend to reconvey the property, the first prong of the nondischargeability test under § 523(a)(2)(A) was not satisfied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor recklessly withholds a material fact while obtaining credit.

Luzerne National Bank v. LaFratte (In Re LaFratte) · filed 2002-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Liability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) can be based on a “debtor’s silence” in regards to a material fact. ... I am satisfied that LaFratte’s failure to fully disclose to LNB the contingent nature of these so-called “receivables” went beyond mere negligent conduct and showed a reckless disregard for the real value of these telephonic customer orders.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt for insurance benefits obtained through fraudulent omissions nondischargeable without an affirmative act of fraud.

LifeUSA Insurance v. Green · filed 2002-07-23(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, an affirmative act of fraud is not required to declare a debt nondischargeable, ... We thus perceive no error in ordering rescission of the MCIC disabihty coverage or in finding that Green’s debt to MCIC for poHcy benefits was nondischargeable.

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

Alverde v. Castillo · filed 2002-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the bankruptcy code provides that a debtor is not entitled to a discharge of debt to the extent that the debt was obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Therefore the bankruptcy court and the BAP did not err in concluding that the $1,900,000 owed by Debtor to Appellees is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a false representation made with intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting loss.

Ford v. Pupello (In Re Pupello) · filed 2002-06-04(a)(2)(A)

In order to except a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiffs must prove that: (1) Defendant made a false representation with the purpose and intent of deceiving Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the representation; and (3) Plaintiffs sustained a loss as a result of the representation. ... Because all of the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied, Defendant’s debt to Plaintiffs will be excepted from Defendant’s discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for a fraud-based exception to discharge; an attorney with bankruptcy experience cannot justifiably rely on a debtor’s prepetition promise to waive discharge.

Marra v. Kroen (In Re Kroen) · filed 2002-07-18(a)(2)(A)

In the immediate case, Mr. Richman and his firm, as attorneys with bankruptcy experience, must be charged with the knowledge of the invalidity of a pre-petition waiver of discharge. The attorneys should not be permitted to invoke § 523 provisions of the Code after ignoring § 524 and waiver of discharge cases. ... Therefore, the court finds that the plaintiff cannot establish the necessary element of justifiable reliance upon the debtor’s supposed waiver of discharge of the legal fee in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor breached a contract; the creditor must prove the debtor knew the representation was false and intended to deceive.

Porter v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2002-08-05(a)(2)(A)

Debtor’s “reckless disregard” of the unambiguous language of the agreement of August 3,1999, without something more, does not transform his breach of the contract into fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through a material false representation made with intent to deceive, when the creditor justifiably relies on it and suffers a resulting loss.

Mitchell v. Barnette (In Re Barnette) · filed 2002-08-16(a)(2)(A)

We conclude that the debt is excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(2)(A) for reasons set forth in this memorandum opinion and accordingly will enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against debtor. ... To prevail in this case pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) debtor obtained money from plaintiff by making a false representation; (2) debtor knew that the representation was false when he made it; (3) debtor made the representation with intent to deceive plaintiff; (4) plaintiff relied on the false representation; and (5) plaintiff suffered a loss as a proximate result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a fraudulent, unauthorized withdrawal of joint-account funds.

Staniunas v. Delisle (In Re Delisle) · filed 2002-08-08(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs objection to dischargeability of the $45,000 pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) is, therefore, allowed because such funds were fraudulently obtained.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through actual fraud, including a scheme to divert assets beyond a creditor’s reach.

K-B Building Co. v. Barber (In Re Barber) · filed 2002-08-09(a)(2)(A)

We conclude in light of the foregoing that debtor obtained monetary payments from Hermara by means of actual fraud and that he knowingly participated in a scheme to divert Hermara’s assets for his own use to prevent K-B from satisfying any judgment that it might obtain against Hermara. The debt owed to K-B by debt- or in the amount of $74,760 which arose from the judgment entered in the fraudulent transfer action brought in state court consequently is excepted from discharge by virtue of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by actual fraud from discharge; a prior fraud judgment can preclude relitigation of facts establishing that exception.

Squillante Enterprises, Inc. v. Juck (In Re Juck) · filed 2002-09-13(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons that follow, it is determined that Juck is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating those issues that bear on the dischargeability of the debt that were considered and decided by in Texas and adopted by the Connecticut court. ... The elements of fraud are the substantially the same under Texas law as they are under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a malpractice debt from discharge when the injury is traceable to a fraudulent representation on which the patient relied.

Hanft v. Church (In Re Hanft) · filed 2002-09-10(a)(2)(A)

Although not all malpractice judgments result from fraud, the Court concludes that in the instant case the liability is traceable to Appellant’s fraudulent representations with respect to his medical licensing, upon which Appellee relied when she consented to treatment by Appellant. Therefore, the debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because a debtor in financial difficulty wrote a check that was later returned for insufficient funds; additional evidence of fraud is needed.

In Re Grilliot · filed 2002-09-19(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, for these reasons, it is the holding of this Court that a debtor who, while experiencing financial difficulties writes a check which later turns out not to have sufficient funds in the account to cover the indebtedness, will not necessarily be deemed to have committed an act proscribed by § 523(a)(2)(A) unless additional corroborating evidence is offered in support.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent and actual reliance; negligent misrepresentations do not make a debt nondischargeable.

Wolf v. McGuire (In Re McGuire) · filed 2002-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has failed to establish a claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A) because he has not demonstrated the necessary elements of scienter and actual reliance.

Section 523(a)(2) does not treat forbearance from accelerating an existing debt as an extension of credit when the original debt remains and no new right to payment arises.

Telmark, LLC v. Booher (In Re Booher) · filed 2002-10-17(a)(2)

Consequently, Telmark’s forbearance from the acceleration of leases does not constitute an “extension of credit” the type of which may be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2) excludes a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains a renewal of credit through false pretenses and the creditor relies on them to its detriment, even if the precise amount of harm cannot be determined.

Suntrust Bank v. Brandon (In Re Brandon) · filed 2002-11-18(a)(2)

The dollar amount of the resulting harm, which is not readily ascertainable, is irrelevant, in that this is not an action based on fraud whereby a specific dollar amount in damages must be proven. Section 523(a)(2) excludes from discharge from any debt for obtaining the renewal of credit by fraud or false pretense.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a successor creditor to show that each successor in interest justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation.

Criimi Mae Services Ltd. Partnership Ex Rel. LaSalle National Bank Assoc. v. Hurley (In Re Hurley) · filed 2002-11-22(a)(2)(A)

To establish the “justifiable reliance” prong of § 523, Criimi Mae needs to show that each successor in interest to the original lender, Holliday Fenoglio, justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations in the El A.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud to show that it justifiably relied on the debtor’s statement.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance v. Raisley (In Re Raisley) · filed 2003-01-03(a)(2)(A)

Even if it has established them, Commonwealth cannot prevail because the evidence clearly indicates that it did not rely at all, let alone justifiably, on debtors’ response to paragraph 5 of the above affidavit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts rent from discharge when false promises induced the landlord to continue the lease and the landlord actually and justifiably relied on them.

Lentz v. Spadoni · filed 2003-01-14(a)(2)(A)

Lentz did not show that Spadoni made false promises prior to January 1998, so the rent unpaid in 1997 does not fall within section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for services from discharge when the debtor obtains them through fraud and the creditor justifiably relies on the debtor’s representations.

Binger v. Bloomfield (In Re Bloomfield) · filed 2003-01-15(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, for all of the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sustained her burden with respect to her cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to obtain money, property, or services through the alleged fraud before a resulting debt can be excepted from discharge.

Posillico v. Bratcher (In Re Bratcher) · filed 2003-01-08(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant obtained money, property, services, etc. as a result of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Court will not except the $57,000.00 purchase price of Plaintiffs Island Design stock and Plaintiffs remaining liability resulting from the personal guaranty of the Upper Savannah loan from Defendant’s discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s intentional silence about a material defect induces justifiable reliance and causes the creditor’s loss.

Redmond v. Finch (In Re Finch) · filed 2003-02-28(a)(2)(A)

On the other hand, the Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs have sustained their burden of proof under section 523(a)(2)(A), and their judgment is nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s false representations cause a creditor’s loss through justifiable reliance.

Miller v. Bauer (In Re Bauer) · filed 2003-03-31(a)(2)(A)

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the obligation should not be discharged, pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud or misrepresentation involving moral turpitude for a debt to be excepted from discharge.

Bremner v. Garcia · filed 2003-03-20(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) contemplates fraud or misrepresentation involving moral turpitude.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently represents an intent to repay, the creditor justifiably relies on that representation, and the reliance causes a loss.

Huntington National Bank v. McManus (In Re McManus) · filed 2003-04-25(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that HNB has established by a preponderance of the evidence that McManus’s debt to it ... was incurred by fraud and that therefore the debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a marital debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently promises to pay it.

Woodward v. Bethel (In Re Bethel) · filed 2003-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, as long as its conditions are met, a debt is not excluded from the scope of § 523(a)(2)(A) merely because it constitutes a marital obligation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor's intentional false representation causes a loss on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Lang v. Lang (In Re Lang) · filed 2003-05-28(a)(2)(A)

Here, the pertinent finding with respect to whether the debt was nondischargeable was the successor judge's second finding, that the Debtor intentionally misrepresented her fidelity during the divorce proceedings. That finding is enough to support the successor judge's conclusion that the Debtor knowingly made a fraudulent misrepresentation with the intent to deceive as required under ง 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor made the challenged representation with intent to deceive the creditor.

Lincoln Land FS, Inc. v. Mau (In Re Mau) · filed 2003-05-28(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail under § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiff must also prove that the statement .was made with the intent to deceive Plaintiff. The evidence and the testimony fall far short of proving this.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor believed his representations were true and did not intend to deceive the creditor.

Hodgin v. Conlin (In Re Conlin) · filed 2003-06-16(a)(2)(A)

Intent is still a non-issue in this case, but it is because Conlin believed his representations at the time he made them to be truthful, and so they were not false representations for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), and therefore the Court cannot reasonably conclude that any such representations were made by Conlin with an intent to deceive or mislead Hodgin into making the investments.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained through a fraudulent representation from discharge only to the extent the creditor justifiably relied on it.

Sea Win, Inc. v. Tran (In Re Tran) · filed 2003-05-30(a)(2)(A)

Sea Win’s reliance on Kim Seafood’s representations is justifiable under these circumstances. However, in view of the newness of the relationship between the parties, Sea Win’s reliance is justifiable only to the extent of its $15,000 credit limit. ... Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Tran owes $15,000 to Sea Win based on her personal guaranty and that the debt is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a doctor's promise to repay from future income as a fraudulent misrepresentation by itself.

Namvar v. Baker (In Re Baker) · filed 2003-06-25(a)(2)(A)

When a doctor promises to pay with future income, that representation is not per se a § 523(a)(2)(A) fraudulent misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a debtor’s intentional fraud.

Urological Group, Ltd. v. Petersen (In Re Petersen) · filed 2003-07-18(a)(2)(A)

Most telling, in the Court’s view, is the contemporaneous improper coding of all of the personal charges as office expenses, in order to conceal her actions from the accountant. Accordingly, this Court determines that the debt found owing to the GROUP in the amount of $8,446.46 is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance to prevent discharge of a fraudulently incurred debt.

Citibank v. Stephens (In Re Stephens) · filed 2003-07-23(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, as the creditor bears the burden of establishing justifiable reliance, the Court is constrained to find that the Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden under § 523(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, despite the fact that the obligations set forth herein were fraudulently incurred, the Defendant is still entitled to receive a discharge of these obligations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance to prevent discharge of a debt incurred through fraud.

Universal Bank v. Stephens (In re Stephens) · filed 2003-07-23(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, as the creditor bears the burden of estabbshing justifiable reliance, the Court is constrained to find that the Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden under § 523(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, despite the fact that the obbgations set forth herein were fraudulently incurred, the Defendant is still entitled to receive a discharge of these obbgations.

A creditor may justifiably rely on false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A) despite failing to investigate warning signs, depending on its prior dealings with the debtor.

Automotive Finance Corp. v. Vasile (In Re Vasile) · filed 2003-08-12(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs failure to thoroughly analyze the various motorcycle title designations prior to extending credit does not render its reliance unjustified.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraud to show justifiable reliance on the debtor’s representations.

EDM MacHine Sales, Inc. v. Harrison (In Re Harrison) · filed 2003-08-21(a)(2)(A)

In addition, with respect to the personal loans, the Court is not convinced that Mr. Stokey justifiably relied on those representations made by Mr. Harrison. Therefore, even if Mr. Harrison acted in a wrongful manner with respect to the personal loans, it is not subject to the exception to discharge set forth in § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for misrepresentation to show justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation.

Webber v. Giarratano (In Re Giarratano) · filed 2003-09-03(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail, however, Webber must demonstrate that he justifiably relied upon the Debtor’s misrepresentation. We conclude that the necessary element of justifiable reliance is missing here.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor initially receives funds legitimately but later obtains their use for a particular transaction through material omissions.

Barney v. Perkins (In Re Perkins) · filed 2003-09-16(a)(2)(A)

Each time the Fund agreed to be involved and allowed its assets to be used to fund a particular loan, the Debtor “obtained” funds. The Debtor testified that he asked for approval or consent from Dr. Barney to use Fund money for the WTS Loan. By omitting material facts as discussed above, the Debtor fraudulently obtained Fund money.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor presented a check that was dishonored.

Mega Marts, Inc. v. Trevisan (In Re Trevisan) · filed 2003-10-14(a)(2)(A)

Presentation of an NSF check alone simply does not constitute nondischargeable false representation, false pretenses or fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Shaw v. Santos (In Re Santos) · filed 2004-02-02(a)(2)(A)

Debtor, Simon B. Santos, M.D., obtained money from Victoria Shaw by false pretenses, false representations and actual fraud. The debt due Shaw is thus excepted from Santos’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A).