11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt arising from fraud nondischargeable when the debtor indirectly benefited through a corporation in which he was an officer and significant shareholder.

Warthog, Inc. v. Zaffron (In Re Zaffron) · filed 2004-01-12(a)(2)(A)

Under either theory, the Debtor can be held liable under § 523(a)(2)(A) because he received an indirect benefit from the fraudulent acts. CCI and RRI obtained the benefit of the Lease and the Restaurant Lease, respectively, which required the Plaintiff to provide services in the form of substantial alterations to the Airport Plaza, at the Plaintiffs own cost and expense. The Debtor received an indirect benefit as he was a significant shareholder and an officer in both CCI and RRI.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the entire refinanced debt from discharge when the debtor obtains the refinancing by fraud.

First Federal Bank v. Mulder (In Re Mulder) · filed 2004-02-19(a)(2)(A)

Once it is proven that refinancing is obtained by fraud, then “any debt” arising from the refinancing is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a claim when a debtor induces a creditor to settle by making promises he never intended to fulfill.

Bednarsz v. Brzakala (In Re Brzakala) · filed 2004-03-10(a)(2)(A)

The amended complaint’s allegations that Brzakala induced the Bednarszes to enter into a settlement agreement he had no intention of performing states a claim for relief under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a promise to repay was false when made; a later decision not to repay does not suffice.

Lower v. Neubert (In Re Neubert) · filed 2004-04-29(a)(2)(A)

However, and unfortunately for Plaintiffs, they preponderantly fail to prove that the Debtor formulated such intent not to repay prior to or at the time when he borrowed the money from Lower, which time period is when the actionable false representation by the Debtor necessarily would have been made — indeed, after consideration of all of the evidence, the Court finds that it is just as likely as not that the Debtor formulated such intent not to repay subsequent to obtaining the borrowed funds from Lower. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to preponderantly prove that an actionable false statement or misrepresentation was made by the Debtor, which means that their nondischargeability action under § 523(a)(2)(A) necessarily fails.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a consent judgment of nondischargeability when the complaint alleges a viable fraud theory and facts supporting it; the creditor need not establish an ironclad claim.

MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Henning (In Re Henning) · filed 2004-05-05(a)(2)(A)

The complaint, even as amended, need not establish that MBNA has an ironclad claim against Ms. Henning pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A). All that is required is that the allegations be of sufficient detail to establish that the plaintiff has a cognizable legal theory upon which to assert a claim of non-dischargeability and that there are facts that would support that theory. MBNA’s proposed amended complaint meets this requirement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains money by tendering checks that falsely imply sufficient funds, intending the creditor to rely on them.

Q.C. Financial Services, Inc. v. Beza (In Re Beza) · filed 2004-06-01(a)(2)(A)

Based on the above discussion and circumstances surrounding the transaction at issue, the Court finds that Q.C. has satisfied all of the elements to establish a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A). Accordingly, the debt owed to Q.C. by Debtor in the amount of $17,975.80 is non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt arising from fraud through which a debtor obtains property, including a limited partnership interest.

Nangle v. Lauer · filed 2004-06-10(a)(2)(A)

The Nangles’ limited partner interests were “property” that Lauer and Graves obtained by fraudulently misrepresenting Crossroads’ assets, bringing their fraud squarely within the coverage of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can cover a debt when a debtor’s fraudulent concealment induces a creditor to forbear from enforcing contractual rights and continue extending credit.

John Deere Co. v. Broholm (In Re Broholm) · filed 2004-06-14(a)(2)(A)

Kenneth Broholm’s conduct-fraudulent concealment inducing the forbearance of certain contractual rights-has been found to be tantamount to an extension of credit obtained by false pretenses and fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... On the basis of these allegations, Deere has adequately pleaded the elements of false pretenses and false representations under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to prove that the debtor knew it was false when made.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Olwan (In Re Olwan) · filed 2004-07-12(a)(2)(A)

The creditor must establish each of five elements: first, that the debtor made a false representation; second, that at the time it was made, the debtor knew it was false; third, that the debtor made the representation with the intent of deceiving the creditor; fourth, that the creditor justifiably relied on the representation; and finally, that the creditor sustained loss or damages that was proximately caused by the false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor makes a knowingly deceptive omission, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor is injured.

Arvest Bank of Huntsville v. Lane (In Re Lane) · filed 2004-08-12(a)(2)(A)

We also conclude that ABH met its burden as to the remaining elements of a section 523(a)(2)(A) claim, namely, Lane made a false representation by omission, he knew the representation was false when he made it, ABH justifiably relied on Lane’s representation, and ABH was injured as a result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of fraudulent conduct beyond issuing a check, even when the debtor knows the account lacks sufficient funds.

McAdams, Inc. v. Childers (In Re Childers) · filed 2004-06-18(a)(2)(A)

The presentation of an NSF check, even with knowledge that funds are not available in the account to cover the check, without more, does not constitute a prim a facie case of fraud, misrepresentation or false pretenses sufficient for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge fraud liability for obtaining partnership interests by concealing material changes in partnership assets during a sale.

Nangle v. Lauer · filed 2004-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Here, the transaction was a sale, not a loan, and the party claiming fraud was the seller, not a creditor that routinely required the submission of financial statements. Lauer and Graves committed garden variety common law fraud when they induced the Nangles to sell their limited partner interests by concealing material changes in the Crossroads asset mix. In these circumstances, we agree with the special master that Lauer's fraud is analogous to the fraud described by the Supreme Court in Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. at 61-62, 116 S.Ct. 437, where the Court applied § 523(a)(2)(A). The fraud liability is therefore nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s intentional false representation causes a creditor to rely on it and suffer a loss.

AGP Grain Cooperative v. White (In Re White) · filed 2004-09-28(a)(2)(A)

As noted above, the debtor’s silence in the face of evidence against him permits the court to draw adverse conclusions against him. Thus, AGP has established a prima facie case under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for negligence, even gross negligence, without fraud.

Passmore v. Gathman (In Re Gathman) · filed 2004-08-13(a)(2)(A)

While his act/omission may have been negligent, negligence alone, even gross negligence, will not support a finding of nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove the debtor’s fraudulent intent.

Weeber v. Boyd (In Re Boyd) · filed 2004-08-20(a)(2)(A)

As a result, the Court cannot find that the Plaintiff has carried his burden under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debtor to have lacked intent to perform when making a promise of future performance for that promise to support a fraud claim.

Donaldson v. Ortenzo Hayes (In Re Ortenzo Hayes) · filed 2004-09-03(a)(2)(A)

In order for a representation regarding future performance to be actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A), a debtor must lack an intent to perform when the promise was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge only when the debt proximately arises from obtaining property by fraud.

Davis v. Melcher (In Re Melcher) · filed 2004-10-28(a)(2)(A)

Only debts proximately arising from the obtaining of property by fraud are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

McAdams, Inc. v. Barsamian (In Re Barsamian) · filed 2004-11-03(a)(2)(A)

That notwithstanding, Williams and Scarlata clearly indicate that presentation of a bad check does not constitute false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

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.

Waring v. Austin (In Re Austin) · filed 2004-11-29(a)(2)(A)

The Creditor bears the burden of establishing justifiable reliance. The Creditor did not meet this burden and the court erred in finding justifiable reliance.

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

American Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Rosario Diaz (In Re Rosario Diaz) · filed 2004-12-07(a)(2)(A)

Because it is the Court’s opinion that the Bankruptcy Court did not err upon finding that Rosario made a fraudulent misrepresentation to AAFCU and that AAFCU had a justification for relying on such misrepresentation, the Court cannot depart from established case law determining that the protection of bankruptcy law will not extend to fraudulent actions.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor obtained no money, property, or services through the fraud.

Nunnery v. Rountree (In Re Rountree) · filed 2004-12-27(a)(2)(A)

Similarly, in the instant case, the Debtor did not receive any money, property, services, nor any form of extension, renewal, or refinance of credit from the Creditor as a result of the Debtor’s fraud. Instead, the Creditor was induced to participate in activities in which she may not have participated without the Debtor’s encouragement. Although this fraud may have been an invasion of privacy that caused great emotional distress to the Creditor, the Debtor did not obtain any “property” from the Creditor as a result of the misrepresentations. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this court that § 523(a)(2)(A) is inapplicable to this case. Hence, the entire North Carolina judgment is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor obtained money through a misrepresentation.

Greater Pittsburgh Police Federal Credit Union v. Hilley · filed 2005-02-03(a)(2)(A)

The District Court recognized that whether Hilley committed fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) was a question of fact. In light of the evidence, the District Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Although the FCU argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that the evidence preponderated in Hilley’s favor, we find no such error. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud to except a debt from discharge.

Holzhueter v. Zinck (In Re Zinck) · filed 2005-02-08(a)(2)(A)

In order to come within § 523(a)(2)(A), the Holzhueters must prove the elements of fraud. ... The Holzhueters have failed to prove any fraud by Zinck in 1998 or 1999, and the debt owed to them by Zinck is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent conduct, including a lack of intent to repay when the debt is incurred.

Rust v. Tellam (In Re Tellam) · filed 2005-03-03(a)(2)(A)

Instead, § 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent conduct, which at its core means that, at the time the debt is incurred, the debtor did not have the intention of repaying the debt.

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

Elrod v. Bowden (In Re Bowden) · filed 2005-03-18(a)(2)(A)

This Court concludes that Bowden received a loan from Elrod through false pretenses, false representations, and/or actual fraud pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, and therefore, the underlying indebtedness in the amount of $20,000.00 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts money obtained by false representation from discharge when the creditor proves fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Young v. Lundeen (In Re Lundeen) · filed 2005-04-14(a)(2)(A)

The relevant section of the Bankruptcy Code would be 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... I conclude that Jeffrey Lundeen obtained money from Youngs by false representation and that Youngs’ claim against Lundeen, to the extent of $1,500.00, is excepted from Lundeen’s discharge under II U.S.C. § 528(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from an actual fraud scheme nondischargeable; reliance on a particular statement matters when the fraud takes the form of a misrepresentation.

Alford v. Cassel (In Re Cassel) · filed 2005-03-14(a)(2)(A)

A creditor’s reliance only comes into play when the fraud complained of takes the form of a misrepresentation. ... For the reasons set forth herein, the $60,000 debt is determined to be nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false representations or false pretenses to show justifiable reliance.

Wymard v. Ali (In Re Ali) · filed 2005-03-21(a)(2)(A)

The Court so rules because (a) the “false representation” and “false pretenses” prongs of § 523(a)(2)(A), as set forth above, require a showing of justifiable reliance on a creditor’s part, (b) Wymard must concede, and the Court finds in any event, that the representations that were indisputably made by the Debtor to MBNA were never made to Wymard, and (c) Wymard thus could not have even actually, let alone justifiably, relied on such representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a direct link between the debtor’s fraud and the debt excepted from discharge.

Aoki v. Atto Corp. (In Re Aoki) · filed 2005-04-04(a)(2)(A)

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that § 523(a)(2)(A) requires a “direct link” between the alleged fraud and the creation of the debt to be excepted from discharge. ... Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that all of the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) had been met, and that the debt owed to Atto Corporation should be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor made a false representation with intent to deceive; an honest but mistaken belief can defeat that intent.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Acosta (In Re Acosta) · filed 2005-04-08(a)(2)(A)

We therefore affirm the finding that GECC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Acosta made false representations with intent to deceive GECC.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor opposing discharge for false representations to show that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor and that the creditor justifiably relied on the representations.

Vermillion State Bank v. DeLong (In Re DeLong) · filed 2005-04-21(a)(2)(A)

To oppose a discharge on the ground that it would violate § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must show that (1) the debtor obtained the money through representations that he either knew were false or made with such reckless disregard for the truth as to constitute willful misrepresentation; (2) the debtor made such representations with the intent to deceive the creditor; (3) the creditor actually relied on the false representations; and (4) its reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove that the debtor made it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Tri-Boro Federal Credit Union v. Kielur (In Re Kielur) · filed 2005-04-21(a)(2)(A)

The Court next holds that the Credit Union fails to preponderantly prove that the Debtor ever represented to the Credit Union that the Mustang was a Roush Stage III Mustang. Consequently, no part of the Credit Union’s $25,635.54 deficiency claim may be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Blair (In Re Blair) · filed 2005-05-27(a)(2)(A)

Taking the above material facts as true, the Court finds that (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining to be heard and Countrywide is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) Countrywide has met its burden of proof regarding each of the elements under § 523(a)(2)(A); and (3) the debtor obtained the debt to New Century by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” Accordingly, the Court finds that the debt to Countrywide is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) in the debt- or’s bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains funds through actual fraud or false representations on which the creditor justifiably relies, causing a loss.

WebMD Practice Services, Inc. v. Sedlacek (In Re Sedlacek) · filed 2005-06-01(a)(2)(A)

The court also finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to a nondischargeable judgment, as a matter of law, against the Debtor by virtue of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a finding of intent to deceive when a debtor acts with reckless indifference to the truth.

Boyuka v. Sigmon (In Re White) · filed 2005-04-28(a)(2)(A)

Because an intent to deceive may be found upon a finding of recklessness and the facts of the instant case are similar to other cases in which courts have found the requisite level of recklessness, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in likewise holding.

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.

Terrell v. Krysan (In Re Krysan) · filed 2005-04-29(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court concludes that Ms. Terrell has failed to carry her burden of proof with respect to the reliance requirement of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove that the debtor made one by a preponderance of the evidence.

Lucas v. Lyle (In Re Lyle) · filed 2005-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, if the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of the Palmacci elements by a preponderance of the evidence, I must reject their non-dischargeability claim. ... Accordingly, I conclude that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor made a false representation that he was a licensed contractor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a loan nondischargeable merely because the debtor failed to repay it; the creditor must prove a material misrepresentation or intent to deceive when the debtor obtained the loan.

Glenn v. Sutton (In Re Sutton) · filed 2005-05-25(a)(2)(A)

Failure to repay a loan, however, is not sufficient grounds to find a debt nondischargeable. The Creditor must be able to show that the Debtors materially misrepresented facts to obtain this loan, or that the Debtors intended to deceive him when requesting the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a valid debt nondischargeable when the debtor’s fraud proximately causes the creditor’s loss.

Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation · filed 2005-06-03(a)(2)(A)

Cossu’s fraud was therefore the proximate cause of Jefferson Pilot’s losses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a debtor to receive a direct or indirect benefit from fraud for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

MUEGLER v. BENING · filed 2005-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, we find that in light of Cohen, the receipt of a benefit is no longer an element of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Cote v. Catherman (In Re Catherman) · filed 2005-07-08(a)(2)(A)

In conclusion, the Creditor has failed to establish that the Debtor intended to mislead the Creditor with a false representation about either the purpose or security for the loan. The written contract and the testimonies, which substantially agree, do not establish any intent to deceive. The Creditor also has not established that he was justified in relying on any representations made by the Debtor. Therefore, the Creditor has failed to meet his burden under § 523(a)(2)(A) and the debt at issue is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains a purportedly secured loan by falsely representing that the proceeds will be used to buy the promised collateral.

Central Credit Union v. Logan (In Re Logan) · filed 2005-07-08(a)(2)(A)

This less common theory of fraud is still a legitimate one, as a representation that a loan will be secured, not unsecured, is a material fact that induces specific loan terms even if the loan applicant initially intended to honor her promise to repay the principal plus interest. ... As a result, the Court finds that all contractual liabilities originating from the January 10, 2000, Loanliner Credit Agreement and Security Agreement be found nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor broke a promise to pay it in the future.

Clauss v. Church (In Re Church) · filed 2005-07-26(a)(2)(A)

But a promise to pay a debt in the future is not a misrepresentation merely because the debtor fails to do so.

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

Guaranty Residential Lending, Inc. v. Koep (In Re Koep) · filed 2005-07-29(a)(2)(A)

The Court is not persuaded, based on the papers before it, that GRL justifiably relied on the representations made in the papers, particularly after the first loan transaction. For this reason, it is not clear that GRL is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and summary judgment on the basis of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) will not be granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a loan from discharge merely because the debtor failed to use its proceeds as promised; the creditor must prove fraudulent intent.

Kienstra v. Hendricks (In re Hendricks) · filed 2005-08-04(a)(2)(A)

However, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence whatsoever to show that the Debtor made such promise as to how the funds would be used with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the Debtor entered into the loan agreements with fraudulent intent. ... Because the Plaintiff has failed to prove the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) the debt cannot be excepted from discharge and judgment shall be entered in favor of the Debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; conduct in a later contract suit does not establish fraud in obtaining the debt.

Batcha v. Forness (In Re Forness) · filed 2005-09-21(a)(2)(A)

Based on all of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not establish that the Debtor made any specific, false representation that induced her to make the Loan, or that the Debtor induced her to make the Loan under false pretenses. The Debtor’s conduct in her defense of the subsequent breach of contract action is irrelevant to the issue of whether the initial debt was “obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make an employee’s compensation forfeiture debt nondischargeable merely because the employee embezzled from the employer while earning it.

Shelby Shore Drugs, Inc. v. Sielschott (In Re Sielschott) · filed 2005-11-02(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that the Plaintiff may not recover as a nondis-chargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) the wages paid to the Defendant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based solely on the close timing of a credit application and a bankruptcy filing.

Fugate Lumber Co. v. Pendley (In Re Pendley) · filed 2005-11-07(a)(2)(A)

The close proximity in time between the application and the bankruptcy, without other evidence, is simply not enough to support a nondischargeability finding under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an intent permanently to deprive another of property for embezzlement; a misrepresentation or omission is unnecessary.

Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 2005-12-02(a)(4)

Although some misrepresentation or omission on the debtor’s part will tend to prove intent, ... neither is a prerequisite. All that must be shown is an intent permanently to deprive another of his property.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by fraud from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s false representation.

Cooke v. Cooke (In Re Cooke) · filed 2005-12-07(a)(2)(A)

The issue of the plaintiffs reliance on the false representation in the Dissolution Agreement is the final prong of the § 523(a)(2)(A) test. The reliance need not be reasonable so long as it is justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge credit obtained through false pretenses, including concealment that induces a lender to advance more than it otherwise would have.

Manheim Automotive Financial v. Hurst · filed 2005-12-15(a)(2)(A)

His conduct in orchestrating each transaction created a false impression as to Manheim. Such conduct warrants a finding of debt obtained through “false pretenses” as contemplated by section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt for all trustee fees forfeited under state law when the trustee fraudulently obtained fees.

St. Paul Academy & Summit School v. Kiernat (In Re Kiernat) · filed 2006-01-06(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, if, by operation of state law, Kiernat has forfeited his entire compensation earned from his work for the Trust by his criminal fraud, those monies constitute a non-dis-chargeable debt. ... As a result, all of Kiernat’s fees must be forfeited. Under Cohen, this penalty is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; continuing to perform after learning of changed contract terms can defeat that showing.

Killough v. Hebert (In re Hebert) · filed 2006-01-13(a)(2)(A)

Killough’s continued performance under the agreement after Dr. Hebert allegedly changed it belies the plaintiffs claim that he justifiably relied on the initial bonus threshold.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat payment of an inaccurate utility bill as a misrepresentation without evidence that the debtor tampered with the meter.

Dominion Virginia Power v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 2006-03-17(a)(2)(A)

Without evidence that Robinson engaged in meter tampering, merely paying the electric bill as it came due is not a misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) permits intent to deceive to be inferred when a debtor recklessly signs a blank loan application that is later completed with materially false financial information.

Home Loan Corp. v. Hall (In Re Hall) · filed 2006-04-10(a)(2)(B)

Signing the loan application for submission, without knowing who was filling it out or what information would be inserted, is sufficient evidence of intent to deceive the lender.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to show a false representation or another fraudulent scheme, even when the debtor defaults.

Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. Zecevic (In Re Zecevic) · filed 2006-04-12(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to demonstrate that Debtor made a false representation of fact, a key element that must usually be shown to support an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). Nor has Plaintiff shown some nefarious scheme carried out by Debtor, that amounts to fraud, such as borrowing with no intent at the time of drawing on his credit line ever to repay the monies borrowed.

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

Waring v. Austin · filed 2006-04-13(a)(2)(A)

Because we agree with the BAP’s reasoning and conclusion that the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that Waring justifiably relied on a misrepresentation by Austin, we affirm the BAP’s decision.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive; a breach of contract alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Cochran v. Reath (In Re Reath) · filed 2006-04-27(a)(2)(A)

Without a demonstration of an intent to deceive, proof of a breach of contract cannot support a section 523(a)(2)(A) non-dis-chargeability finding.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt for services from discharge merely because the debtor later uses promised payment funds elsewhere, when the debtor intended to pay and made no deceptive representation.

Tip Top Tree Experts, LLC v. Corley (In Re Corley) · filed 2006-05-09(a)(2)(A)

The Debtors made a promise to use the insurance funds for one purpose and then used them for another. The Debtors had no fiduciary obligation to turn over the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff. The Debtors intended to pay the Plaintiff for its services after the insurance proceeds had been spent, as evidenced by Mrs. Corley’s payment of $100.00 and attempt to work out a payment plan with the Plaintiff post-petition. The Debtors did not make any false representations in order to deceive the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not established the Debtors obtained the Plaintiffs services through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires positive fraud; merely taking advantage of someone does not establish fraudulent intent.

Adam v. Fletcher (In Re Fletcher) · filed 2006-05-09(a)(2)(A)

On this requirement, the Plaintiffs’ position relies heavily on the notion that, because of his mental condition, the Defendant “took advantage” of Mr. Adam. But even if true, and while having an air of moral repugnancy, this does not square with § 523(a)(2)(A)’s requirement for positive fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent when the debtor incurs the debt; a later failure to perform does not establish that intent by itself.

MacK v. Mills (In Re Mills) · filed 2006-05-10(a)(2)(A)

Rather, the existence of fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A) hinges on whether the debtor, at the time the debt is incurred, intended to honor the obligation.

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

Tina Livestock Sales, Inc. v. Schachtele (In Re Schachtele) · filed 2006-05-11(a)(2)

In addition to the bad check itself, there must be other acts, and other evidence, supporting a claim for fraud or false representation, in order to declare such a debt to be nondischargeable. ... We conclude, therefore, that there is simply no basis in the record to find that the debt to Tina Livestock, or any other creditor, would be nondischargeable in a Chapter 7 case.

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

Fledderman v. Glunk (In Re Glunk) · filed 2006-06-12(a)(2)(A)

The plain language of the statute unambiguously requires, as a threshold matter, that something of value — specifically, money, property, services or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit — be transferred to the debtor from the creditor to sustain a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A). Thus, frauds which do not involve the delivery of money, property, services or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit are not encompassed by this discharge exception.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a promise as a false representation only if the debtor lacked intent to honor it when made.

DCFS Trust v. Goldstein (In Re Goldstein) · filed 2006-06-28(a)(2)(A)

A promise can constitute a false representation, but only if it is made without intent to honor it: the operative misrepresentation is one of intent to honor the promise.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a false representation, assessed by what a cursory inspection would reveal.

Adams County Department of Social Services v. Sutherland-Minor (In Re Sutherland-Minor) · filed 2006-07-12(a)(2)(A)

In order for the Plaintiff to have justifiable reliance on a representation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the Plaintiff need only perform a cursory inspection of the representation to the extent that it should be very obvious that the representation is fraudulent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a fraudulent representation; the creditor’s circumstances and the implausibility of the promise bear on whether reliance was justified.

Krist v. Curtis (In re Curtis) · filed 2006-07-18(a)(2)(A)

The pivotal question in this case is whether Krist was justified in relying on Curtis’ representations. In Field v. Mans, the Supreme Court established “justifiable reliance” as the proper standard in § 523(a)(2)(A) cases, which is a less demanding standard than reasonable reliance. ... Looking at the qualities and characteristics of this particular plaintiff and the circumstances of this particular case, this court can come to only one conclusion, that as a college-educated person Krist was not justified in relying on representations of Curtis that he would earn a 2080% profit on his money in one year.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to have justifiably relied on a debtor’s misrepresentation for the resulting debt to be excepted from discharge.

LTSGO, L.L.C. v. Bassil (In re Bassil) · filed 2006-08-28(a)(2)(A)

The evidence established that LTSGO did not justifiably rely on Bassil’s misrepresentations concerning Kajun’s possession and occupancy of the truck stop premises. Accordingly, Peter Bassil’s debt to LTSGO is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that a fraudulent representation proximately caused the debt.

Daniel v. Boyd (In Re Boyd) · filed 2006-08-08(a)(2)(A)

The debt was the result of poor workmanship which could have been performed by a licensed or unlicensed contractor. The state court did not make any finding of fraud and in reviewing the testimony and evidence, this Court cannot determine how much of the damages awarded by the state court stems from breach of contract rather than fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual intent to defraud before a debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud.

Citibank, South Dakota, N.A. v. Brower (In Re Brower) · filed 2006-08-16(a)(2)(A)

Given these facts, the Court concludes that the Debtor did not have, at least as to this Plaintiff, the requisite intent to defraud. For a debt to be excepted from discharge, the debtor must actually intend to defraud the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require the creditor to show that the debtor had scienter when making an allegedly fraudulent representation or false writing.

Walters Construction, Inc. v. Cook · filed 2006-08-17(a)(2)(A) and (B)

Whether Walters is proceeding under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B), Walters must demonstrate, inter alia, that the Debtor had scienter when he made the allegedly fraudulent representation or false writing.

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

Provident Bank v. Merrick (In Re Merrick) · filed 2006-08-25(a)(2)(A) and (B)

However, Provident neither justifiably nor reasonably relied on Mrs. Merrick’s misrepresentation. ... Provident has not established that its claim against Merrick is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove intent to deceive; speculation about a debtor’s representations is insufficient.

Caldwell v. Continental American Insurance (In Re Caldwell) · filed 2006-09-26(a)(2)(A)

As the evidence on this point is thin, and highly inconclusive, the Court concludes that it is insufficient to establish the element of intent which is critical to the Defendants’ cause of action. Thus, the Court concludes that the Defendants have failed to meet their burden of persuasion and the overpayment will not be declared non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Street v. Wilken (In Re Wilken) · filed 2006-09-06(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor made any specific false representations to them regarding the condition of the home. Second, even if the Debtor made any such false representations, the Plaintiffs did not establish that they justifiably relied on the representations within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on an incomplete disclosure unless the creditor proves the debtor intended to deceive.

D'Angelo v. Parker (In Re Parker) · filed 2006-09-08(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds, however, that the Debtor’s transmission of the Permit documents to the Plaintiff without Sattler’s letter or the Application does not constitute a false representation “with the intent to deceive” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor breached a contract; the creditor must allege facts supporting fraud or a qualifying false representation.

Blackstone Enterprises, Inc. v. Abejuela (In Re Abejuela) · filed 2006-09-20(a)(2)(A)

As this court stated in the July 2005 Order and again in the January 2006 Order, breaching a contract is insufficient to render a debt nondischargeable. In Count I, Blackstone still fails to set forth any facts that would form a basis for the conclusion that the Debtors committed a fraud.

A breached contract does not establish nondischargeable fraud or willful and malicious injury without proof supporting those exceptions.

Crehan v. Ying Ly (In Re Ying Ly) · filed 2006-09-25(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

However, the court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established that this breach of contract rose to the level of nondischargeable fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), or willful and malicious injury to property of another, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat involuntary forbearance as an extension of credit when the creditor gave no new value and lost no valuable collection remedy because of the alleged fraud.

Bremer Bank, N.A. v. Wyss (In Re Wyss) · filed 2006-09-27(a)(2)(A)

Under the facts of this case, the “involuntary forbearance” the debtors may have obtained simply does not rise to the level of an extension of credit, and the bank did not part with “money, property or services” as a proximate result of the debtors’ alleged falsehoods.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove a material misrepresentation, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and loss caused by that reliance.

Family Home Construction, Inc. v. Meador (In Re Meador) · filed 2006-10-04(a)(2)(A)

To satisfy § 523(a)(2)(A), the Plaintiff must prove that the Debtor obtained money, property, or services through material misrepresentations that he knew were false or that he made with gross recklessness, that the Debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the Debtor’s false representations, and that the Plaintiffs reliance was the proximate cause of its losses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) made the debtor’s own fraud debt nondischargeable despite his use of a corporation.

South Atlanta Neurology & Pain Clinic, P.C. v. Lupo (In Re Lupo) · filed 2006-10-31(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, South Atlanta has met its burden as it relates to excepting its debt from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). With no corporate shield, Lupo is denied the protection of the corporate shield for his own actions. Therefore, the debt is hereby determined to be his own, rather than a corporate one, and thereby nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a contractor’s debt from discharge when knowing misrepresentations about his business induce customers to hire him and cause their loss.

Stevens v. Antonious (In Re Antonious) · filed 2006-11-27(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Dennis Antonious individually and as the operator of “Your Small Job Specialists” knowingly misrepresented himself and the nature of his business to the plaintiffs, and any debt arising from his misrepresentations is not discharged under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor intentionally makes a false representation, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor suffers a loss.

Morris v. Cunningham (In Re Cunningham) · filed 2006-10-17(a)(2)(A)

Fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the following elements to be proved: (1) that the debtor made a false representation with the intent to deceive the creditor; (2) that the creditor relied on the representation; (3) that the reliance was justified; and (4) that the creditor sustained a loss as a result of the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a fraud exception to discharge to prove justifiable reliance and a loss proximately caused by the misrepresentation.

Demerdjian v. Thompson (In Re Thompson) · filed 2006-11-01(a)(2)(A)

Thus, even assuming that the defendant’s failure to disclose the THEC issues constituted a material false representation, the plaintiffs proof failed to establish that he justifiably relied on the misrepresentation, and that such reliance proximately caused a loss to the plaintiff.

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

Columbia State Bank, N.A. v. Daviscourt (In Re Daviscourt) · filed 2006-11-07(a)(2)(A)

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), Columbia was required to show “justifiable” reliance, which is satisfied if the falsity of the representation relied upon is not patent from “a cursory examination or investigation.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a claim arising when a debtor obtains money by falsely representing an intent to perform promised work.

Taylor v. DeFalco (In Re DeFalco) · filed 2006-11-13(a)(2)(A)

Second, the Court holds that the Taylors’ claim is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) on the basis that the Debtor fraudulently misrepresented to the Taylors, at the time when he obtained a $12,500 deposit from them for work to be done, that he intended to perform such work.

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt arising from breach of contract from discharge without proof of willful and malicious injury.

Gabel v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 2006-11-14(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) has no application to the resulting breach of contract action that ensued.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a knowingly false and intentionally deceptive representation, justifiable reliance, and loss caused by the representation; a failed sale alone does not establish fraud.

Lindau v. Nelson · filed 2006-11-24(a)(2)(A)

To prevail in a non-dischargeability action under Section 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (1) the debtor made a false representation; (2) at the time the debtor knew the representation was false; (3) the debtor made the representation deliberately and intentionally with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) the creditor justifiably relied on the representation; and (5) the creditor sustained loss and damage as a proximate result of the representation having been made. ... The court erred in finding fraud in connection with this breach of contract case. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment and conclude that the Debtor’s obligation to the Creditor is not excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the elements of actual fraud; fraud established solely by violating a state vehicle title statute is insufficient.

Auto Mart, Inc. v. Wendt (In Re Wendt) · filed 2006-11-28(a)(2)(A)

That court found, and this Court agrees, that proof of implied fraud is not enough to establish the nondischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(2). Each element of common law fraud must be proved in order to deny a debtor a discharge under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a false representation and justifiable reliance to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

In Re McMahon · filed 2006-11-29(a)(2)(A)

Reserving ruling on this issue, the Court heard evidence on the merits and determined that the Plaintiff did not prove two of the elements required to establish the fraud exception. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not prove that any representation made by the Debtor was false or that the Plaintiff justifiably relied on any representation.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt obtained by fraud or false representation from discharge when the creditor proves knowing misrepresentation, intent to deceive, reliance, and resulting loss by a preponderance of the evidence.

Banayan v. Mesbahi · filed 2006-12-08(a)(2)

Under § 523(a)(2), debts obtained through fraud or false representation are excepted from discharge. To obtain relief under this section, a creditor must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the debtor made representations; (2) at the time, he knew they were false; (3) that he made the representations with intent to deceive the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied upon the representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss as a result of the representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains funds by promising mortgage security without intending to provide it.

Kille v. Rudski · filed 2006-12-08(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, when all the foregoing considerations are weighed, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have sustained their burden of showing that, that with respect to the mortgage, the Debtor, having present knowledge as to the falsity of his representation, acted with the intent to deceive the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court must hold that the Debtor’s obligation to the Plaintiffs is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor alleging a false representation must prove that the debtor made the representation with intent to defraud.

Stein v. Tripp · filed 2006-12-13(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that Stein, as the Plaintiff, has failed to establish all of the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the Court finds that Tripp did not make a false representation, and he did not have the requisite intent to defraud. The Court concludes that the entire debt owed to the Plaintiff is discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance and intent to deceive; assurances of payment do not make a debt nondischargeable when those elements are unproven.

High Cotton Enterprises, Inc. v. Shadinger · filed 2006-12-11(a)(2)(A)

Under these circumstances, any reliance by High Cotton on the representations made by the Debtor that his corporation, or he personally, would eventually be in a position to pay the account balance was not justified or reasonable. Moreover, although representations by the Debtor of CPSH’s and perhaps his personal ability to pay the account debt were not well founded, there was no credible evidence the representations were made to intentionally mislead the officers of High Cotton or that the Debtor did not honestly believe his representations were true.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts arising from fraudulently exerted undue influence nondischargeable.

Drummond v. Freeland (In Re Freeland) · filed 2006-12-21(a)(2)(A)

The question to be decided in the present context is whether the plaintiffs claims that arose as a result of undue influence exercised by the defendants over the decedent in obtaining her property are nondis-chargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), as having been the product of false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. This opinion answers the question in the affirmative.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from fraudulent misrepresentation from discharge as to the debtor who committed the fraud, but not a co-debtor who did not participate.

Kostelaba v. Dart (In Re Dart) · filed 2006-12-29(a)(2)(A)

The Kostelabas have met all the requisite elements of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation against Scott W. Dart. The record lacks any evidence that Lisa R. Dart, the co-debtor, cooperated in this fraudulent misrepresentation. Therefore, the objection to the dischargeability of Kostelaba debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is sustained as to Scott W. Dart and overruled as to Lisa R. Dart.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when fraud gives the debtor a benefit, even if the debtor does not receive the property directly.

Gieseking v. Thomas · filed 2007-01-05(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court adopts the “receipt-of-benefits” theory as outlined in the cases discussed above, and holds that if a debtor obtains a benefit of some sort due to fraud, the debt created by the fraud is non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation of fact; an opinion about a construction project's durability does not satisfy that requirement.

LeDoux v. Tanner (In Re Tanner) · filed 2007-03-15(a)(2)(A)

It is apparent that Mr. Tanner’s representations with respect to the relative longevity and durability of the filled area in the LeDouxs’ front yard merely constituted his expression of an opinion based on his professional experience, expertise and judgment rather than a statement of fact as is required to satisfy the false representation requirement of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor intended to deceive.

Walters Construction, Inc. v. Cook (In re Cook) · filed 2007-01-22(a)(2)

Weighing the evidence as a whole, the court finds that Walters Construction has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Debtor had the requisite intent to deceive to support a claim based on § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for property obtained by actual fraud nondischargeable when the creditor proves the fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cortese Bros. v. Christofaro (In re Christofaro) · filed 2007-02-02(a)(2)(A)

By a preponderance of the evidence, therefore, Córtese has established that it holds a valid claim to recover the value of property obtained by actual fraud. Accordingly, Christofaro’s debt to Córtese is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires scienter; a debtor’s negligent failure to discover and disclose a fact does not establish false pretenses.

Wood v. Taylor (In Re Wood) · filed 2007-02-12(a)(2)(A)

The debtor may very well have been guilty of negligence in his dealings with the plaintiff, but § 523(a)(2)(A) only exempts from discharge fraudulent conduct when scienter is present.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove an intentionally false representation, reasonable reliance, and a resulting loss by a preponderance of the evidence.

Keefe v. Rudolph · filed 2007-02-23(a)(2)(A)

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the bankruptcy and district courts did not err in determining that Keefe failed to carry his burden in showing that Rudolph’s debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge only when the debtor obtained money, property, services, or credit through the fraud.

In Re June L. Rountree, Debtor. Pamela C. Nunnery, and Keith Nunnery v. Rountree · filed 2007-02-27(a)(2)(A)

Both the plain language of the statute and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that language lead us to require for exception to discharge that the debtor have fraudulently obtained money, property, services, or credit. In this case, Rountree's fraud gained her none of those things. Section 523(a)(2)(A) is not, therefore, the appropriate exception to discharge in bankruptcy for Nunnery's judgment claim against Rountree.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a knowingly false material representation, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and a loss caused by that reliance.

Skyles v. Stinson (In Re Stinson) · filed 2007-03-12(a)(2)(A)

The entire record in this case leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs’ claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) must fail because Defendant did not at the inception of the loan knowingly and intentionally make a false and deceptive representation to Defendants upon which they justifiably relied to their detriment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through representations made with intent to defraud.

Blue Skies, Inc. v. Preece (In Re Preece) · filed 2007-03-19(a)(2)(A)

In sum, the record supports the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the Debtor entered into agreements with the Plaintiffs knowing that he would not be able to comply and with the intent to defraud. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s Judgments in favor of Blue Skies, Inc., Ken Schoenfelder, and Central Boiler are AFFIRMED.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to pierce the corporate veil to pursue a claim based on a debtor’s own fraud while acting for a corporation.

Elite Equipment, Inc. v. Cornutt · filed 2007-03-19(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court’s legal conclusion (requiring Elite to pierce the corporate veil in order to hold Cornutt individually liable for fraud) is a gross misapplication of the general common law of fraud, which is the appropriate standard when considering whether the actions of a debtor rise to the level of fraud sufficient to prevent dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor fraudulently obtains an extension of credit through false representations that cause the creditor a loss.

Phillips, Mille & Costabile Co., L.P.A. v. Shusteric (In Re Shusteric) · filed 2007-03-26(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence the elements for non-dischargeability of the debt pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A). The Plaintiff established the Debtor falsely represented he owned the Property and had the ability and authority to encumber the Property with the Mortgages. He made the representations knowingly and fraudulently with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff to induce it to grant extensions of the debt for unpaid legal fees and costs. The Debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations expressly induced the Plaintiff to extend credit to the Debtor through the Notes and Mortgages. The Plaintiff justifiably relied on the Debtor’s representations in granting the extensions. The Plaintiff has suffered damages as result of its reliance on the Debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual reliance on a debtor’s false representation; reliance on a contractual guarantee does not suffice.

Imperial Trading Co. v. Catalanotto (In Re Catalanotto) · filed 2007-04-12(a)(2)(A)

Imperial included the guarantee in the Agreement to Sell so that it would not have to rely on Mr. Catalanotto’s representations. Imperial failed to show that it would not have purchased Vend Rite had it known the actual amount of revenue Vend Rite generated in the year prior to its sale. Imperial failed to carry the burden of proving the necessary elements for an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money or credit through a knowingly false representation intended to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor suffers a resulting loss.

Deere & Co. v. Dickerson (In Re Dickerson) · filed 2007-07-02(a)(2)(A)

These representations were knowingly false, and were made with the intent to deceive Deere. Deere actually and justifiably relied on these representations, and sustained a loss as a proximate result of its reliance in the amount of $584,100.33. This loss is a non-dischargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Fraudulently induced forbearance may qualify as an extension of credit under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Freer v. Beetler (In Re Beetler) · filed 2007-05-02(a)(2)(A)

This Court agrees that, under certain circumstances, fraudulently induced forbearance may constitute an extension of credit for purposes of Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt based on a promise of future action when the debtor did not intend to fulfill the promise when it was made.

In RE McDANIEL · filed 2007-05-17(a)(2)(A)

A debt may be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) when a debtor makes promises of future action that he had no intention of fulfilling when they were made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when false representations induce an extension or renewal of credit.

Jacobson v. Ormsby · filed 2007-07-26(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debt will not be discharged in bankruptcy if it is “for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,” to the extent that it was “obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” ... Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Jacobson made these two false representations to obtain an extension, modification, or renewal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains property through an intentionally false representation on which the creditor justifiably relies, causing a foreseeable loss.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Smithson (In re Smithson) · filed 2007-07-31(a)(2)(A)

Stifel produced sufficient evidence at trial to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Debtor’s obligation to it contained in the Judgment should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). The Court, therefore, will enter judgment in favor of Stifel on Count I of the adversary complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent when a debtor promises to perform work; substandard performance alone does not establish that intent.

Bohannon v. Horton (In Re Horton) · filed 2007-07-27(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that the Debtor did not have the requisite fraudulent intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and that the debt that is the subject of this litigation is, therefore, DISCHARGEABLE.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to show justifiable reliance, assessed in light of the creditor’s circumstances and the available means of checking the statement.

Johnston v. Campbell (In Re Campbell) · filed 2007-08-08(a)(2)(A)

Reliance on a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) must be justifiable. ... Viewing all the evidence, in the light most favorable to the non-movants — the John-stons — leads inescapably to the conclusion that their self-professed reliance on Mr. Campbell’s statements about the location of the property boundaries was not justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires facts showing that the debtor made a written statement about financial condition with intent to deceive; a later failure to pay alone does not establish that intent.

Shaefer v. Demar (In Re Demar) · filed 2007-08-13(a)(2)(B)

The subsequent failure of the debtor to pay, without more, is not sufficient to establish that the debtor lacked the intent to pay when the representations were made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

Minnesota Fair Plan v. Neumann (In Re Neumann) · filed 2007-08-17(a)(2)(A)

As a result, the Plaintiffs case under § 523(a)(2)(A) fails. First, the Plaintiff did not prove that the Defendant knew of the falsity of the representations in question.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional deception or reckless disregard for the truth to except a debt from discharge based on false pretenses.

E.Ted Taylor v. Edward Kirksey Wood, Jr. · filed 2007-08-21(a)(2)(A)

In this case, the bankruptcy court’s factual findings do not support the legal conclusion that Wood engaged in false pretenses under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The bankruptcy court failed to find that Wood recklessly disregarded the truth, noting only that he was in the best position to learn the truth about the other partner’s limited guaranty.

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

Hickory Point Bank & Trust, FSB v. Kucera (In Re Kucera) · filed 2007-08-22(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the presentation of a bad check alone does not constitute a false representation, false pretenses, or fraud which would be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud to make a debt nondischargeable.

Foster v. Patterson (In re Patterson) · filed 2007-08-22(a)(2)(A)

Because the record provides no reason to question the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings, we uphold the court’s conclusion that Foster did not prove fraud that would render the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debtor’s silence about a material fact to constitute a false representation when the debtor intends to deceive and the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Trustees of the Operating Engineers Local 965 Health Benefit Plan v. Westfall (In Re Westfall) · filed 2007-11-01(a)(2)(A)

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

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

Businger v. Storer (In Re Storer) · filed 2007-11-15(a)(2)(A)

The Busingers have failed to satisfy their burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) by showing that Doug made any type of false representation to the Busingers.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s failure to disclose a material fact as an actionable misrepresentation when the debtor has a duty to disclose it.

Casella Waste Management of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Romano (In Re Romano) · filed 2008-04-03(a)(2)(A)

Romano had a duty to disclose that the value of the accounts receivable was substantially diminished as a result of his conduct in collecting them, and his silence at the closing constitutes an actionable misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan debt nondischargeable when the debtor falsely represents an intent to repay and the creditor justifiably relies on that representation and suffers a loss.

Bell v. Claybrook (In Re Claybrook) · filed 2008-04-08(a)(2)(A)

Here, the documentary evidence and credible testimony establishes that the Defendant falsely represented to Bell that she intended to repay the $25,000 he loaned her for the purchase of a vehicle. ... The Court, therefore, finds that the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff under the promissory note is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through a material misrepresentation intended to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and that reliance causes a loss.

Hamerly v. Salupo (In Re Salupo) · filed 2008-05-05(a)(2)(A)

Notwithstanding, having found that the Hamerlys have satisfied the elements required to establish an exception to discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of the evidence, the subject debt is nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s silence about a material fact as a false representation that can make a debt nondischargeable.

Fee v. Eccles (In Re Eccles) · filed 2008-07-23(a)(2)(A)

It is well established that a debtor’s silence regarding a material fact can constitute a false representation actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the fraud to be committed against the creditor rather than a third party.

E.J. Willman & Sons, Inc. v. Massie (In Re Massie) · filed 2008-05-28(a)(2)(A)

In order for a debt to be excepted from discharge, the fraud must be committed on the Plaintiff rather than a third party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a contractor’s debt from discharge based on a failure to perform the contract alone.

Strominger v. Giquinto (In Re Giquinto) · filed 2008-06-13(a)(2)(A)

It is a matter of well-entrenched jurisprudence that a contractor’s failure to perform as promised, standing alone, gives rise to a case for breach of contract, not actionable fraud, misrepresentation or false pretenses under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a preexisting debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor tried to pay it with a check that later bounced.

KC Coring & Cutting Construction, Inc. v. McArthur (In Re McArthur) · filed 2008-07-02(a)(2)(A)

KC Coring has not shown Debtor made a false representation by merely attempting to pay an outstanding invoice with a check which later did not clear.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt arising from actual fraud to be excepted from discharge even without an affirmative misrepresentation.

Elliott v. Kiesewetter (In Re Kiesewetter) · filed 2008-07-24(a)(2)(A)

This distinction is important because litigants often presume, albeit incorrectly, that in order to find a debt nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) there must have been an actual misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that, when the debt was incurred, the debtor did not intend to honor a promise alleged to be fraudulent.

Ewing v. Bissonnette (In Re Bissonnette) · filed 2008-08-12(a)(2)(A)

A finding of fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A), instead, requires that a creditor show that the debtor had no intent to honor the obligation at the time the debt was incurred.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit procured through fraud.

Gupta v. Kendall (In Re Kendall) · filed 2008-08-13(a)(2)(A)

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the parties’ briefs and conclude that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the debt at issue constituted an “extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,” and that it was procured through fraud, within the meaning of § 523(a)(2).

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

MacHanic v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 2008-09-03(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiff has failed to prove that Defendant subjectively intended to deceive her or that she justifiable relied upon any allegedly false representations, her claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) must fail for failure to carry the required burden of proof.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the alleged misrepresentation is not proved.

Peterson v. Weber (In Re Weber) · filed 2008-09-05(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court decided that what the Debtor said was more credible, and we will defer to the bankruptcy court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. ... For the reasons stated above, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s order determining that the debt owed to her by the Debtor is not excepted from the discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B), but we reverse the order denying Peterson’s motion for leave to amend the underlying complaint against the Debtor and remand the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent conduct at the inception of the debt that induced the creditor to part with money, property, or services.

Hernandez v. Nunez (In Re Nunez) · filed 2008-09-17(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, because the statute requires that the money, property or services were “obtained by” the described wrongful acts, the creditor must demonstrate “that the fraudulent conduct occurred at the inception of the debt, i.e., the debtor committed a fraudulent act to induce the creditor to part with its money, property or services.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a borrower uses a financing instrument while intending to disregard its essential conditions, misrepresenting that intent to a lender that relies on it.

Capital One Auto Finance v. Viva (In Re Viva) · filed 2008-09-18(a)(2)(A)

An intent not to comply with the conditions of usage, evident at the time of the usage, would amount to a misrepresentation, and that is what we have in the case at hand. The defendant misrepresented her intent to abide by the essential conditions of the offer when she intentionally misused the blank check. Capital One relied on her misrepresentation to its detriment by paying the check without receiving a first lien position and without its borrower being the titled owner of the vehicle.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation, while § 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance.

Willens v. Bones (In Re Bones) · filed 2008-09-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

The Court concludes that even though Bones did make several misrepresentations to Plaintiffs, any actual reliance by Plaintiffs on the misrepresentations was neither justifiable nor reasonable. As a result, the debt at issue is not nondis-chargeable under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts cash advances from discharge when the debtor obtains them through false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud while knowing or having reason to know he cannot repay them.

Alliance Credit Union v. Cheeks (In Re Cheeks) · filed 2008-10-09(a)(2)(A)

A discharge will be denied for an extension of creditor obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud”. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (2008). ... The Debt was also obtained through false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud in that Debtor knew or should have known that he had neither the intent not the ability to repay the Debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to prove the representation and justifiable reliance by a preponderance of the evidence.

Stastny v. Sedivec (Sedivec) · filed 2008-10-22(a)(2)(A)

Diane has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the requisite elements of her claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from false representations that induce a creditor to provide money.

Levine v. Blake (In Re Blake) · filed 2009-02-10(a)(2)(A)

The Levines’ motion includes substantial summary judgment evidence in support of his § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. The Court finds that Blake’s debt to the Levines is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers extensions, renewals, and refinancings of credit obtained by fraud, as well as original loans.

In Re Riebesell · filed 2009-01-21(a)(2)(A)

However, § 523(a)(2)(A) reaches not only original debt transactions, but secondary debt transactions as well; i.e., extensions, renewals, and refinancings of credit. Collectively used, these terms are broad enough to account for virtually every type of secondary debt transaction.

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

Merena v. Merena (In Re Merena) · filed 2009-03-10(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs have simply failed to carry their burden of proof by showing that Alice intended to deceive Zhao on August 20, 2007, and thus, they have failed their burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains a loan through fraudulent misrepresentations that induce the creditor to lend.

Rimal v. Wibisono · filed 2009-03-16(a)(2)(A)

The Court further concludes that the other elements of Sections 523(a)(2)(A) have been met and, therefore, the debt from Wibisono to Rimal should not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loan’s principal and interest from discharge when fraud induces the creditor to forbear from calling the loan.

Goldberg v. Ojeda · filed 2009-03-17(a)(2)(A)

This court concludes that where a creditor forbears to call a loan due to fraud, the principal, as well as any interest, is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires facts showing that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; an unfulfilled promise alone does not establish fraud.

Balles v. Sturgill · filed 2009-03-31(a)(2)(A)

Her complaint is insufficient to sustain a claim of fraud and the alleged debt is not excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor misrepresented an intent to perform when making a promise; later failure to perform alone does not establish fraud.

Rizzo v. Mindes · filed 2009-04-02(a)(2)(A)

In § 523(a)(2)(A) cases, the Court must first inquire as to the Defendant’s intent at the time the representation was made. ... Since the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden under § 523(a)(2)(A), their complaint is denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats silence about a material fact as a false representation that can make a debt nondischargeable.

Fee v. Eccles (In Re Eccles) · filed 2009-06-08(a)(2)(A)

Silence regarding a material fact can constitute a false representation actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through fraud; alleged false statements made later at a creditors’ meeting do not establish that the debt was obtained by fraud.

Regis Technologies, Inc. v. Oien (In Re Oien) · filed 2009-04-24(a)(2)(A)

A § 523(a) claim excepts from discharge a debt that was procured through fraud on the part of a debtor. Regis’ allegations in Count II pertain to statements Oien allegedly made at the meeting of the creditors for his bankruptcy case. The amended complaint does not provide any facts or allegations concerning the circumstances of how Oien originally became indebted to Regis or if that debt, or a debt to any other creditor, was procured by any type of fraud or misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt to be excepted from discharge when a debtor’s silence about a material fact creates a false representation and the creditor proves the other required elements.

Pinks v. Stark (In Re Stark) · filed 2009-06-09(a)(2)(A)

It is well settled that mere silence of a material fact can constitute a false representation and is actionable under section 523(a)(2)(A). ... In this case, Defendant’s silence created a false impression that she signed the mortgage deed when in fact she did not. Defendant’s silence constitutes a false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a debtor's material omission of a pending bankruptcy and requires the creditor's reliance to be justifiable.

In Re Snyder · filed 2009-06-11(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, § 523(a)(2)(A), and not § 523(a)(2)(B), is the appropriate provision, and Creditor need only demonstrate justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove a false representation, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ez Loans of Shawnee, Inc. v. Hodges (In Re Hodges) · filed 2009-06-19(a)(2)

To prevail on a nondischargeability claim for fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), a creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the debtor made a false representation; (2) the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; (3) the creditor relied on debtor’s conduct; (4) the creditor’s reliance was justifiable; and (5) the creditor was damaged as a proximate result.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a creditor’s possible forbearance from collecting an existing debt as money, property, services, or an extension of credit obtained through fraud.

Hagar v. Beimel (In Re Beimel) · filed 2009-06-26(a)(2)(A)

The Court so holds because such possible forbearance constitutes neither “money, property, services, [n]or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit” for purposes of § 523(a)(2).