11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained by fraud, including compensatory and punitive damages arising from the fraud.

Floyd v. Royster (In Re Royster) · filed 2009-06-29(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Superior Court judgment against the debtor for fraud, pursuant to which the Plaintiff was awarded compensatory and punitive damages in the sum of $251,911.00, is nondischargeable under §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except unpaid legal fees from discharge based on a client’s alleged lies about the underlying case when the creditor cannot show a fraudulent promise to pay or a link between the lies and the debt.

Frishberg v. Janac (In Re Janac) · filed 2009-07-16(a)(2)(A)

While Plaintiff might have been persuaded to take the Defendant’s case by believing her representation of events, the relevant representation in this matter of nondischargeability is Defendant’s representation that she would pay Plaintiff. The damages in this proceeding are about $54,000 in unpaid legal bills. The parties’ relationship was governed by a retainer agreement. Plaintiff must prove that Defendant had intent to not pay him at the time they entered into the retainer agreement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance, while § 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance, to prevent discharge of a debt obtained through misrepresentation.

Colombo Bank v. Sharp · filed 2009-08-14(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Although Sharp’s behavior was entirely reprehensible, such behavior does not — in the absence of sufficient proof of the reliance elements — render his debt obligations on the Loan nondischargeable under either subsection (2)(A) or (2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a debt arose from a false representation to show that its reliance caused its loss.

General Motors Co. v. Heraud (In Re Heraud) · filed 2009-08-20(a)(2)(A)

GM’s reliance was the proximate cause of its loss because, but for GM’s reliance on Heraud’s representations that the payments would be forwarded to Verizon, it would not have continued to remit additional payments. Heraud does not dispute this element in his response. Therefore, this element is met. There are no genuine issues of material fact with regard to any of the elements of this count. Therefore, summary judgment is granted on the § 523(a)(2)(A) count.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation and an injury resulting from that reliance.

Rebekah v. Crownover (In Re Crownover) · filed 2009-08-27(a)(2)(A)

However, § 523(a)(2)(A) also requires that the plaintiffs must have justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by the debtor and the plaintiffs’ injury must have resulted from their justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from fraud, false pretenses, or misrepresentation nondischargeable.

Christenson v. Lee (In Re Lee) · filed 2009-09-02(a)(2)(A)

Christenson has met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Lee’s debt to Christenson arose from fraud, false pretenses or misrepresentation as defined by Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A). Lee’s debt to Christenson for the advance of the funds to purchase the Negev and P-90 is thus nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s knowledge requirement is satisfied when a debtor makes a false representation with reckless disregard for the truth.

Vinson v. Cozart (In Re Cozart) · filed 2009-09-11(a)(2)(A)

Because a reckless disregard for the truth is sufficient to satisfy the knowledge requirement, the second element has been met.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains money by falsely representing that he is investing it for the creditor.

Klaes v. Davison · filed 2009-09-16(a)(2)(A)

When Debtor borrowed money from Ms. Klaes, it was borrowed with the false representation that the money was being invested by a financial advisor through the Debtor’s company, Rockwell Financial Group, “A Pillar for Your Financial Future.” ... Accordingly, we find that Debtor’s obligations to Ms. Klaes are nondischargeable in the within bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, with intent to deceive and justifiable reliance by the creditor.

McDonald v. Morgan (In Re Morgan) · filed 2009-09-17(a)(2)(A)

Taking all of these facts into account, and based upon the record before me, the court finds that the Defendant induced the Plaintiff into agreeing to the November 2006 loan through misrepresentations and false pretenses and that the August 2008 loan was obtained through actual fraud against the Plaintiff. ... The judgment awarded herein will be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires justifiable reliance under (A) or reasonable reliance under (B); a creditor’s reliance on its broker rather than the debtors does not satisfy either requirement.

Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Stricker (In Re Stricker) · filed 2009-09-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Moreover, the creditor must prove that it relied upon the false representation, either “justifiably” under § 523(a)(2)(A), or “reasonably” under § 523(a)(2)(B). ... Flagstar relied upon its business associate, Keyton, not the Strickers. To the extent Flagstar relied on anything the Strickers did, Flagstar’s reliance was neither justifiable nor reasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains payment by falsely representing how the money will be used and the creditor proves the required elements of fraud.

Whitaker v. Koenig · filed 2009-09-30(a)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Court considered all of this evidence in determining that appellant obtained the $60,000.00 May 19, 2006 payment from appellees by representing to them that appellant intended to use that $60,000.00 for expenses related to appel-lees’ project, when in fact appellant knew that he planned to use that $60,000.00 to pay expenses wholly unrelated to appel-lees’ project. The evidence in the record fully supports this determination. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court committed no error in finding for appellees on the first element of their claim.

Section 523(a)(2) requires evidence that the debtor incurred the debt through fraud to except it from discharge.

Bernhardt v. Radloff (In Re Radloff) · filed 2009-10-08(a)(2)

Her case under § 523(a)(2) was adjudged insufficient at the close of her evidence. ... After the close of the evidence, the Court granted the Debtor's motion for a judgment on partial findings on Ms. Bernhardt’s request for a determination of nondischarge-ability. She had not produced any evidence to prove that he had incurred the debt in the first instance by committing an act of fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a debt arose from a false representation to allege intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and a loss caused by the representation.

Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union v. Torrez (In Re Torrez) · filed 2009-10-14(a)(2)(A)

Because the complaint does not reference a materially false written financial statement, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs cause of action is under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The complaint does not allege that Defendants made any representation with the intent to deceive Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not allege reliance, either actual or justifiable. And, the complaint does not allege that any representation caused it to sustain a loss, or that the representation was the proximate cause of that loss.

Section 523(a)(2) claims cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material facts about the debtor's liability and the creditor's reliance remain disputed.

Sharareh v. Wickens (In Re Wickens) · filed 2009-10-14(a)(2)

Although not addressed by the parties, the Court finds that there are other questions of fact that preclude summary judgment. ... The Court finds that there is a fact question as to who was the true debtor, Real Turf or Mr. Wickens. ... Second, the Court finds no facts relating to the reasonableness or justification for reliance on any representations made by Wickens.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable for a knowingly false representation intended to deceive a creditor who justifiably relies on it and suffers a resulting loss.

Genesee Regional Bank v. Rinaudo (In Re Rinaudo) · filed 2009-10-27(a)(2)(A)

A creditor seeking to have a debt declared nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) ... for a false representation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the debtor made a representation; (2) knowing the representation was false; (3) with the intent to deceive the creditor; (4) upon which the creditor had actually and justifiably relied; and (5) the creditor sustained a loss as a proximate result of its reliance upon the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats an attorney’s failure to make required disclosures about a client loan as a false representation.

Johnson v. Riebesell (In Re Riebesell) · filed 2009-10-28(a)(2)(A)

Riebesell’s failure to make the disclosures required by Rule 1.8 constitutes a “false representation” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

A plausibly alleged fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) can survive a motion to dismiss.

New Century Bank, N.A. v. Carmell (In Re Carmell) · filed 2010-01-05(a)(2)(A)

Taken as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficiently pleaded to give notice of a plausible claim of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Finnerty (In Re Finnerty) · filed 2009-10-30(a)(2)(A)

Based on the evidence and testimony at trial, the Court finds that FIA did not meet its burden on either the first or second elements of the § 523(a)(2)(A) test.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor actually knew it was false when made; showing that the debtor should have known is insufficient.

Thomas v. Barnett (In Re Barnett) · filed 2009-11-17(a)(2)(A)

The Motion and the Statement do not set forth the correct standard. Pursuant to the case law discussed further on p. 4 of this Memorandum Opinion, in order to prevail on the Motion, Plaintiffs must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor actually knew that Delta Southern Bank's lien was not the only lien on the Vehicle at the time he stated it was.

A creditor cannot establish actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) through a consent judgment that does not show the parties intended the fraud issue to be conclusive.

Blacksmith Investments, Inc. v. Woodford (In Re Woodford) · filed 2009-11-23(a)(2)(A)

Having concluded that the agreement for judgment is not entitled to preclusive effect on the issue of actual fraud for purposes of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), we need go no further as Blacksmith has failed to meet its burden of proof under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a causal connection between the alleged fraud and the advance of money, property, services, or credit that gave rise to the debt.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Khafaga (In Re Khafaga) · filed 2009-12-01(a)(2)(A)

The dispositive question with respect to the claim asserted under § 523(a)(2)(A) is whether the Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Rescuecom was induced by the Defendant’s alleged omissions and material misrepresentations to advance money, property, services, or credit, resulting in the debt that is the subject of the Complaint. The Court finds that it has not.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a false representation; an agent’s knowledge is not imputed to the creditor when the agent acts solely for his own benefit and against the creditor’s interests.

Financial Services of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Tarango (In Re Tarango) · filed 2010-01-07(a)(2)(A)

Because Mr. Valdez’s knowledge of the true nature of the transaction cannot be imputed to Southwest Financial, Southwest Financial’s reliance on Mr. Tar-ango’s misrepresentation in signing the loan documents while knowing that he would give the proceeds to Mr. Valdez was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to have obtained money or property through the alleged fraud.

Lazzaro v. Weichman (In Re Weichman) · filed 2010-01-21(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, Count I does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a) with respect to any concept that the defendant obtained anything from the plaintiffs, a predicate for the application of § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through intentional false representations on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Meahyen v. Meahyen (In Re Meahyen) · filed 2010-02-04(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the has plaintiff met his burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The defendant took advantage of the plaintiffs trust and intentionally deceived him in order to secretly profit from the transactions and induce the plaintiff to continue paying him for construction work that he knew he would not be able to complete. The defendant’s dishonest conduct justifies excepting from his discharge his debt to the plaintiff as determined by the Hennepin County District Court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a false representation made with intent to deceive, reliance on that representation, and a resulting loss.

Copper v. Lemke (In Re Lemke) · filed 2010-02-24(a)(2)(A)

To sustain a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor made a false representation with the intent to deceive the creditor, that the creditor reasonably relied on the misrepresentation, and the misrepresentation caused the creditor to sustain a loss.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an actual false representation to except a debt from discharge on that basis; implied warranties alone are insufficient.

Owen v. Angst (In Re Angst) · filed 2010-03-15(a)(2)(A)

Thus, this Court finds Plaintiffs allegations regarding implied representations and/or warranties regarding Debtor’s qualifications, ability, experience, skill and/or workmanship to be insufficient to support a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for actual fraud but does not require a creditor to investigate the debtor’s ability to pay.

Treadwell v. Glenstone Lodge, Inc. (In Re Treadwell) · filed 2010-02-01(a)(2)(A)

Although Glenstone’s reliance may not have been reasonable, it certainly was justifiable under the minimal standard articulated by the Supreme Court. The bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that because Glenstone failed to investigate Memory Travel’s ability to pay for the redhatters event, its reliance was not justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge to prove justifiable reliance and damages caused by the fraud.

Fetty v. DL Carlson Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Carlson) · filed 2010-03-19(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence two of the five elements under § 523(a)(2)(A). Consequently, the complaint herein shall be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance; repeated warnings that a debtor may not pay can defeat that element.

Andresen & Arronte, PLLC v. Hill (In Re Hill) · filed 2010-03-23(a)(2)(A)

Despite these obvious warning flags, the Firm continued its representation and thereby gambled future services against the prospect of being paid (either directly or through a litigation recovery). Thus, the Court finds that the Firm failed to establish all the necessary elements required under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits an inference of fraudulent intent when a debtor uses credit for a purpose other than the one promised; sufficiently egregious diversion may establish intent.

Wilhelm v. Finnegan (In Re Finnegan) · filed 2010-03-08(a)(2)(A)

In this way, if the extension of credit is not used for its intended purpose, a strong inference arises that the debtor never intended to perform as promised. In fact, depending on the egregiousness of the misrepresentation, a debtor’s failure to utilize funds extended on credit for its stated purpose may be dispositive on the issue of the debtor’s fraudulent intent. This is the situation in this matter, with the Court finding the Defendant’s actions to be particularly egregious.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats fraudulently induced forbearance as an extension or renewal of credit.

Ojeda v. Goldberg · filed 2010-03-25(a)(2)(A)

We now hold that a fraudu- lently induced forbearance does constitute an extension or renewal.

Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) make a debt nondischargeable when the creditor proves their elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Nielson v. Aman (In re Aman) · filed 2010-03-26(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence each of the non-dischargeability elements of 11 U.S.C. Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B), whatever the underlying motivation was in instituting this nondischargeability action. The First Horizon lien indebtedness is nondischargeable.

The court affirmed that the debt was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

R & R Ready Mix v. Freier (In Re Freier) · filed 2010-05-10(a)(2)(A)

We affirm the bankruptcy court's determination that Freier's debt was non- dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debt to be for money, property, services, or credit obtained by fraud; alleged fraud after a loan is made does not satisfy that requirement.

Marcusen v. Glen · filed 2010-04-09(a)(2)(A)

The plain language of section 523(a)(2)(A) requires, as a prerequisite to a determination of nondichargeability, that the debt be “for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . fraud.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A)(emphasis added). The Glens obtained financing from the Marcusens for Lots 23 and 6 before the alleged fraud took place and not as a result of the alleged fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt caused by planned deceit from discharge even when the conduct does not meet the technical requirements of common law fraud.

Hendry v. Hendry (In Re Hendry) · filed 2010-04-09(a)(2)(A)

Given this fundamental policy, it is clear that a debt acquired as a direct result of a debtor’s planned deceit is within the ambit of section 523(a)(2)(A), irrespective of whether the debt was incurred by conduct that meets the technical requirements of common law fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar discharge of an award under a statute that requires neither fraud nor actual harm when the creditor suffered no harm from the debtor’s misrepresentation.

Ghomeshi v. Sabban · filed 2010-04-13(a)(2)(A)

We hold that because the award of $123,000 was made under a statute that is not premised on either fraud or actual harm, it is not a debt for money obtained by fraud within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s “obtained by” requirement is satisfied when the debtor’s partnership benefits from the fraud or the debtor has an opportunity to benefit.

Cutcliff v. Reuter (In Re Reuter) · filed 2010-04-14(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that under either Eighth Circuit precedent or other well reasoned opinions from other jurisdictions such as Rea, that it is on firm ground in holding that Debtor’s partnership benefit-ted by his fraud, that Debtor believed he had, and had, the opportunity to benefit and that each of these instances satisfies the “obtained by” requirement of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to defraud the creditor when incurring the debt.

First Security Bank v. Hudson (In Re Hudson) · filed 2010-05-14(a)(2)(A)

In order to determine that a claim is not dischargeable under this provision, the Court must therefore find that the debtor acted with fraudulent intent when incurring the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a fraudulent representation about a condition for obtaining a loan when the representation does not concern the debtor’s financial condition.

Southern Bancorp South v. Richmond (In Re Richmond) · filed 2010-06-16(a)(2)(A)

The Court notes that Vic's representation was not regarding his financial condition, rather the representation was regarding the condition Vic had to comply with in order to obtain the 2006 loan. Therefore, the representation falls within the ambit of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to justifiably rely on fraudulent investment reports despite knowing the general risks of investing.

Islamov v. Ungar · filed 2010-05-21(a)(2)(A)

The Debtor claims that the Creditor could not have justifiably relied on her representations because the Creditor was aware of the risks involved with investing in the stock market. We will not disturb the bankruptcy court’s finding that, based on his knowledge of the risks involved with investing in the stock market and the representations that Debtor made to him, the Creditor’s reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except credit obtained through false pretenses from discharge when a debtor uses an existing debt to secure new credit.

Helena Chemical Co. v. Richmond (In Re Richmond) · filed 2010-06-08(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Vic Richmond and the debtor chose to play a shell game with the 2006 crop loan proceeds to avoid the unsatisfactory consequences of their inability to pay their 2005 debt, thus, they obtained the necessary 2006 credit under false pretenses. When the debtor wrote the $725,000 check, he was not making a statement concerning his or Richmond Company’s overall financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive to except a debt based on a false representation from discharge.

Alliant Credit Union v. Baptiste (In Re Baptiste) · filed 2010-06-14(a)(2)(A)

Because Baptiste lacked the intent to deceive, the loan was not obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

A Michigan fraud judgment can establish actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Nehasil v. Grenier (In Re Grenier) · filed 2010-06-17(a)(2)(A)

As such, courts have found a Michigan judgment of fraud to be a sufficient determination of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), and this Court agrees.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud based on a broken promise to show that the debtor did not intend to honor the promise when the debt was incurred.

Schroeder v. Bennett (In Re Bennett) · filed 2010-06-25(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) requires proof that the debtor lacked intent to pay when promising repayment; a broken promise alone is insufficient.

Giansante & Cobb, LLC v. Singh (In Re Singh) · filed 2010-06-25(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, as a result of the Plaintiffs failure to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor promised to pay the Plaintiff from the proceeds of the sale of his liquor store during a time when he had no intent to pay, the Plaintiffs § 523(a)(2)(A) claim must fail.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the fraud or false representation enabled the debtor to obtain what gave rise to that debt.

Jones v. Dressler (In Re Dressler) · filed 2010-06-30(a)(2)(A)

Unfortunately for Jones, the subject of Ohio Valley Towing’s claim is not the Tractor Trailer or its return, it is the services performed on such vehicle; since such services were not obtained by any fraud/false representation, Ohio Valley Towing’s claim is not nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor intentionally failed to repay it.

Deady v. Hanson (In Re Hanson) · filed 2010-07-13(a)(2)(A)

While the Creditor was not repaid the $15,635.19, the Debtor’s mere failure to pay that debt, even if intentional and without excuse, is not actionable under § 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.

Petrovic v. Vetal (In Re Vetal) · filed 2010-08-03(a)(2)(A)

Finally, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is appropriate also because of Plaintiffs failure to submit evidence that could establish justifiable reliance. In Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 116 S.Ct. 437, 133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995), the United States Supreme Court stated that a plaintiff must show justifiable reliance rather than reasonable reliance to prevail under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent and justifiable reliance to except a debt from discharge based on a debtor’s promise not to file bankruptcy.

Rice, Heitman & Davis, S.C. v. Sasse (In Re Sasse) · filed 2010-08-13(a)(2)(A)

He cannot be said to have justifiably “relied” upon the promise not to file bankruptcy, as even a cursory investigation would have led to the conclusion that it was unreasonable to believe that the debtor might not ultimately seek a fresh start under the bankruptcy code. For all of these reasons, his claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) simply must fail.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debtor entered a loan agreement or extension knowing they could not perform or intending not to perform; failure to repay alone does not establish fraud.

Gelfand v. Gibson (In Re Gibson) · filed 2010-08-30(a)(2)(A)

In the case of a broken promise, the failure to repay a loan does not in and of itself establish fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A). Rather, it must be shown that Debtors entered into the loan agreement and/or extensions either knowing that they could not perform according to its terms, or that they did not intend to so perform as they agreed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor breached a contractual promise.

PNC Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. National City Bank v. Laskey (In Re Laskey) · filed 2010-09-17(a)(2)(A)

In this regard, it is well-established that the breach of a contractual promise does not, alone, equate with a nondischargeable debt for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when the creditor establishes all elements of fraud.

Lewis v. Spivey (In Re Spivey) · filed 2010-11-22(a)(2)(A)

For the above reasons, the Court finds that the Lewises have met all of the elements required under § 523(a)(2)(A) with regard to the payment or set off of management fees. The Court finds that a debt in the amount of $144,200.00 is not dischargeable in the Spiveys’ bankruptcy and will enter a separate judgment in that amount in favor of the Lewises.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to defraud, which may be shown through circumstantial evidence of the debtor’s conduct.

Kaylor v. Holsinger (In Re Holsinger) · filed 2010-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Intent to defraud is a necessary element in the ultimate determination of discharge-ability under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The Yoder and Mitchell Affidavits contain expert observations about workmanship and construction performance, which are material facts because they serve to provide circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits courts to consider conduct after a debt was incurred when determining whether the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

6050 Grant, LLC v. Hanson (In Re Hanson) · filed 2010-10-05(a)(2)(A)

Determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent under § 523(a)(2)(A) is, therefore, a factual, subjective inquiry decided by examining all of the relevant circumstances, including those that took place after the debt was incurred.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debtor intended to deceive when making a promise; a later breach alone does not establish fraud.

Bartson v. Marroquin (In Re Marroquin) · filed 2010-11-05(a)(2)(A)

For all these reasons, therefore, the evidence does not support the Plaintiffs position that the Defendants’ breach of their contractual duties rises to the level of fraudulent intent for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits courts to consider conduct after a debt was incurred when deciding whether the debtor intended to deceive the creditor.

Deady v. Hanson (In Re Hanson) · filed 2010-10-14(a)(2)(A)

Determining whether a debtor had the requisite intent under § 523(a)(2)(A) is, therefore, a factual, subjective inquiry decided by examining all of the relevant circumstances, including those that took place after the debt was incurred.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires intent to deceive; a consent judgment allowing liability for negligent misrepresentation does not establish that element.

Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v. Edwards (In Re Edwards) · filed 2010-11-09(a)(2)(B)

That level of intent is insufficient to establish a claim under section 523(a)(2)(B), which requires that the debtor intend to deceive the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a seller’s intentional failure to disclose material defects to a homebuyer as a false representation.

Barnett v. Osborne (In Re Osborne) · filed 2010-10-19(a)(2)(A)

A debtor’s failure to disclose inherent material defects to a buyer in order to effectuate the sale of real property constitutes a false representation in a Section 523(a)(2)(A) determination.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging false pretenses or a false representation to show justifiable reliance and causation of loss.

Monarch Capital Corp. v. Bath (In Re Bath) · filed 2010-10-19(a)(2)(A)

Whether asserting that false pretenses or a false representation were made and warrant relief under section 523(a)(2)(A), a showing of justifiable reliance and causation of loss must be made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a material misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

Westlund v. Casper (In Re Casper) · filed 2010-11-02(a)(2)(A)

The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts is that the plaintiff did not justifiably rely upon a material misrepresentation regarding the Texas properties.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor relying on a promise of future performance to show that the debtor lacked the intent to perform when making the promise.

Brann v. Oxford (In Re Oxford) · filed 2010-12-06(a)(2)(A)

For a future intention to be fraudulent, the creditor must establish that the debtor lacked the subjective intent at the time the statement was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a promise as a false representation when the debtor intended not to perform it at the time it was made.

Portman v. Zipperer (In Re Zipperer) · filed 2011-01-20(a)(2)(A)

A false representation includes a misrepresentation of intent. A breach of a promise is not necessarily a false representation if intervening events cause the debt- or to change his course of action; the debtor must have intended not to perform a the time the promise was made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require creditors to prove fraud under the law of a particular state.

Reuter v. Cutcliff · filed 2011-01-31(a)(2)(A)

A finding of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) is not premised on state law, so the creditors here need not have met the requirements of proving fraud in Missouri.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent; failure to repay a debt alone does not establish fraud.

FIA Card Services NA v. Lee (In Re Lee) · filed 2011-01-31(a)(2)(A)

In the case of a broken promise to pay, the failure to repay a loan does not in and of itself establish fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A). Rather, it must be shown that Debtor entered into the transaction either knowing she could not perform or did not intend to perform according to the terms of the agreement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) applies a justifiable reliance standard to false representations.

Reuter v. Cutcliff (In Re Reuter) · filed 2011-01-31(a)(2)(A)

Once again, the bankruptcy court properly stated the law of justifiable reliance — the lesser standard of reliance which the United States Supreme Court has declared applicable to false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A) — and found that the creditors had met that standard.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt obtained by false representations from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on them.

Islamov v. Ungar (In Re Ungar) · filed 2011-02-14(a)(2)(A)

A debt may be deemed to have been "obtained by" false representations if the creditor justifiably relied on the representations. ... Here, we find no clear error in the bankruptcy court's factual determination that Islamov's reliance was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires that fraud actually obtain money, property, or services and cause the creditor a loss.

Ruston v. Borreggine (In Re Borreggine) · filed 2011-02-02(a)(2)(A)

Also fatal to Ruston’s cause, the Court concludes, is the Court’s holding that, even if the Debtor had fraudulently made the July 1999 Oral Promises and the December 2008 Written Promise, nothing was actually obtained by virtue of the making of such promises. ... Therefore, neither the July 1999 Oral Promises nor the December 2008 Written Promise caused any loss of property to Ruston; instead, Ruston’s losses were caused by her obtaining of financial assistance for the Debtor in the prior years between 1989 and 1995.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a misrepresentation of existing fact; a promise of future performance may qualify if the debtor made it without intending to perform.

Hartwig v. Markley (In Re Markley) · filed 2011-02-10(a)(2)(A)

Regarding the promise of profits, § 523(a)(2) requires a misrepresentation of existing fact and not merely a promise of future performance. ... An exception to this rule would require proof the debtor made the promise without an intent to perform.

Section 523(a)(2) does not except a contract debt from discharge merely because the debtor later changed his intention to perform.

Kegg v. Bailey (In Re Bailey) · filed 2011-02-14(a)(2)

Such a subsequent change in intention is not actionable under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor suffers loss as a result of a debtor’s false representations.

Bankston Motor Homes, Inc. v. Dennis (In Re Dennis) · filed 2011-02-17(a)(2)(A)

Finally, the Court finds that Bankston Motor Homes clearly sustained a loss as a result of Dennis’s false representations. Accordingly, the debt owed to the plaintiff, Bankston Motor Homes, by the defendant, Mark Dennis, in the amount of $102,062 is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) except debts from discharge when the creditor proves the applicable elements of fraud, reliance, and loss by a preponderance of the evidence.

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance v. Vermilio (In Re Vermilio) · filed 2011-02-28(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence each of the nondis-chargeability elements of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) and Section 523(a)(2)(B). The indebtedness owed by Vermilio to Plaintiff pursuant to the Judgments entered by the Florida State Court is nondischargeable pursuant to Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor to prove that it actually relied on the debtor’s false statement to except the debt from discharge.

Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. v. August (In Re August) · filed 2011-03-03(a)(2)

Nonetheless, I agree with the debtor’s position that Adamar failed to meet its burden of proving that it actually relied upon the preprinted language on those markers when extending credit to Ms. August in February 2009.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor induces a creditor to lend money by falsely representing that the loans will be secured.

Crockett v. Ferris (In Re Ferris) · filed 2011-03-31(a)(2)(A)

The court finds this amount, lent by Crockett for seventy-three vehicles for which Ferris induced him to make loans and as to which he falsely represented that Crockett would be in a secured position, to be nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge loan advances obtained through intentional misrepresentations about their intended use.

Bank Iowa-West Des Moines v. Torres (In Re Torres) · filed 2011-04-04(a)(2)(A)

Bank Iowa has met its burden in proving that a portion of the Advance Requests made on the Pine Ave. Construction Loan be excepted from discharge. ... The amount of $36,927.90 is not discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a fraudulently induced loan to plead the material misrepresentations and facts supporting reliance on them.

RBSF, LLC v. Franklin (In Re Franklin) · filed 2011-03-15(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff failed to set forth in its Amended Complaint when and what material misrepresentations the Debtor made and the circumstances which would have permitted it to rely upon those representations to make a $100,000 loan after learning that the Debt- or could not repay the existing $50,000 loan.

A creditor seeking an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) must prove a knowingly or recklessly false representation or omission, intent to deceive or defraud, and justifiable reliance.

Reeves v. Davis · filed 2011-03-14(a)(2)(A)

To receive an exception from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), Reeves was required to show the following: (1) that Davis made a false representation or omission, which he either knew was false or made with reckless disregard for the truth; (2) that Davis pos- sessed an intent to deceive or defraud; and (3) that Reeves justifiably relied on the false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a plaintiff alleging actual fraud to prove a misrepresentation.

Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Perry (In Re Perry) · filed 2011-03-17(a)(2)(A)

In summation, the Court finds that when the issue of “actual fraud” is raised for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), a plaintiff need not show the existence of any misrepresentation.

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

Custom Kilns, Inc. v. Pierron (In Re Pierron) · filed 2011-03-22(a)(2)(A)

To establish that a debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), a party must show actual fraud and not merely fraud implied by law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan debt nondischargeable to the extent the lender was damaged by the debtor’s fraudulent promise about how loan proceeds would be used.

Turbo Aleae Investments, Inc. v. Borschow (In Re Borschow) · filed 2011-04-11(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Allen did commit actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) by falsely representing that he would use a part of the loan proceeds to pay Eureka. Thus, the Court finds that $17,391.54 of the debt owing by Allen to Turbo is non-dischargeable.

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

Sarasota CCM, Inc. v. Kuncman (In Re Kuncman) · filed 2011-04-12(a)(2)(A)

Intent to defraud is an essential element of Section 523(a)(2)(A), and unless the Plaintiff can establish that the Debtor intended to defraud the Plaintiff, this action must be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intentional wrongdoing; poor judgment alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

In Re Depinna · filed 2011-03-24(a)(2)(A)

The circumstances set forth above (considered either separately or in the aggregate) constitute a family tragedy; the court is not persuaded that such circumstances constitute "moral turpitude" on the Debtors' part as required by Section 523(a)(2)(A).

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

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. May (In Re May) · filed 2011-03-29(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, based on these factual findings, FIA cannot prevail upon its claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), because it cannot satisfy the element of intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor obtains money or property from the creditor at the time of the fraud.

Marcusen v. Glen · filed 2011-04-12(a)(2)(A)

Like the BAP, we conclude that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that a reduction in value of the Marcusens’ equity was sufficient to satisfy § 523(a)(2)(A)’s requirement that money or property must have been obtained from the Marcusens.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except an individual debtor’s debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently induced a loan to a corporation and is personally liable for the resulting debt.

Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Fields (In Re Fields) · filed 2011-04-12(a)(2)(A)

To the extent that the underlying elements under state law coincided with those under bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)), or the plaintiff-creditor rounded out the proof as to both, there would be an independent factual basis to attach liability to a defendant-debtor in bankruptcy, and to except that individual’s debt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of the elements of false representation to except a debt from discharge; a judgment on the debt alone is insufficient.

Rawat v. Hamil (In Re Hamil) · filed 2011-05-13(a)(2)(A)

In assessing the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that the evidence only supports a finding that the Plaintiff has a judgment against the Defendant which forms the basis of a claim in the Defendant’s bankruptcy case. However, the Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that would satisfy any of the elements of proof needed to succeed under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when the debtor’s false representations cause a creditor to lend money in justifiable reliance.

Ward Family Foundation v. Arnette (In Re Arnette) · filed 2011-06-07(a)(2)(A)

The testimony at trial clearly established that the Foundation was damaged in the amount of $999,377.19 as a result of Arnette’s fraud, which debt is non-dis-chargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s failure to disclose a material change constitutes false representation or false pretenses.

Solis v. Asif (In Re Asif) · filed 2011-05-13(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Asifs failure to notify DOL that he no longer had a position for Hussain as a financial manager, which he knew well before the H-1B visa was issued to Hussain, constitutes the kind of actionable false representation or false pretenses contemplated by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) has no written-statement requirement for a debt to be nondischargeable.

Ershowsky v. Freedman (In Re Freedman) · filed 2011-05-26(a)(2)(A)

For a debt to be found nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), though, the statute includes no written-statement requirement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to have actually and justifiably relied on the debtor’s misrepresentation.

Rayner v. Reeves (In Re Reeves) · filed 2011-06-21(a)(2)(A)

To satisfy Plaintiffs claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must have actually relied on the misrepresentation and the reliance must be “justified.”

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

Atkisson v. Roberts (In Re Roberts) · filed 2011-07-06(a)(2)(A)

These elements must be proven: (1) the debtor obtained the money through material misrepresentation that, at the time, the debtor knew was false or made with gross recklessness as to its truth; (2) the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; (3) the creditor justifiably relied on the false representation; and (4) the creditor’s reliance was the proximate cause of the loss.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a contractor’s disgorgement debt from discharge when the remedy requires no proof of fraud or loss caused by a misrepresentation.

Willcox v. Carpenter (In Re Carpenter) · filed 2011-07-08(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the obligation under that District of Columbia rule of law to disgorge compensation received is dischargeable even if Carpenter, in addition, caused actual harm and misrepresented that he was licensed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a direct link between the fraud and the debt before the debt can be excepted from discharge.

Goguen v. SHARFARZ · filed 2011-07-21(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) “requires a ‘direct link’ between the alleged fraud and the creation of the debt to be excepted from discharge.” ... Accordingly, we REVERSE the bankruptcy court’s determination that Sharfarz’s claim is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s intentional silence about a material fact she had a duty to disclose constitutes false pretenses.

Janes v. Lyons (In Re Lyons) · filed 2011-07-28(a)(2)(A)

Fraud by silence may constitute false pretenses under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Plaintiff has already proven the facts necessary to sustain a § 523(a)(2)(A) objection to discharge, and there are no undecided material factual issues left for this Court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive; a debtor who sincerely does not know of a licensing duty lacks that intent when failing to disclose the absence of a license.

Fledderman v. Glunk (In Re Glunk) · filed 2011-08-11(a)(2)(A)

Without the subjective knowledge of his legal duty to license his facility, Dr. Glunk lacked the requisite intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for services obtained through a knowingly false representation made to deceive a creditor who justifiably relies on it and suffers a resulting loss.

Windows Off Washington, LLC v. Callahan (In Re Callahan) · filed 2011-10-03(a)(2)(A)

This Court concludes that all the elements of Section 523(a)(2)(A) are met and consequently, this debt is nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a debtor to keep a creditor informed about declining equity in vehicles after the creditor lends the money.

Heide v. Juve (In Re Juve) · filed 2011-09-16(a)(2)(A)

The Debtor did not have an ongoing duty under § 523(a)(2)(A) to advise the Creditor regarding whether his interest in the vehicles was protected and the loss of equity in the vehicles would not support a determination of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming actual fraud to prove intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and proximate causation.

Cole v. Wood (In Re Wood) · filed 2011-09-16(a)(2)(A)

To establish actual fraud, the Coles must show a course of conduct intended to deceive, justifiable reliance and proximate causation. ... Because it is as least as likely that the Woods acted with honest intent than they did with deceptive intent, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it chose not to infer an intent to deceive from the evidence presented at trial.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to defraud the creditor before the creditor parted with the property.

McHugh, Inc. v. Thompson (In Re Thompson) · filed 2011-09-28(a)(2)(A)

In order to compel the Court to except the debt for the Viper from discharge, Plaintiff must show that Debtors acted with intent to defraud Plaintiff before Plaintiff parted with the vehicle — that they plotted all along to gain possession and ownership of the Viper with no intention of paying Plaintiff for it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to defraud the creditor before the creditor parted with the property.

Coughlin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Thompson (In Re Thompson) · filed 2011-09-30(a)(2)(A)

In order to compel the Court to except the debt for the Camry from discharge, Plaintiff must show that Debtors acted with intent to defraud Plaintiff before Plaintiff parted with the Camry — that they plotted all along to gain possession and ownership of the Camry with no intention of paying Plaintiff for it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for fraud when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor made an implied false representation when using a line of credit.

Smart Financial Credit Union v. Williams (In Re Williams) · filed 2011-10-07(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, given all the evidence and credible testimony of the Williams’, Smart has failed to prove that Rhonda Williams made an implied false representation to it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a misrepresentation that induces the creditor to extend credit; a statement made after the debt arose does not satisfy that requirement.

Aluminum Specialties Wholesale, Inc. v. Ellis (In Re Ellis) · filed 2011-10-13(a)(2)(A)

It was not a misrepresentation to ASW to induce the extension of credit; by then the goods had been delivered and the debt already been created.

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a finding of reasonable reliance under Massachusetts law satisfies the less demanding requirement of justifiable reliance.

Unger v. Lambert (In Re Lambert) · filed 2011-10-27(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the jury’s finding in the state court action of reasonable reliance by Mr. Unger on Ms. Lambert’s misrepresentations satisfies § 523(a)(2)(A)’s less stringent requirement for justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through false representations on which the creditor justifiably relies and suffers damage.

Godowns v. Brush (In Re Brush) · filed 2011-11-09(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied all the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A), and her claim against Defendant is therefore non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through fraud when the creditor proves the required elements.

Farooqi v. Carroll (In re Carroll) · filed 2011-12-13(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A) have been satisfied regarding Farooqi’s fraudulent inducement claim. The testimony at trial clearly established that Farooqi was damaged in the amount of $88,500 as a result of Carroll’s fraud, which debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through an intentional deception on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Dinkha v. Shaf (In re Shaf) · filed 2012-01-17(a)(2)(A)

Count I of the complaint alleges that the Defendant violated 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) which excepts from discharge debts for “money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by, false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.” ... The Plaintiff prevails on Count. I.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to show that the debtor obtained money, property, services, or credit from that creditor at the time of the misrepresentation.

Samuel J. Temperate Revocable Trust v. Unterreiner (In Re Unterreiner) · filed 2011-11-18(a)(2)(B)

To succeed in having a debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2), the creditor is required to prove that the debtors obtained money, property, services or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit from it at the time of the misrepresentation. ... Simply stated, Mr. and Mrs. Unterreiner did not receive any money or property from the Trust concurrent with the representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the debtor to have obtained money, property, services, or credit from the creditor seeking to except the debt from discharge at the time of the misrepresentation.

Samuel J. Temperato Trust v. Unterreiner · filed 2011-11-18(a)(2)(B)

To succeed in having a debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2), the creditor is required to prove that the debtors obtained money, property, services or an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit from it at the time of the misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through knowing fraud intended to deceive, on which the creditor justifiably relied and that caused a loss.

Parham v. Harris-Onaxis (In re Harris-Onaxis) · filed 2011-12-08(a)(2)(A)

Under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the following must be established: (1) that the Defendants obtained money, property, or credit from Plaintiffs; (2) by false representation, pretense, or fraud knowingly made or committed; (3) with the intent to deceive the Plaintiffs or to induce it to act upon same; (4) upon which Plaintiffs justifiably relied; and (5) which proximately resulted in an injury to or loss suffered by Plaintiffs.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance; a material factual dispute over reliance prevents summary judgment for the creditor.

Franklin County Area Development Corp. v. Leos (In re Leos) · filed 2011-12-19(a)(2)(A)

I find that there are material issues of fact outstanding on the issue of justifiable reliance such that FCADC is not entitled to summary judgment.

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

Bank of Henderson v. O'Nan (In re O'Nan) · filed 2012-01-24(a)(2)(A)

In this case, the Bank failed to meet its burden of proof in several separate areas. First, the Bank failed to present evidence that O’Nan made a false statement or material misrepresentation in 2008 when he opened the account or in 2010 when he executed the commercial loan documents.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the debtor’s intent to deceive before a debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud.

McCarthy v. Radcliffe (In Re Radcliffe) · filed 2012-01-25(a)(2)(A)

The court concludes that the plaintiff has not met his burden of proof with regard to actual fraudulent intent of the defendant, and that his claim is not excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Astera Credit Union v. Russell (In re Russell) · filed 2012-01-25(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that Ms. Russell misrepresented the transaction and her intent to repay, and that the Credit Union justifiably relied on the representations when it funded the loan and parted with $19,934.58. ... Accordingly, the debt in that amount shall be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an alleged false representation meets its requirements for nondischargeability.

Sherry Justice Sales, LLC v. Hawkins (In re Hawkins) · filed 2012-01-30(a)(2)(A)

Because the Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the three alleged false representations made by the Debtor satisfied the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code, we deny the declaration sought by the Plaintiff, Justice Sales, LLC.

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

Rutili v. O'Neill · filed 2012-02-08(a)(2)(A)

Since neither falsity nor reliance was proven, this Count of the Complaint is lost whether or not the statutory language bars the action in the absence of a written representation of financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove actual or justifiable reliance on the debtor’s false statements.

Signature Bank v. Banayan · filed 2012-01-31(a)(2)(A)

In addition, the Court is simply not convinced that Signature actually or justifiably relied on the false statements made by Debtor. Therefore, even if Debt- or did act with the purpose and intent of deceiving Signature, the Debt would not be subject to the exception to discharge set forth in § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance; a creditor that disregards warning signs of a debtor’s misrepresentation cannot establish it.

Winston-Salem City Employees' Federal Credit Union v. Casper (In Re Casper) · filed 2012-03-13(a)(2)(A)

Thus, a plaintiff who disregards “red flags” will not be able to satisfy the justifiable reliance standard.

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

Myers v. Dewese (In re Dewese) · filed 2012-02-22(a)(2)(A)

Because the Court finds that the Defendant did not intend to deceive the Plaintiffs, even if liability could be established, the debt would not be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through a knowingly false or recklessly made representation intended to deceive the creditor.

Deady v. Hanson (In Re Hanson) · filed 2012-03-19(a)(2)(A)

To prevail on under § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must show that the debtor obtained the money “through representations which the debtor either knew to be false or made with such reckless disregard for the truth as to constitute willful misrepresentation.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires that a false representation obtain money, property, services, or credit for the debtor or another entity; an attorney-fee claim arising from the representation does not itself meet that requirement.

Ivory v. Barbe (In Re Barbe) · filed 2012-03-16(a)(2)(A)

The foregoing basis for Ivo ry’s § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action fails because the alleged false representations in question (i.e., those that were contained in the complaint that was filed by the Debtor with the California Superior Court) failed to generate any money, property, services, or credit for either the Debtor or some entity other than Ivory. The Court holds that it is irrelevant to the § 523(a)(2)(A) analysis in the instant matter that such alleged false representations can be viewed as perhaps having generated money in the form of an attorney fee award for Ivory, who is the creditor that is potentially owed such money by the Debtor.

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

First Horizon Home Loan Corp. v. Apostle (In Re Apostle) · filed 2012-03-16(a)(2)(A)

Because the Aumaughers did not actually rely on Apostle’s misstatement, the court need not consider whether their reliance was “justifiable.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the alleged fraud to occur when the debtor obtains the money, property, or services giving rise to the debt.

Aslakson v. Freese (In re Freese) · filed 2012-04-18(a)(2)(A)

To sustain a claim that money or property was “obtained by” fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A), Aslakson must show that the alleged fraudulent conduct occurred at the inception of the debt, i.e., Debtor committed a fraudulent act to induce Aslakson to part with his money, property or services.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive for a debt based on a false representation to be excepted from discharge.

Morrison v. Mergen (In re Mergen) · filed 2012-05-01(a)(2)(A)

The Morrisons cannot prevail under § 523(a)(2)(A) because identical issues were litigated in state court and the jury found that the debtor lacked the requisite intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through false representations or actual fraud nondischargeable.

Hancock Bank v. Harper (In re Harper) · filed 2012-07-18(a)(2)(A)

Harper’s own admissions proved that the Contract was obtained through false pretense/false representation and actual fraud. Accordingly, the Court finds that Hancock Bank sustained its burden to prove that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when prior findings establish the elements of fraud, including justifiable reliance.

Dunn v. Dunn (In re Dunn) · filed 2012-06-07(a)(2)(A)

In light of the state court’s findings, this Court finds that the state court action determined that Mr. Dunn justifiably relied on Lynn Dunn’s misrepresentations. Therefore, the Court finds that the previous state court action determined the factual issues related to dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), and that Lynn Dunn is collaterally estopped from denying that the judgment entered by the state court is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when the creditor establishes the debtor’s intent to deceive and actual, justifiable reliance.

Kapetanakis v. First National Insurance Co. of America (In Re Kapetanakis) · filed 2012-06-12(a)(2)(A)

As we are satisfied that First National has established the reliance and intent prongs of § 523(a)(2)(A), Kapetanakis’s debt to First National is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt resulting from actual fraud, including interest on the resulting loss.

Koller v. Hoffmann (In re Hoffmann) · filed 2012-06-13(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons stated above, I conclude that Roller met his burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Hoffmann took advantage of the Rollers’ inexperience and trusting nature to induce them to enter into a home sale transaction that left the Rollers’ with no recourse in the event of a default under the guise of providing recourse. The defendant’s dishonest conduct justifies excepting from discharge the debt plus any resulting interest.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an indemnity debt from discharge when no money or property was obtained by fraud.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. McCarthy (In re McCarthy) · filed 2012-06-14(a)(2)(A)

Because the alleged debt which Stewart seeks to be held nondischargeable is not a debt “obtained by” fraud, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)(1), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056, summary judgment in favor of Mr. McCarthy will enter on count I of the complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming a loan was obtained by false representation to prove the debtor lacked the intent to repay when taking the loan.

Oppenheimer & Co. v. Ricker (In re Ricker) · filed 2012-07-19(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons stated above, I find that Oppenheimer has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time he signed the Oppenheimer Note, the Debtor knowingly made a false representation regarding his subjective intent either to remain employed at the firm for five (5) years, or to repay the unforgiven loan balance. Therefore, the Debtor’s $349,652.00 debt to Oppenheimer is dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove the debtor’s intent by a preponderance of the evidence to establish false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Gaussa v. Crawford (In re Crawford) · filed 2012-07-26(a)(2)(A)

With the legal standard in mind, the Court, noting the heavy burden of proving intent and that exceptions to discharge are construed liberally in favor of the debtor, finds that Plaintiff failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in proving the intent requirements for false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debt for funds obtained through the debtor’s false representations from discharge.

Heide v. Juve (In re Juve) · filed 2012-09-28(a)(2)(A)

David Juve’s debt to David Heide, in the amount of $350,490, arising out of funds obtained from Heide based upon representations made by Juve to Heide, is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge for a material omission in a business transaction when the debtor had a duty to disclose the fact.

In re: Joseph H. Parks and Tiffany M. Parks · filed 2012-08-07(a)(2)(A)

Based on that standard, the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the Debtor owed a duty to Angelus to disclose facts material to the business transactions between them, including the fact that Lang owned the Lang Lots.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires subjective intent to deceive; negligence alone does not satisfy its scienter element.

DSC National Properties, LLC v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 2012-08-15(a)(2)(A)

A breach of such a duty does not necessarily implicate knowledge of the falsity of the representation or an intent to deceive, however, and thus does not satisfy the scienter element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains a loan through an intentionally false representation that causes injury to a creditor who actually and justifiably relies on it.

Guion v. Sims (In re Sims) · filed 2012-08-27(a)(2)(A)

The elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied. Sims made false representations for the purposes of obtaining loans, and the representations were intended to deceive the Plaintiffs. Additionally, the Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on Sims’s false representations and sustained injuries as a result. Thus, the Court alternatively concludes, on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, that Sims’s debts to the Plaintiffs are excepted from discharge.

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

Day Care-Sam Furr, LLC v. Ross (In re Ross) · filed 2012-09-11(a)(2)(A)

Under Section 523(a)(2)(A), a debtor’s debts for money obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” are not dischargeable as a result of his bankruptcy. ... Thus, pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiffs’ claims should not be discharged.

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

In the Paint, LLC v. Archibald (In re Archibald) · filed 2012-09-28(a)(2)(A)

A failure to establish any one of these elements is fatal to the creditor’s claim. Based on the Factual Findings set forth above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of the requisite § 523(a)(2)(A) elements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through a knowingly created false pretense on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Old Republic National Title Insurance v. Levasseur (In re Levasseur) · filed 2012-10-29(a)(2)(A)

Given that she knew of the misunderstanding, her demand for funds in combination with her failure to disclose the infirmity in her demand amounted to a false pretense. ... Its judgment against Levasseur is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when credit was obtained through a promise made without intent to perform.

Zutrau v. Zutrau (In re Zutrau) · filed 2012-11-13(a)(2)(A)

As so amended, the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted under § 523(a)(2)(A) for statements of intent to execute and record mortgages on the Brookline Property.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation, assessed in light of the creditor’s own knowledge and experience.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Roberts-Dude (In re Roberts-Dude) · filed 2012-12-28(a)(2)(A)

If such investigation— again in light of this particular Plaintiffs qualities, characteristics, and knowledge— would have uncovered facts showing the Defendant’s statement to be false, the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on the Defendant’s misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from money obtained through fraudulent representations.

Limberger v. Cleary (In re Cleary) · filed 2013-02-28(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that Mr. Cleary’s fraudulent procurement of ‘deposit’ money from SunTrust by falsely representing that the same was needed as a condition to purchasing specific construction materials, but which money was neither needed nor used for the purposes represented, and which money was charged against the Limbergers’ construction loan, supplies a clear and convincing basis for declaring non-dischargeable the debts arising from those transactions and for that reason, excepting them from the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt based on a false representation from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on a fraudulent representation made when the debt was created.

Heide v. Juve (In re Juve) · filed 2013-04-18(a)(2)(A)

The record does not support a finding that the $300,000 loan under the modified oral agreement was made in reliance on a fraudulent representation Debtor made concurrently with the creation of the debt. Thus, that portion of Heide’s claim cannot be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), and we must reverse the bankruptcy court to that extent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts for money obtained by actual fraud from discharge even without a misrepresentation, but constructive fraud does not qualify.

Diamond v. Vickery (In re Vickery) · filed 2013-03-13(a)(2)(A)

In order to give full effect to the plain meaning of the disjunctive “or” in § 523(a)(2)(A), we conclude that “actual fraud” is an independent basis for nondischargeability under that subsection.

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

Santa Ana Unified School District v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery) · filed 2013-03-28(a)(2)(A)

Based on the undisputed facts each of the following § 523(a)(2)(A) elements have been satisfied by School District. They will be addressed in order: (1) the debtor made a false representation with intent to deceive; (2) reliance on the false representation; (3) the creditor’s reliance was justifiable; and (4) resulting damages to the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive for a debt arising from fraudulent nondisclosure; reckless disregard alone does not establish that intent.

Huskey v. Tolman (In re Tolman) · filed 2013-03-29(a)(2)(A)

To be sure, a reckless indifference or disregard of the truth may be probative of intent, but it does not alone equate to fraudulent intent. And the Court concludes that the totality of the facts and circumstances proven at trial do not preponderate in favor of finding Debtor intended to deceive Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to obtain money through the fraud; living with a spouse who sold her solely owned home does not alone satisfy that requirement.

Smith v. Davenport (In re Davenport) · filed 2013-05-02(a)(2)(A)

There is no evidence as to what was done with the money thereafter. Thus, in this Court’s view, Mrs. Davenport is the only party who “obtained money,” as that statutory phrase has been interpreted, from the misrepresentation that led to the sale of her home.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor knowingly conceals a material fact to obtain money, the creditor justifiably relies on the omission, and the omission causes the creditor's loss.

United States v. Pipkin (In re Pipkin) · filed 2013-05-24(a)(2)(A)

The evidence here meets the test required by law in that the Debtor, by failing to notify SSA of his employment, made a false misrepresentation with the knowledge of its falsity and he did it deliberately for the purpose of deceiving the Plaintiff so he could continue to draw the social security benefits. The testimony was that the SSA relies on recipients reporting when employment starts because it is impossible with the existing manpower to monitor each case; therefore, the government justifiably relied on the failure to report the employment. Finally, the failure to report the employment proximately caused the Plaintiff to overpay the Debtor which resulted in the Plaintiffs damage.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats material omissions used to obtain credit as false pretenses and attributes another person’s fraud to a debtor who knowingly participates in the scheme.

Cordell v. Sturgeon (In re Sturgeon) · filed 2013-05-14(a)(2)(A)

The Debt- or’s and David’s failure to inform the Bank about the missing cattle during the time S & D was obtaining new loans and procuring the Bank’s consent to its use of sale proceeds constitutes false pretenses in the form of material omissions. Further, David’s misrepresentations and material omissions can be attributed to the Debtor because he was an active, willing, and knowing participant in the fraudulent scheme.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on breach of contract or negligence alone.

Sims v. Roggasch (In re Roggasch) · filed 2013-06-12(a)(2)(A)

The theories of breach of contract or negligence alone, are not a basis for finding a debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor who shows justifiable reliance satisfies that element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Roberts-Dude · filed 2013-07-11(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the undisputed facts on the record demonstrate that Stewart Title satisfied the justifiable reliance element of a claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly makes false representations to deceive a creditor, the creditor justifiably relies on them, and the creditor suffers a loss as a proximate result.

In re: Andrew Francis and Anne Frances Francis · filed 2013-07-12(a)(2)(A)

To except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor must show: the debtor made representations that at the time the debtor knew to be false, the debtor made the representations with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor, the creditor justifiably relied on the representations, and the creditor sustained losses as a proximate result. ... As the doctrine of issue preclusion was properly applied to Andrew, the elements to declare a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) have been shown and are not subject to material dispute.