11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to allege that the debtor personally obtained money or property or benefited from the fraud.

First American Title Insurance v. Speisman (In re Speisman) · filed 2013-07-19(a)(2)(A)

It was unnecessary, then, for First American to allege that Speisman obtained money or property from his fraud or even that he benefitted directly or indirectly.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) do not except a judgment debt from discharge when the debtor did not engage in misrepresentation or fraud.

Kaur v. Kaur (In Re Kaur) · filed 2013-08-05(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Davinder Kaur did not engage in misrepresentation or fraud, and therefore properly concluded that the obligation arising from a state court judgment was dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debtor lacked intent to repay when making a promise to repay for that promise to constitute fraud.

In re Porter · filed 2013-08-16(a)(2)(A)

Thus, in order for this to constitute a fraud, HSP must show that at the time the PMA was executed, the Artists had no intention of ever repaying any amount owed to HSP regardless of the circumstance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation, and a genuine factual dispute on reliance prevents summary judgment.

Milam v. Mfets (In re Mets) · filed 2013-08-30(a)(2)(A)

The Complaint seeks a declaration that any debt the Defendant owes the Plaintiffs “as the proximate result of the false representations” is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Compl. at 3. Success on this claim requires the Plaintiffs to show that they justifiably relied on the Defendant’s misrepresentations. ... Because the stipulations and the affidavit show that there is a genuine dispute as to material facts, the Court denies the Motion.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by false representations from discharge.

Pryor v. Rw Investment Company, Inc. · filed 2013-10-23(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not err in granting default judgment to RW Investment for an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the court had ample evidence of Pryor’s false representations, supporting nondischargeability of Pryor’s debt to RW Investment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false representations from discharge.

Pryor v. Itec Financial, Inc. · filed 2013-10-23(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not err in granting default judgment to ITEC for an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the court had ample evidence of Pryor’s false representations, supporting nondischargeability of ... Pryor’s debt to ITEC.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove each element, including a false representation and intent to deceive, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Giminiani v. Cesar · filed 2013-09-17(a)(2)(A)

To warrant an exception from discharge, a creditor must prove each statutorily enumerated element of fraud by a preponderance of the evidence. ... These include “false representation, scienter, reliance, and harm.” ... Like the district court, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Giminiani failed to carry this burden.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor conceals material facts to induce a loan and the creditor suffers a resulting loss.

Kelly v. J.A.W. Land & Trading LLC · filed 2013-09-17(a)(2)(A)

The Kellys’ concealment clearly satisfied the elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) action, and the record contains substantial evidence to support the Bankruptcy Court’s determination.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a material omission as a fraudulent representation when the debtor had a duty to disclose the fact.

In re: Zinoviy Bershadskiy · filed 2013-10-15(a)(2)(A)

An omission of a material fact can constitute a false representation actionable under section 523(a)(2)(A). ... However, there must be a duty to disclose.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that a debtor lacked intent to perform a promise when making it; later nonpayment alone does not establish a false representation.

deBenedictis v. Brady-Zell (In re Brady-Zell) · filed 2013-10-24(a)(2)(A)

Even if Brady-Zell subsequently decided not to pay deBenedictis, this does not establish a false representation at the time she hired deBenedictis.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a representation to be false when made for it to constitute fraud.

Larson ex rel. DML Inc. v. Doody (In re Doody) · filed 2014-01-22(a)(2)(A)

For a representation to rise to the level of fraud for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), it must be false when made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge amounts obtained through vendor invoices that falsely inflate the vendor’s actual charge.

Giglio v. Nisivoccia (In re Nisivoccia) · filed 2013-12-10(a)(2)(A)

However, where the Debtor presented invoices to the Plaintiff on letterheads of third parties which reflected a mark-up from the price BND was actually charged, these amounts are non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance; a creditor’s failure to investigate warning signs about asset ownership can defeat that requirement.

Country Bank v. King (In re King) · filed 2013-12-11(a)(2)(A)

Instead, § 523(a)(2)(A) employs the lesser standard of “justifiable reliance.” ... Therefore, the Bank’s failure to conduct investigation beyond the lease agreements prevents a finding of justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a stockbroker’s disgorgement debt nondischargeable when the broker’s sales conduct is extremely reckless, even without knowingly false statements.

United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bocchino (In re Bocchino) · filed 2013-12-23(a)(2)(A)

While a false representation normally requires a “scienter” such that statements are made with intent to mislead, a less stringent requirement of recklessness may be seen as sufficient to replace scienter in case of stockbroker sales. ... I find that the SEC has met its burden of establishing the nondischargeability of sums assessed as the disgorgement portion of the judgments heretofore entered against Boc-chino in District Court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a dentist’s malpractice debt from discharge based on failure to disclose lapsed insurance when the dentist had no duty to disclose it.

Mendizabal v. Hernandez-Abreu (In re Hernandez-Abreu) · filed 2014-01-10(a)(2)(A)

The physician’s duty to disclose the failure to carry insurance is mandated by Florida statute; the dentist has no similar duty. The Administrative Code does not require Defendant to make a similar disclosure to patients. Without such duty, Defendant, a dentist, committed neither “actual fraud” nor “false pretenses.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a plausible claim that the debtor obtained money, property, services, or credit through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; misappropriation alone is insufficient.

First Assembly of God v. Ping (In re Ping) · filed 2014-03-06(a)(2)(A)

As indicated by the elements listed above, a finding of mere misappropriation, without more, will not result in a determination that the debt should survive Debtors’ discharge. The Complaint, while probably sufficient to state a claim for misappropriation or breach of contract or simple liability, does not allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to investigate a debtor’s promises unless their falsity is apparent.

Falcone v. Ragonese · filed 2014-02-26(a)(2)(A)

Consistent with the rule expressed in Field, the Falcones had no duty to investigate the truth of Mr. Ragonese’s promises, absent a clear manifestation of their falsity.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) leaves a debt dischargeable when the creditor fails to prove actual fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Vien Thao Media v. Thuan Nguyen (In re Thuan Nguyen) · filed 2014-03-05(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff VTM has not established its claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, judgment shall enter in favor of the Defendants on such claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a fraud-based nondischargeability claim to allege facts showing reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentations.

In re: Beatrice Lui · filed 2014-03-07(a)(2)(A)

First, Appellant fails to differentiate between § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) and the justifiable reliance or reasonable reliance standards of those sections. Although counsel argued at the hearing on this matter that Appellant’s fraud claim could only be under § 523(a)(2)(A), even in that case she does not mention facts showing Graber’s reliance on debtor’s misrepresentations at all.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debtor’s subjective intent to repay relevant when the debtor made a separate, specific false material representation.

In re: Dean Bradley v. · filed 2014-03-26(a)(2)(A)

However, Debtor’s subjective intent to repay is not a factor under the § 523(a)(2)(A) Rembert test when there is a separate specific false material misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor falsely represents a present intent to use loan proceeds for a stated purpose.

Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Fields (In re Fields) · filed 2014-03-26(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by treating the misrepresentation as actionable. The statement is either one regarding a present fact (the need and present intent regarding use of funds), or a statement by the Debtor regarding his intended use of the funds in the future when, accepting the findings of the bankruptcy court, the Debtor never intended to use the loan proceeds to make tenant improvements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a debtor’s false statement about the intended use of loan proceeds when the debtor never intended to use them for that purpose.

Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Fields · filed 2014-05-15(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by treating the misrepresentation as actionable. The statement is either one regarding a present fact (the need and present intent regarding use of funds), or a statement by the Debtor regarding his intended use of the funds in the future when, accepting the findings of the bankruptcy court, the Debtor never intended to use the loan proceeds to make tenant improvements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s authorized agent obtains a loan through a material false representation on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Sargis v. Aguilar (In re Aguilar) · filed 2014-05-29(a)(2)(A)

In sum, the Court determines that the Plaintiff has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, all required elements to prevail on his false representation claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Court thus finds that the debt owed to Plaintiff in the amount of $32,994 is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false when made or made it with reckless disregard for the truth; failure to perform a promise alone does not establish fraud.

Ortman v. Reinheimer (In re Reinheimer) · filed 2014-04-03(a)(2)(A)

The LLC’s undertaking under the contract to host the wedding was not fulfilled. However, the failure to subsequently perform a contractual promise of future performance does not automatically cause the promise to be found a false representation as an element of the tort of fraud. Plaintiff must demonstrate that Debtor knew that the promise(s) were false when the representations were made, or that Debtor made the representation with reckless disregard for the truth.

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

Brihn v. Truch (In re Truch) · filed 2014-04-17(a)(2)(A)

Once again, Mr. Brihn’s proofs do not establish that the Truchs acted with the intent and purpose of deceiving him. Because all of the elements of a cause of action must be satisfied, the failure to prove intent means the Rule 52(c) motion must be granted and the cause of action dismissed.

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

Jennings v. Bodrick (In re Bodrick) · filed 2014-04-18(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court finds that Jennings has failed to prove justifiable reliance by a preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, this Court finds that the debt is not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers a material omission when the debtor had a duty to disclose the fact.

Parks v. Angelus Block Co. (In Re Parks) · filed 2014-04-23(a)(2)(A)

Further, this omission is actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A), because Parks owed Angelus a duty to disclose.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor falsely states an intent to repay.

Cai v. Shenzhen Smart-In Industry Co. · filed 2014-04-25(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court rightly concluded that Cai’s statement that he intended to pay for the orders was a sufficient misrepresentation by itself to support a finding of exception from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a lender’s forbearance from accelerating a loan as an extension of credit when the debtor conceals a sale that would have triggered the lender’s right to accelerate.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Timothy D. (In re Timothy D.) · filed 2014-04-30(a)(2)(A)

The Court therefore finds that the sale of the Property triggered legal rights under the existing credit agreement, altering Washington Mutual’s rights thereunder and constituting an extension of credit to the Debtors under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s silence about a material fact induces a creditor to pay money it would not otherwise owe.

United States v. Hall (In re Hall) · filed 2014-05-30(a)(2)(A)

Taken together, it is clear that the Defendant obtained money from SSA through “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Therefore, the Defendant is not entitled to discharge the debt she created through her silence.

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

Henri v. Wheeler (In re Wheeler) · filed 2014-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs have met their burden under § 523(a)(2)(A), and the court finds the $81,057.81 judgment non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when money was obtained through a false representation that induced justifiable reliance and caused damage.

Taylor v. Calise (In re Calise) · filed 2014-07-09(a)(2)(A)

To prove his claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), Taylor must show that Calise’s debt is one for money obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” ... Taylor has proven by a preponderance of the evidence each element of his claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) that the debt owed him by Calise is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats nondisclosure of a material fact as a fraudulent representation when the debtor had a duty to disclose it.

Parks v. Angelus Block Co. · filed 2014-06-06(a)(2)(A)

“[T]he nondisclosure of a material fact in the face of a duty to disclose” constitutes a fraudulent representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from a false representation to a third party that directly causes the creditor’s loss.

Stallworth v. McBride (In re McBride) · filed 2014-06-18(a)(2)(A)

Although the courts usually articulate the test for establishment of a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) as requiring a false statement “to the creditor,” intent to deceive “the creditor,” and reliance by “the creditor” to “the creditor’s” detriment, nothing in the language of the statute requires so narrow a construction.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a creditor’s unilateral decision to forbear from collection actionable unless the debtor induced it with a false representation.

In re: Syed S. Chowdaury · filed 2014-06-30(a)(2)(A)

A creditor’s unilateral decision to forbear is not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A) unless the debtor induced that forbearance by making a false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming fraudulent forbearance to prove it had valuable collection remedies when it forbore.

Hillsman v. Escoto (In re Escoto) · filed 2014-07-03(a)(2)(A)

Where a creditor’s claim under Section 523(a)(2)(B) is based on a forbearance, the creditor must prove that at the time of the forbearance “it had valuable collection remedies.” ... The same requirement applies where a forbearance is obtained through misrepresentation and fraud encompassed by Section 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor's ongoing permission to reuse revolving loan proceeds can be a renewal of credit under § 523(a)(2)(A); a debt obtained through a fraudulent renewal is nondischargeable.

Heide v. Juve (In Re Juve) · filed 2014-07-31(a)(2)(A)

The primary question before us is whether the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that Juve's reuse of loan funds after 2004 constituted an "extension [or] renewal . . . of credit" under §523(a)(2)(A). ... Between 2004 and 2009, Juve used and reused the funds while Heide did not demand repayment. Failure to use the magic words "renewal of credit" to describe the agreement is not dispositive. In light of the record evidence, we hold that the bankruptcy court's factual determination is plausible and a "permissible view[ ] of the evidence;" therefore, it did not clearly err.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the debt incurred through the debtor’s fraud from discharge.

Chiaro v. Rathel (In re Rathel) · filed 2014-08-19(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs have established the indebtedness owed to them by Defendant was incurred by Defendant through fraud. The indebtedness owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a promise as a false representation only if the debtor made it without intending to keep it.

Parkway Bank & Trust v. Casali (In re Casali) · filed 2014-08-29(a)(2)(A)

A promise constitutes a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A) only if the debtor made the promise without an intention of ever keeping it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor obtained money through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development v. Ortiz (In re Ortiz) · filed 2014-08-22(a)(2)(A)

The Department did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the debt was obtained through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to prove a deceptive false representation, justified reliance, and a resulting loss.

Escorihuela v. Faidengold · filed 2014-08-19(a)(2)(A)

To prove that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must show that “(1) the debtor made a false representation to deceive the creditor, (2) the creditor relied on the misrepresentation, (3) the reliance was justified, and (4) the creditor sustained a loss as a result of the misrepresentation.” In re Bilzerian, 153 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th ... Cir. 1998).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor makes a promise with the intent not to keep it.

Morales v. Giddens (In re Giddens) · filed 2014-08-05(a)(2)(A)

Although promises regarding a future fact are not generally actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A), see In re Alomari, 486 B.R. 904, 911-12 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2013), they will support a cause of action if the promise was made “with the intent not to keep it.” Perlman v. Zell, 185 F.3d 850, 852 (7th Cir.1999).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly makes a false representation with intent to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and that reliance causes damage.

In re: Jennifer Chan · filed 2014-10-08(a)(2)(A)

We, thus, conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the debt owed to DRM was excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts from discharge when a debtor’s knowing false representations or omissions induce a creditor to extend credit or issue insurance coverage.

Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. v. Wolf (In re Wolf) · filed 2014-10-15(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that ATG has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Wolf, individually or through W.W. Funding, knowingly made false representations or omissions which he knew or should have known would induce Plaza Bank to make the loan to W.W. Funding and induce ATG to issue both the owner and mortgagee title insurance policies, which infers an intent to deceive under section 523(a)(2)(A), see Jairath, 259 B.R. at 315, and the Debtor’s debt on the Plaza Bank Loan and the ATG indemnification is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge, including accrued and accruing interest, when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s intentionally false promises.

Abramov v. Movshovich (In re Movshovich) · filed 2014-10-23(a)(2)(A)

I conclude that Abramov has established cause to except these amounts, totaling $225,000, plus accrued and accruing interest, from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s fraud enables a third party to obtain credit from a creditor and gives the debtor a direct or indirect benefit.

Kovens v. Goodwich (In re Goodwich) · filed 2014-09-16(a)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, in my view Pleasants and Nunnery taken together adopt what is essentially the same approach — that is, a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) if the debtor’s fraud or misrepresentation enabled a third party to obtain money, property, services, or an extension of credit from the creditor, and the debtor obtained thereby some direct or indirect benefit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a fraudulent representation; reliance on an oral promise may be unjustified when a later written agreement does not contain it.

Coble v. Lawrence (In re Lawrence) · filed 2014-09-22(a)(2)(A)

The Court will treat this claim as an action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Any reliance on the Defendant’s representations made during the community presentation would not have been justified in light of the latter written Agreement. ... Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the above claim is granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive; a failed promise to repay and evidence of later inability to pay do not, by themselves, establish that intent.

Merritt v. Layne (In re Layne) · filed 2014-09-22(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs evidence does not prove fraudulent intent. A failed promise to repay is the basis for every loan default. Evidence of a bankrupt debtor’s inability to pay a pre-petition debt based on information disclosed on his petition and schedules is not enough, by itself, for the Court to conclude there was intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove fraudulent intent by a preponderance of the evidence to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

DeMarco Roofing, Inc. v. Coyle (In re Coyle) · filed 2014-10-01(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court concludes Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Coyle had intent to defraud Plaintiffs. Thus, there is no basis for the Alleged Debt to be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts unemployment-benefit overpayments from discharge when the debtor knowingly misrepresents employment and the agency justifiably relies on that misrepresentation.

Ohio Department of Job & Family Services v. Urbina (In re Urbina) · filed 2014-10-08(a)(2)(A)

Here, Plaintiff, through it’s complaint, exhibits, and affidavits, has adequately proven that Defendant obtained unemployment overpay-ments through a material misrepresentation that he knew to be false at the time it was made. ... Here, Plaintiff has established that Defendant has incurred a debt to it that is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes later loan advances nondischargeable when debtors conceal mortgages on property the creditor relies on for repayment and the creditor justifiably relies on that omission.

Gross v. Osborne (In re Osborne) · filed 2014-10-31(a)(2)(A)

The Osbornes, on the other hand, were deceitful in not telling Gross they had pledged the Property as collateral to third parties, Gross reasonably relied on the false representation/false pretenses, and was damaged by all amount he loaned after June 26, 2009, i.e. $66,600. Gross met his burden of proof for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) to this extent.

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

Keeley v. Grider · filed 2014-11-03(a)(2)(A)

A claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) requires a showing that: (1) the debtor obtained money through a material misrepresentation that the debtor knew was false at the time 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 loss.

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

Ziegler v. Kline (In re Kline) · filed 2014-11-20(a)(2)(A)

To obtain relief under Section 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiff must prove his claim of misrepresentation by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Without reviewing the other four elements of misrepresentation/fraud, Plaintiff failed to present any proof whatsoever about the second element. I heard or saw nothing that hinted that Debtor knew her statements about not discharging Plaintiffs fees in a later bankruptcy were false in December 2012.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on the particular false representation or omission; unrelated shortcomings in a creditor’s due diligence do not defeat that reliance.

Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Strauss (In re Strauss) · filed 2014-12-22(a)(2)(A)

More important, the adequacy of BOCT’s due diligence is irrelevant. Justifiable reliance for purposes of section 523(a)(2)(A) means justifiable reliance on the particular representation or omission at issue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted the debtor’s fraud debt from discharge in this case.

J. Thompson Investments, LLC v. Soderstrom (In re Soderstrom) · filed 2015-01-22(a)(2)(A)

2. The debt due by the Defendant, Roger W. Soderstrom, to the Plaintiffs, J. Thompson Investments, LLC and Joan Thompson, is not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt based on a false representation from discharge unless the creditor proves intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and proximate causation.

Vista Manufactured Home Community, L.P. v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez) · filed 2015-02-04(a)(2)(A)

Even though the Judgment Vista obtained against Mr. Rodriguez establishes that he made a false representation of ownership of Gonzales Landscaping to Vista and that Vista believed Mr. Rodriguez was the owner of the business when it entered into the Contract, the surrounding facts and circumstances fall short of establishing that Mr. Rodriguez had the subjective intent to deceive Vista, that Vista justifiably relied on Mr. Rodriguez’s false representation, or that the false representation of ownership proximately caused Vista’s damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted the debtor’s Michigan common-law fraud debt from discharge.

General Retirement System v. Dixon (In re Dixon) · filed 2015-02-10(a)(2)(A)

PGERS has shown based on the undisputed material facts that the Debtor is liable to PGERS for fraud under Michigan common law and that the claim is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of a debt caused by false pretenses on which a creditor justifiably relied.

Truban v. Draise (In re Draise) · filed 2015-01-29(a)(2)(A)

However, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, including credibility assessments, the Court finds and concludes that the Defendant is barred by the Code from discharging her obligations, based upon false pretenses (§ 523(a)(2)(A)).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts created by false representations, false pretenses, or actual fraud when the creditor proves the exception by a preponderance of the evidence.

Haugland v. Eisenstein (In re Eisenstein) · filed 2015-02-11(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor made a false representation, committed both a false pretense and actual fraud. The debts owed to the Plaintiffs are not dischargeable under both 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance to except a debt procured by fraud from discharge.

Andrews v. McCarron · filed 2015-02-11(a)(2)(A)

This instruction fully comports with the standard of justifiable reliance required to prove common law fraud and thus satisfies that element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justified reliance on a debtor’s false representation to except a fraud debt from discharge.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Roberts-Dude (In Re Roberts-Dude) · filed 2015-02-11(a)(2)(A)

The record before us plainly supports the conclusion that Stewart Title satisfied the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted the judgment debt from discharge in this case.

Cadillac v. Haras (In re Haras) · filed 2015-03-09(a)(2)(A)

For the above reasons, I conclude that R.C. Olsen has established cause to except the judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a promise the debtor made without intending to perform.

Thomas v. Rice (In re Rice) · filed 2015-02-20(a)(2)(A)

But K. Rice’s statement of her intentions to transfer title to the Mobile Home free of liens falls within the ambit of § 523(a)(2)(A) because she had no intention of performing as promised under the oral lease purchase agreement and the later Sales Contract.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging actual fraud to prove that fraud occurred, the debtor intended to defraud, and the fraud created the debt.

Parkway Bank & Trust v. Casali (In re Casali) · filed 2015-03-12(a)(2)(A)

Actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) requires the plaintiff to prove that (1) a fraud occurred, (2) the debtor intended to defraud, and (3) the fraud created the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes an entire debt nondischargeable when a debtor fraudulently induces a creditor to forbear collection of overdue amounts.

Larpar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (In re Appling) · filed 2015-03-10(a)(2)(A)

As a result of Debtor’s misrepresentations, Plaintiff agreed to continue to represent Debtor and to not withdraw or attempt collection of the fees. Thus, Plaintiff gave Debtor an extension with respect to the fees and costs then due. This made the entire debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through a false representation of the debtor’s intended use of loan proceeds, including interest and costs assessed on that debt.

Knappik v. Dewhurst (In re Dewhurst) · filed 2015-03-20(a)(2)(A)

As to each, Dewhurst obtained the advance on the basis of a false representation of his intent with respect to the monies being advanced, that they would be used solely for the Project. Therefore, the resulting debt for the principal amount of $120,000 and all interest and costs assessed on that portion of the state judgment debt are excepted from any discharge that may enter in this case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s false representation, rather than reasonable reliance.

Zions First National Bank v. Taylor (In re Taylor) · filed 2015-03-26(a)(2)(A)

The standard of reliance required under § 523(a)(2)(A) is not reasonable reliance, but the less demanding standard of justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor receives money through a company he controls, even if he later spends it on the creditor’s behalf.

Leonard v. RDLG, LLC · filed 2015-04-06(a)(2)(A)

It is undisputed that the appellant, through RPM, received $40,000.00 directly from RDLG as a result of appellant’s fraudulent acts. The appellant was in direct control of these funds, and he had ownership rights to the money. It does not matter that the appellant ultimately expended these funds on RDLG’s behalf. The bankruptcy court did not err.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains a loan by concealing material facts with intent to deceive the lender.

Landmark Credit Union v. Reichartz (In re Reichartz) · filed 2015-04-20(a)(2)(A)

Contrary to the Debtors’ arguments, under McClellan, Landmark is not required to prove that it justifiably relied on the Debtors’ misrepresentations in the loan documents. Instead, it must show that the Debtors intended to deceive Landmark. That intent is apparent in the Debtors’ failure to disclose material facts including the very purpose of the loans.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes benefit overpayments nondischargeable when a debtor obtains them through false pretenses, the agency justifiably relies on the debtor, and that reliance causes a loss.

United States v. Drummond (In re Drummond) · filed 2015-04-29(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that SSA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor obtained $18,568.00 from SSA under false pretenses with the intent to deceive SSA, that SSA justifiably relied on the debtor to provide her employment information, and that SSA sustained a loss of $18,568.00 as the proximate result of the debtor’s failure to notify SSA. The Court grants SSA’s complaint and finds that the debtor’s obligation to repay SSA $18,568.00 is non-dischargeable in the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence that the debtor knew or believed a representation was false; negligence and implied fraud do not suffice to except a debt from discharge.

Phillips 66 Co. v. Miltenberger (In re Miltenberger) · filed 2015-05-08(a)(2)(A)

It is well-established that a finding of reckless disregard for the truth in relation to dischargeability should be very narrowly interpreted, and such a finding must be based on evidence of the debtor’s knowledge or belief that a matter is not what he represents it to be. Implied fraud is not sufficient. The record does not support a finding that the Debt should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2).

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

Gotcher v. Duffie (In re Duffie) · filed 2015-06-03(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs have established that Duffie knowingly made false representation's with the intent of deceiving Plaintiffs. ... Next, Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Duf-fle’s representation that she would transfer a 10% ownership interest in the Theaters to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result of Duffle’s failure to transfer a 10% ownership interest in the Theaters to Plaintiffs, as set forth in the Co-Ownership Agreement. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in this matter under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show a knowingly false representation made to deceive the creditor, reliance on it, and a resulting loss.

Sharma v. Salcido · filed 2015-06-08(a)(2)(A)

Five elements must be proven in making a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A): (1) that the debtor made representations; (2) that at the time he knew they were false; (3) that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (4) that the creditor relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the misrepresentations having been made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a loan from discharge merely because the debtor promised to repay it and later failed to do so.

Tomey v. Dizinno (In re Dizinno) · filed 2015-06-11(a)(2)(A)

Promising to repay a loan and then not repaying it does not, without more, constitute fraud.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt arising from the debtor’s fraud from discharge even when the creditor was not the direct target of the fraud.

Fox v. Fidelity First Home Mortgage Co. · filed 2015-07-01(a)(2)

Thus, even though Fidelity First was not the target of Mr. Fox’s fraud, pursuant to § 523(a)(2), Mr. Fox is not entitled to discharge of the debt that was incurred due to his fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt incurred through knowing and intentional receipt of a fraudulent conveyance, even without a misrepresentation.

Sauer Incorporated v. Lawson · filed 2015-07-01(a)(2)(A)

We hold that the fraud exception to discharge codified at § 523(a)(2)(A) continues to bar from discharge debts incurred through knowing and intentional receipt of fraudulent conveyances as it has since 1867.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor’s fraud proximately caused the liability.

In re: Kenneth Robert Thorne · filed 2015-07-02(a)(2)(A)

As a result, § 523(a)(2)(A) was not appropriate grounds for the nondischargeability of the $95,417 in disgorged loan payments because Thorne’s fraud did not proximately cause that liability.

A creditor claiming fraudulent forbearance under § 523(a)(2)(A) must prove that its collection remedies lost value during the forbearance period to establish causation and damages.

Northwest Pipe Fittings, Inc. v. Paddock (In re Paddock) · filed 2015-07-13(a)(2)(A)

In short, the creditor proves proximate causation and damages only to the extent it shows that its remedies lost value during the forbearance period.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s scienter requirement can be satisfied by gross recklessness.

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bocchino (In Re Bocchino) · filed 2015-07-23(a)(2)(A)

We conclude that gross recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires more than a broken promise to repay a loan; unrealistic repayment intentions alone do not constitute fraud.

Tomey v. Dizinno (In re Dizinno) · filed 2015-07-31(a)(2)(A)

As discussed in the June 11 Opinion, promising to repay a loan and then not repaying it does not, without more, constitute fraud. Many debtors incur debts with intent to repay them that could be considered unrealistic in hindsight. Unrealistic intentions do not constitute fraud under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; a creditor’s own assumptions about the debtor’s ability to repay do not establish reliance.

Sega Auto Sales, Inc. v. Flores (In re Flores) · filed 2015-08-14(a)(2)(A)

Given “the qualities and characteristics” of the Plaintiff, and under “the circumstances of the particular case,” I find that there was no reliance on the Debtor’s representations.

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

Houston v. Munoz (In re Munoz) · filed 2015-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Here, the Court finds the Houstons have shown neither the requisite intent on the part of Munoz nor justifiable reliance on their own part for a false representation claim. ... IT IS ORDERED the debt of the Defendant to the Plaintiffs is hereby found to be dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from intentional false representations from discharge, and § 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement.

Munoz v. Boyard (In re Boyard) · filed 2015-09-24(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s failure to disclose a material fact he had a duty to disclose as an actionable false representation.

Barnes v. Roberts (In re Roberts) · filed 2015-09-09(a)(2)(A)

Roberts silence and failure to disclose this material fact constitutes a false representation 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 on the debtor’s representation.

Botek v. Gay (In re Gay) · filed 2015-09-14(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, as to Debtor’s statements about her prior rental history, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he justifiably relied on the information in the Application.

A creditor’s negligent failure to investigate does not defeat a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim based on an intentional misrepresentation.

Long v. Yoder (In re Long) · filed 2015-09-18(a)(2)(A)

Even assuming Yoder was somehow negligent in his due diligence, however, that would not be a defense to Long’s intentional misrepresentations, as the standard under section 523(a)(2)(A) is based on the common law rule that a victim’s contributory negligence is not a defense to an intentional tort.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt for property obtained through a knowingly false representation.

Kelley v. Ahern · filed 2015-11-23(a)(2)(A)

The elements of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(l)(d) include “intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false,” so a judgment under § 943.20(l)(d) necessarily includes a finding that Ahern made a “false representation” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) excepts debts obtained through fraudulent representations from discharge; subsection (A) requires justifiable reliance, while subsection (B) requires reasonable reliance on a materially false written statement.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Carter (In re Carter) · filed 2015-09-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Tower Credit proved that Martin and Ora Carters’ debt to it is nondischargeable under both 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s deliberate concealment of material information as a willful misrepresentation that can make a debt nondischargeable.

Harry Kaufmann Motorcars, Inc. v. Benton (In re Benton) · filed 2015-10-20(a)(2)(A)

Ms. Benton’s calculated concealment of such information constitutes a willful misrepresentation under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on a debtor’s silence about a pending bankruptcy when the debtor had no duty to disclose it.

Keefe Law Firm v. Days (In re Days) · filed 2015-10-26(a)(2)(A)

There is no dispute that Debtor did not inform Keefe Law of her pending Chapter 13 case, however, there is no basis for this Court to conclude that Debtor had an affirmative duty to Keefe Law to volunteer this information.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a fraud claim to survive dismissal when the creditor alleges that the debtor promised repayment to induce a loan while intending to deceive the creditor and never to repay the balance.

Howard v. Howard (In re Howard) · filed 2015-11-23(a)(2)(A)

Howard further alleges that Debtor entered into this oral agreement to deceive him, that she knew he was relying on her promises to repay him from the loan proceeds and that she never intended to repay the balance of the funds she borrowed. This second set of allegations is sufficient to withstand Debtor’s Motion to Dismiss. Therefore the Motion to Dismiss as to Count III will be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a deceptive statement or omission and intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge based on false pretenses or false representation.

Muhammad v. Reed (In re Reed) · filed 2015-12-30(a)(2)(A)

Nothing offered by the Plaintiff is sufficient for the court to conclude that the Debtor even made a false representation or omission of fact, nor that he had the required intent to deceive because he was making nominal payments to A & H while he was receiving fast track reimbursements from insurance companies. ... Therefore, the court is forced to conclude that the Debtor’s debt should not be deemed nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) based on false pretenses or false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains a down payment by falsely implying that he can perform the promised work.

Coleman v. Fields (In re Fields) · filed 2016-01-20(a)(2)(A)

The debtor executed the Contract and obtained the $35,000 down payment by false pretenses; accordingly, this debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance to except a debt based on false representations or false pretenses from discharge.

Muhammad v. Sneed (In re Sneed) · filed 2015-12-30(a)(2)(A)

The court concludes that TIB did not justifiably rely on those misrepresentations or omissions of fact, and that the resulting debts do not satisfy this element of the tests under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), errors in a contractor’s later billing statement do not show that the contractor entered the agreement without intending to perform or misrepresented qualifications when soliciting the work.

Sullivan v. Ratz · filed 2016-01-27(a)(2)(A)

Errors in this document could not establish that Ratz executed the agreement never intending to perform the work, or that he misrepresented his qualifications when soliciting the work.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove both actual and justifiable reliance.

Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Casali (In re Casali) · filed 2016-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Parkway has also failed to establish that its reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was justifiable. In establishing reliance under § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor must prove both actual and justifiable reliance on the false statement or omission.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat failure to fulfill a contract, by itself, as a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Friedman v. Campbell (In re Campbell) · filed 2016-02-05(a)(2)(A)

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

Section 523(a)(2) excepts unemployment benefits from discharge only when they were obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation.

Indiana ex rel. Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Oji Afiba Washington (In re Oji Afiba Washington) · filed 2016-02-05(a)(2)

While that statement may not affect the department’s. ability to recover any overpayments as a matter of non-bankruptcy law, it certainly does affect the department’s rights in bankruptcy because it is only the fraudulently obtained benefits that can be declared non-dis-chargeable. Any liability for benefits improperly paid for reasons other than fraudulent misrepresentation is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the debtor obtain money, property, services, or credit through fraud; misconduct after the debt was incurred does not qualify.

Symonies v. Sobol (In re Sobol) · filed 2016-02-08(a)(2)(A)

I will dismiss with prejudice the § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action for failure to state a plausible claim. Any additional amendment would be futile because, even viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable to Symonies, the alleged misconduct by Sobol occurred after the debt was incurred, not when the debt was obtained, which is a prerequisite to state a plausible claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

A § 523(a)(2) fraud claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when the debtor’s intent remains genuinely disputed.

Homeland Group, LLC v. Lawson (In re Credo-Lawson) · filed 2016-02-26(a)(2)

Homeland asserts the evidence would support a finding of false representation, false pretenses or actual fraud. Without making any findings of fact, the evidence before the Court creates an issue of fact as to the Defendant’s intent and only a trial on the -merits can resolve that issue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor indirectly obtains a financial benefit, such as a right to commissions, through the fraud.

Leonard v. RDLG, LLC (In Re Leonard) · filed 2016-03-28(a)(2)(A)

Even the stricter reading of subsection (a)(2)(A) does not rigidly require plaintiffs to prove the direct transfer of money from a creditor to a debtor. It is sufficient to “show that the debtor . . . indirectly obtained some tangible or intangible financial benefit as a result of his misrepresentation.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves that it was obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Wang v. Guo (In re Guo) · filed 2016-03-29(a)(2)(A)

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the debt falls within the § 523(a)(2)(A) exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by fraud or false pretenses from discharge.

Smith v. Morse (In re Morse) · filed 2016-05-24(a)(2)(A)

The court finds $100,000 of the debt owed to Smith by Morse was obtained by fraud and false pretenses and is not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a creditor actually and justifiably relies on the debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions.

Gasunas v. Yotis (In re Yotis) · filed 2016-03-29(a)(2)(A)

In addition, Gasunas has met his burden to show that he actually and justifiably relied on Yotis’s misrepresentations and omissions, and therefore also met the standard for false pretenses and misrepresentations pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). Yotis made, with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresentations of fact to induce Gasunas to loan the money subject to the state court Judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the full amount of a debt obtained by false pretenses.

Sanders v. Crespin (In re Crespin) · filed 2016-06-15(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the full amount of the Default Judgment is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) as a debt obtained by false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for fraudulent omission of material property defects from discharge when the creditor proves the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Buckley v. Bartenwerfer (In re Bartenwerfer) · filed 2016-04-01(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court finds that Mr. Buckley has satisfied his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Bartenwerfers’s debt to Mr. Buckley with respect to the non-disclosure of water leaks, window conditions, permits, and the fire escape is nondis-chargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debtor’s fraud liability for loan advances induced by intentional misrepresentations or material omissions.

Jadallah v. Carroll (In re Carroll) · filed 2016-04-14(a)(2)(A)

Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court holds that Mr. Jadallah has met his burden of establishing that Mr. Carroll’s liability for fraud related to the March 7, May 14, May 28, and August 9 advances is nondis-chargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove that the debtor intended to deceive it through a false representation.

Bank of Fayette County v. Hampton (In re Hampton) · filed 2016-04-20(a)(2)(A)

Even if the Debtor’s acquiescence in the use of the Haversham Way address on the Buyer’s Order and his silence regarding the use of the Havers-ham Way address on the Loan Documents at closing were false representations under the theories of false representation or false pretense, the Bank must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor had a subjective intent in making the misrepresentations to deceive the Bank. The Court finds that the Bank failed to meet its burden of proving intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of deception to except a debt for false representation, false pretenses, or actual fraud from discharge.

Veazey v. Sutton (In re Sutton) · filed 2016-06-02(a)(2)(A)

Veazey did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sutton intended to deceive anyone, either expressly or impliedly. ... Therefore, the Court concludes the debt Sutton owes to Veazey is not non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent conduct to occur before the debtor obtains the money and to induce the creditor to act.

Hopper v. Lewis (In re Lewis) · filed 2016-04-25(a)(2)(A)

To be actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A), the prescribed conduct must have occurred before the debtor obtains the money. In other words, the prescribed conduct must induce the creditor to act.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s “actual fraud” exception includes fraudulent conveyance schemes even when they involve no false representation.

Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz · filed 2016-05-16(a)(2)(A)

The term “actual fraud” in §523(a)(2)(A) encompasses forms of fraud, like fraudulent conveyance schemes, that can be effected without a false representation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it justifiably relied on the debtor’s knowingly false representation and suffered a loss as a result.

Hernandez v. General Mills Federal Credit Union (In re Hernandez) · filed 2016-06-13(a)(2)(A)

In conclusion, the Court finds no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that the Credit Union established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Hernandez’s debt to the Credit Union was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a forged signature to satisfy the false representation element of the discharge exception.

Takazawa v. Higashi (In re Higashi) · filed 2016-06-07(a)(2)(A)

Forgery constitutes a false representation (or a false pretense). ... Forging a signature of another person can satisfy the first ele-, ment of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual intent to defraud; a complaint that does not allege that intent cannot support a default judgment declaring the debt nondischargeable.

Indiana ex rel. Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Jewell (In re Jewell) · filed 2016-06-30(a)(2)(A)

The essence of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) is the intent to deceive. ... Since there are no facts and no allegations indicating the defendant acted with the required intent to deceive, Plaintiffs motion for default judgment.is DENIED.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a false representation made with intent to deceive, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; factual disputes about the debtor’s knowledge and intent preclude summary judgment on those claims.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sutton (In re Sutton) · filed 2016-07-01(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

For purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), this calls into question both the falsity of Defendant’s representation and her intent to deceive Plaintiff. For purposes of § 523(a)(6), the narrative calls into question Defendant’s intent to cause injury and whether she acted with malice. The facts deemed admitted plus the additional facts of Defendant’s narrative create a factual issue as to the falsity of Defendant’s representation and her intent. Further, even if the narrative is not considered, the undisputed material facts do not establish Defendant’s knowledge at the time she reported the cashier’s checks missing or her intent. Consequently, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and its motion for summary judgment must be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits and related interest from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s intentional false representations.

Kansas ex rel. Gordon v. Oliver (In re Oliver) · filed 2016-08-04(a)(2)(A)

Given the Court’s analysis and for the reasons stated above, $10,534.72 of KDoL’s claim (and any accruing interest) will be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) if and when Debtor receives his discharge in this case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentation for the resulting debt to be excepted from discharge.

Soderstrom v. J. Thompson Investments, LLC · filed 2016-07-06(a)(2)(A)

Although it would have been more prudent for Thompson to inquire further before making the investment, she was justified in relying upon Soderstrom’s misrepresentation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from fraud established by a debtor’s guilty plea from discharge, even if the amount remains to be determined.

Insight Technology, Inc. v. Williams (In re Williams) · filed 2016-07-08(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, as a matter of law, the Guilty Plea collaterally estops Defendant from relitigating the issue of Defendant’s fraud. As a result, any debts arising from the fraudulent activity detailed in the Defendant’s Guilty Plea are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a knowingly false or grossly reckless misrepresentation; a misunderstanding alone does not establish fraud.

Halpin v. Hardy (In re Hardy) · filed 2016-07-08(a)(2)(A)

Considering their testimony as a whole, and the evidence introduced into the record, the more reasonable conclusion to draw from the conflicting testimony and different interpretations is that there was a miscommunication about the high definition capabilities of the ReVox E-650, rather than an intentional or grossly reckless misrepresentation that rises to the level of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor did not know a representation was false and lacked intent to deceive the creditor.

Holton v. Zaidel (In re Zaidel) · filed 2016-07-14(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the Zaidels did not know that they made a false representation and lacked an intent to deceive Ms. Holton and, therefore, holds that their alleged debt to Ms. Holton is dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging false representations or deceitful conduct to prove that the conduct was false or deceitful.

In re: Donald Gary Shannon and Mai Doan Shannon · filed 2016-07-22(a)(2)(A)

We find no error with the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the above-described representations and conduct are not false or deceitful and, thus, are insufficient to support the first element of the Cardenases’ § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from fraud from discharge when a preclusive state court judgment establishes the fraud.

Broadway Warehouse Co. v. Schmitt (In re Schmitt) · filed 2016-08-09(a)(2)(A)

The Court also sustains the Plaintiffs Cause of Action as to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A) fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of a false representation; allegations of a promise the debtor never agreed to do not establish a nondischargeable debt.

Joudeh v. Truppa (In re Truppa) · filed 2016-08-12(a)(2)(A)

Defendant has satisfied his burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff has not set forth specific facts and evidence showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge based on actual fraud even when the underlying state-law claim does not require proof of fraud.

Thompson v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · filed 2016-08-19(a)(2)(A)

Claims established under state law on grounds other than fraud are not automatically precluded from qualifying for the exception to discharge under § 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 representation proximately caused its loss.

First National Bank v. O'Brien (In re O'Brien) · filed 2016-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Because FNBO thus received the full benefit of the pledge, notwithstanding the misrepresentations, none of FNBO’s remaining loss was caused by those misrepresentations about Mrs. O’Brien’s consent to pledge that account.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge even when the debtor receives only an indirect benefit.

Scarbrough v. Purser (In Re Scarbrough) · filed 2016-09-01(a)(2)(A)

A debt may be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) even if the debtor obtained only an indirect benefit as a result of the fraud.

A creditor must prove a false representation to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B).

Missouri Family Support Division v. McGinnis (In re McGinnis) · filed 2016-09-22(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B)

The threshold question under both § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) is whether Lisa’s representations that Scott was not living at the home between 2005 and 2008 were false. ... As a result, the DFS failed to meet its burden of proving that Lisa’s debt to it is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts loans from discharge when they are obtained through false representations.

Johnson v. Loomis (In re Loomis) · filed 2016-09-26(a)(2)(A)

On all these bases, the Court finds and concludes that the two loans are excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Code as obtained through false representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through a false promise to repay that the creditor justifiably relies on.

Cardwell v. Hester (In re Hester) · filed 2016-10-11(a)(2)(A)

Applying these facts to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), the Court finds that the De-fendant obtained $25,000 from the Plaintiff through the false material misrepresentation that he intended to repay the Plaintiff the funds used to secure his release from jail. The Court finds that the Defendant intended to deceive the Plaintiff with this misrepresentation. The Plaintiff justifiably relied upon the false statement which proximately caused her loss. ... As such, the Court finds the debt of $25,000 should be excepted for discharge.

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

Sharmat v. Gallen (In re Gallen) · filed 2016-10-04(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has thus failed to demonstrate that the Defendant had an intent to deceive, a requirement for both a false representation and fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; a material omission from a loan application alone does not establish that intent.

Chicago Patrolmen's Federal Credit Union v. Fenner (In re Fenner) · filed 2016-10-24(a)(2)(B)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not established that the Debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiff for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud judgment debt from discharge when the prior fraud finding establishes the required elements and the damages award rests on that fraud.

Papa v. Bolera (In re Bolera) · filed 2016-10-13(a)(2)(A)

After review of the evidence, this Court concludes that the judgment debt owed to Dr. Papa in the amount of $760,551 is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The jury awarded damages against the Debtor and in favor of Dr. Papa based on Florida common law fraud, the elements of which correspond to the elements of fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Having likewise met the additional requirements for issue preclusion, the findings of the Florida state court regarding Dr. Papa’s claim for fraud are entitled to preclusive effect in this court.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor promises to pay without a present intent to do so.

Vokshori Law Group, APLC v. Henriquez (In re Henriquez) · filed 2016-10-19(a)(2)(A)

In any event, it is clear that a promise made with a positive intent not to perform or without a present intent to perform satisfies 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a loan from discharge when the creditor fails to prove a knowing false representation or intent to deceive.

Higgins v. Nunnelee (In re Nunnelee) · filed 2016-10-21(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving false representation or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

For a false representation claim, § 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove a knowing misrepresentation made with intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.

World Business Lenders, LLC v. Barry (In re Barry) · filed 2016-11-17(a)(2)(A)

The Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore denied as to non-dischargeability for a debt obtained by a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from fraud nondischargeable even when the judgment is for breach of contract.

Plikaytis v. Roth (In Re Roth) · filed 2016-11-07(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not err in finding the full $2.8 million state court breach of contract debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court determined that the breach of contract debt had the additional characteristic of fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) and accordingly found the debt nondischargeable. This was not in error as the state court judgment is the correct measure of damages because it is the debt arising from the fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains property through an intentional scheme to cheat the creditor.

Ray Klein, Inc. v. Webb (In re Call) · filed 2016-11-14(a)(2)(A)

Webb’s representations and conduct in this case also rise to the level of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). As previously discussed, Webb’s actions show that he intentionally engaged in a scheme to deprive or cheat the Bakers when he obtained the Vessel.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when promising payment; later nonpayment alone is insufficient.

K.A.P., Inc. v. Hardigan · filed 2016-11-15(a)(2)(A)

Appellant, however, has failed to demonstrate by factual evidence the existence of a genuine dispute as to whether Appellee created false pretenses or made a false representation with the intent to deceive Appellant at the time he made his promise.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an existing debt from discharge when it was obtained by actual fraud.

Walker v. Vanwinkle (In re Vanwinkle) · filed 2016-12-27(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) takes an existing debt and excepts it from discharge upon a showing that it was obtained by actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains money through a false representation that the creditor justifiably relies on, causing a loss.

Oliver v. Zimmerman (In re Zimmerman) · filed 2017-02-16(a)(2)(A)

The court further finds that Plaintiff did meet his burden of proving that Defendant misrepresented to whom the $30,000 check should be made payable for materials and that the debt owed by Defendant pursuant to the Cogno-vit Note is a debt for money obtained by that false representation that is nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through fraud with intent to deceive.

In Re: Dirisu Ojo Momoh · filed 2017-02-06(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the debt Momoh owes Osayande is not dischargeable, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A)'s actual-fraud elements match California's, allowing a state fraud verdict to establish nondischargeability through issue preclusion.

Lecong v. Tran · filed 2017-02-13(a)(2)(A)

The elements required to find actual fraud in California are the same as the elements of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). And the jury’s special verdict found Lecong’s actions had satisfied each of California’s elements of actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts for loans and renewed credit from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s false representation.

Zutrau v. Zutrau (In re Zutrau) · filed 2017-02-16(a)(2)(A)

The evidence also supports the bankruptcy court’s findings that the Appel-lee justifiably relied on his false representation when loaning the Debtor additional monies evidenced by Notes A through E and when she agreed to a refinancing or renewal of credit with respect to prior debts that were incorporated into Note A.

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

McKell v. Griffith (In re Griffith) · filed 2017-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Applying the evidence to the applicable legal standards, the Court finds that the Debtor did not intend to deceive McKell. ... The Court finds that the debt owing to McKell is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge liability arising from false representations that induce a creditor to enter a contract, including resulting damages and fees.

Anketell v. Smith (In re Anketell) · filed 2017-03-13(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, I find that the Smiths have established cause to except from Anketell’s discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) any liability of Anketell to the Smiths for the harm or injury they suffered from his having induced them to enter into the Contract with Ground Up Construction, including (without limitation) for fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair or deceptive trade practices under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, or piercing of Ground Up Construction’s corporate veil, and including (again without limitation) consequential damages, punitive damages, double or treble damages under ch. 93A, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats an attorney’s failure to advise a client to seek independent counsel before settling a malpractice claim as a false representation when the attorney has a duty to give that advice.

Selenberg v. Dianne Bates · filed 2017-05-08(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, the district court was correct in concluding that Selenberg had an ethical duty to advise Bates in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel before settling the malpractice claim. He did not do so. Thus, we hold that Selenberg violated Rule 1.8(h)(2) and thereby made a false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of an intent not to perform a contract, while § 523(a)(6) requires a tortious breach that causes willful and malicious injury.

In re: Stanley Herbert Brody · filed 2017-03-15(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

To support her claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), Chou was required to show that Multisource, acting through Brody, had no intent to perform. ... To prevail on her § 523(a)(6) claims, therefore, Chou must prove a tortious breach of contract that resulted in a willful and malicious injury.