11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted the contractor debt from discharge.

Keasler v. Smith · filed 2025-06-11(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes Plaintiffs’ claim of $314,693.14 is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), false pretenses can rest on an implied material misrepresentation; a false representation requires an express one.

Rewak v. Catanzarite · filed 2025-06-18(a)(2)(A)

The small, but meaningful, difference between a false pretense and a false representation is a false pretense only requires an implied material misrepresentation, rather than an express one.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a co-obligor fails to contribute to a joint settlement.

Lucas v. Miller · filed 2025-07-11(a)(2)(A)

However, the Debtor’s cavalier treatment of Lucas and the joint debt they owed to TBF does not by itself equate to a fraudulent representation under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a judgment debt from discharge when the creditor presents no evidence of fraud.

North Texas Capital Partners LP v. Dorvil · filed 2025-07-18(a)(2)(A)

The Court has reviewed the relevant portion of the Summary Judgment Opinion, in which the Bankruptcy Court determined that: (1) NTCP produced no evidence that the challenged statements—regardless of who made those statements—were material misrepresentations; and (2) the evidence supported a finding of opportunistic breach, not fraud. R. 36-39. Further, the Bankruptcy Court held that Dorvil produced evidence conclusively negating NTCP’s assertion that he committed fraud in the settlement negotiations. Jd. at 38. Reviewing the underlying findings of fact for clear error and the conclusions of law de novo, the Court discerns no error in the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Dorvil.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when its fraud elements are satisfied.

Schmidt v. Spencer T. Malysiak Profit Sharing Plan · filed 2025-07-22(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Schmidt’s debt to appellee was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor seeking to except a loan from discharge based on a false representation must show that the debtor made a false representation when seeking the loan.

Terrasi-Ruggieri v. Ruggieri · filed 2025-09-29(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has therefore failed to show that the Defendant made a false representation in seeking the loan.

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

Brown · filed 2025-12-18(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the debt owed by the Debtor to PennyMac in the total amount of $217,000, comprised of the current loan payoff in the amount of $203,000 and attorney fees in the amount of $14,000, is due to be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

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 the creditor suffers a resulting loss.

Rosado · filed 2025-12-19(a)(2)(A)

The allegations in the Amended Complaint, deemed admitted, establish as a matter of law, that the unliquidated debt the Debtor owes to the Plaintiff is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) leaves a debt dischargeable when the creditor fails to prove a false representation, intent to deceive, and justifiable reliance.

Euler · filed 2026-02-12(a)(2)(A)

For each of the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff has failed to establish that the debt owed by the Defendant is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor’s intentional false representations induce a creditor to pay money and cause a loss.

Morrison · filed 2026-03-02(a)(2)(A)

As a result, the debts Mr. Lewis owes to Ms. Baughn, and Morrison and Parker, are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts for deposits obtained through knowing false representations nondischargeable when creditors relied on those representations and suffered resulting losses.

Baughn · filed 2026-03-02(a)(2)(A)

As a result, the debts Mr. Lewis owes to Ms. Baughn, and Morrison and Parker, are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a loan debt nondischargeable when a debtor knowingly misrepresents how the proceeds will be used and the lender justifiably relies on that misrepresentation to its detriment.

Holman · filed 2026-01-12(a)(2)(A)

As such, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs establish the first three elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) by preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can make a debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s silence about a material fact constitutes a false representation and the creditor proves the elements of actual fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Carr · filed 2026-02-13(a)(2)(A)

However, the Court holds that under Section 523(a) silence is not golden. ... Therefore, the debt owed by Carr to PNC Bank, N.A. is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an existing debt from discharge merely because the debtor later promises to pay it with a check that lacks sufficient funds.

Pavel · filed 2026-03-31(a)(2)(A)

These allegations are not sufficient to establish plausible grounds that an exception to discharge exists under Section 523(a)(2)(A). First, none of the alleged “representations” are actually representations – they are promises about future actions that cannot support fraud. Further, even if the Debtor tendered the Check never intending that it would be covered by good funds as alleged, the obligation to which it related was already owed and the Check was just another promise to pay that same debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a knowingly false representation that caused the creditor to part with money, property, services, or credit; later nonpayment alone is insufficient.

Myrum v. Michaels · filed 2026-04-15(a)(2)(A)

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), the relevant inquiry is whether a knowingly false representation caused the creditor to part with money, property, services, or credit, not whether the debtor later failed to perform an admitted obligation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor intentionally creates a false impression of licensure to obtain property and the creditor justifiably relies on it to their loss.

Klein · filed 2026-05-15(a)(2)(A)

With respect to this misrepresentation, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Defendant intentionally fostered the impression that he was a licensed mechanic. ... In summary, because Plaintiff has met all four requirements to establish that his claim against Defendant is non-dischargeable, summary judgment is granted to Plaintiff on his § 523(a)(2)(A) count.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for benefits obtained through intentional false representations that caused a creditor to suffer a loss after justifiably relying on them.

Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Brewer II · filed 2026-05-18(a)(2)(A)

Even construing all facts and inferences in favor of Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff has met its burden under § 523(a)(2)(A) to show its debt is nondischargeable, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts money obtained through a false promise to repay from discharge when the debtor lacked intent to repay at the time of borrowing.

D'Saachs · filed 2026-06-02(a)(2)(A)

These funds were obtained by the false pretense and representation that the defendant intended to repay. ... The judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff Christina D’Saachs and against the defendant Jayme Davis Sell by the County Court of Dodge County, Nebraska on August 20, 2024, in Case No. CI24-1143 is partially excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) in the principal amount of $9,629.

Section 523(a) requires proof of a qualifying misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge on that ground.

ZTE Electronics Corp. v. Amoroso · filed 2007-03-01(a)

Nor did the bankruptcy court err in finding ZTE failed to demonstrate nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). ZTE did not establish that Amoroso misrepresented Audio Wood’s financial condition or its intention to pay ZTE for goods.

Section 523 excepts specified debts from a discharge under section 727; a judgment that a debt is nondischargeable does not itself grant or deny a discharge.

Cardillo v. Moore-Handley, Inc. (In Re Cardillo) · filed 1994-08-30

Section 523 itself does not grant or deny a discharge. By its very terms, it excepts a debt from a discharge under section 727.

A Chapter 11 plan cannot restrict a creditor’s rights to collect a debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a) outside the plan.

In Re Amigoni · filed 1989-12-11(a)

Section 1141(d) excludes debts enumerated under § 523(a) from discharge. Debtors concede that their restitution obligations are such debts. The authority cited above recognizes that parties to whom such debts are owed cannot have their rights under nonbankruptcy law restricted by a plan of reorganization. Accordingly, Debtors’ proposed Plans are not confirmable because each Plan attempts to restrict the United States and the Class 4 Creditors to collection only as provided in the Plans.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts qualifying debts from discharge without requiring a prior court ruling, but a creditor who collects without one proceeds at its own peril.

In Re Ganous · filed 1992-01-04(a)(7)

A debt that falls under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) is non-dischargeable. To proceed with an action to collect such a debt from the Debtor, BROWARD need not receive a determination of non-dischargeability from this court. However, whether a debt falls within the purview of § 523(a)(7) is a question of fact. If Broward fails to obtain a judicial determination that the debt is non-dischargeable, the creditor proceeds at its own peril.

Section 523(a) leaves a nondischargeable debt payable under its existing terms despite a bankruptcy discharge.

In Re Christophe · filed 1993-02-22(a)

A determination that a debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) merely means that the discharge issued under the Bankruptcy Code will not change or diminish the debtor’s obligation to pay that debt.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge tax debts covered by § 507(a)(7), including taxes unassessed before bankruptcy but assessable afterward.

United States v. Fingers (In Re Fingers) · filed 1994-07-08(a)(1)(A)

Title 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) provides that a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 does not discharge a debtor from any debt for a tax of the kind specified in 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). Section 507(a)(7)(A)(iii) describes taxes which are not assessed before, but assessable after, the commencement of the case. In the instant case, the tax assessments based on the tax court’s decision were not assessed before the commencement of Fingers’ bankruptcy proceedings. However, those deficiencies could have been assessed after Fingers’ discharge was entered. Therefore, the tax deficiencies were nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(1)(A) and 507(a)(7)(A)(iii).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts specified taxes from discharge whether or not the IRS filed a claim for them in bankruptcy.

In Re Depaolo · filed 1995-01-09(a)(1)(A)

By expressly providing that the described taxes are not discharged "whether or not a claim for such taxes was filed or allowed," 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added), Congress has determined that the IRS may make a claim for taxes for a particular year in a bankruptcy proceeding, accept the judgment of the bankruptcy court, then audit and make additional claims for that same year, even though such conduct may seem inequitable or may impair the debtor's fresh start.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes qualifying debts nondischargeable.

In re Oshop · filed 1997-02-03(a)(2)(B)

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law and counsels' arguments we are not persuaded that either the Bankruptcy Court or the District Court erred in finding the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(1) does not except taxes from discharge when they fall outside the applicable priority-tax periods.

Jones v. United States (In Re Jones) · filed 1997-08-01(a)(1)

Taxes for 1990 and 1991 do not fall within these periods and are not of the kind specified in § 523(a)(1).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts qualifying tax debts from discharge even if no claim for the tax was filed or allowed.

Internal Revenue Service v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1998-01-06(a)(1)(A)

First and most important, the IRS has the option to remain outside the bankruptcy proceeding and preserve a debt for a § 6672 penalty without filing a claim in Chapter 11. This option lies in §§ 1141 and 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts certain federal income tax debts from discharge.

United States v. Wood (In Re Wood) · filed 1999-07-15(a)(1)(A)

There is no question that Wood’s federal income tax liabilities are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523(a) nondischargeability judgments affect only the objecting creditor’s debt, not other creditors’ claims.

Hass v. Hass (In Re Hass) · filed 2002-01-24(a)

A judgment of non-dischargeability under Section 523(a) benefits only the debt owed to the particular creditor who objected to dischargeability and has no impact on claims of other creditors.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts qualifying prepetition tax liabilities from discharge, allowing the IRS to collect them after Chapter 11 plan confirmation.

Wood v. United States (In Re Wood) · filed 2006-03-02(a)(1)(A)

In this case, the Court held in the Order that Debtor’s 1991, 1992 and 1993 tax liabilities were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) and § 507(a)(8)(A)(i). The Court concludes that the IRS is permitted to collect Debt- or’s 1991, 1992, and 1993 tax liabilities post-confirmation and is not barred by res judicata principles.

Section 523(a)(1) excepts qualifying tax debts from discharge, allowing their collection after confirmation of an individual debtor’s Chapter 11 plan.

In Re Gill · filed 2006-04-03(a)(1)

It appears that the 1990 taxes were not dischargeable under § 523(a)(1), were not determined to be dischargeable in any adversary proceeding, and therefore were not discharged by the Order of Confirmation because of the “exception to discharge” contained in § 1141(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge an income tax debt assessed within 240 days before the bankruptcy petition.

Celestin v. Comm'r · filed 2006-04-19(a)(1)(A)

Because petitioner’s income tax liability was assessed within 240 days before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, it was not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts income taxes from discharge when the return was last due within three years before bankruptcy or the tax was assessed within 240 days before filing, whether or not a tax claim was filed or allowed.

Newman v. United States (In Re Newman) · filed 2008-11-25(a)(1)(A)

The Court determines only that tax liabilities claimed by the IRS for the 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 tax years are nondischargeable debts under § 523(a)(1)(A) and § 507(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(6) can except a debt from discharge in a Chapter 7 proceeding.

Failon v. Compass Chemical International · filed 2018-02-12(a)(6)

Brian K. Failon appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that his debt to Compass Chemical International, LLC, is nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts certain taxes from discharge whether or not a bankruptcy claim was filed or allowed, allowing the IRS to pursue additional liability after a plan settles the claim payable by the estate.

Charles K. Breland, Jr. v. Commissioner · filed 2019-03-28(a)(1)(A)

That does not constitute a final determination of Federal tax liabilities for the years covered by the claim because the IRS is given express authority to determine additional liability for nondischargeable debts under 11 U.S.C. secs. 1141 and 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) except qualifying debts from discharge.

Smith v. Mid-South Maintenance, Inc · filed 2020-01-09(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Nor did the bankruptcy court err in finding—in a thoroughly-reasoned 35-page opinion following a three-day trial—that the Smiths’s debts to the Mid-South creditors are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) makes trust fund taxes nondischargeable in Chapter 7 regardless of whether a tax claim was filed.

J.M. Mandler & Nuclear Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Com. of PA · filed 2020-03-02(a)(1)(A)

Therefore, whether or not Revenue filed claim petitions for them, and no matter how much time has passed, the Taxes were trust fund taxes that Taxpayers could not discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 523(a) excepts the identified trust fund recovery penalties and individual income tax liabilities from discharge.

Ivison v. Internal Revenue Service, United States of America · filed 2020-05-29(a)

5. Anita Ivison’s 2012 Form 1040 Individual Income Tax liability: a. is determined to be $6,238.00; b. is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a); and c. was assessed, and began accruing interest on April 15, 2013.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts tax obligations covered by § 507(a)(8)(A) from discharge.

Kun v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2023-07-25(a)(1)(A)

So, if a tax obligation comes within the scope of § 507(a)(8)(A), it is nondischargeable as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge a presuit settlement debt for willful and malicious injury, including interest on late payments and attorney’s fees owed under the settlement agreement.

Yagi v. Hilgartner · filed 2024-01-18(a)(6)

We conclude that, like the principal, these debts “aris[e] from” willful and malicious injury, Cohen, 523 U.S. at 223, and are therefore likewise non-dischargeable.

Under the version of § 1328(a) at issue, § 523(a)(5) debts remain excepted from discharge after completion of a Chapter 13 plan.

Overland Park Dodge, Inc. v. Graff (In Re Graff) · filed 1980-11-28(a)(5)

The Court further finds that the nondis-chargeable debt herein may be compromised under Chapter 13 and discharged upon the completion of the Plan except as specified under § 523(a)(5) and § 1328(b).

Under the Chapter 13 discharge provision applied here, § 523(a)(5) preserves alimony and child support debts from discharge, but the other § 523(a) exceptions do not preserve a copyright claim.

Calloway ex rel. LMN Productions, Inc. v. Marvel Entertainment Group · filed 1986-02-26(a)(5)

Thus, Calloway’s reliance on § 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is unavailing since Quiros’ Chapter 13 proceeding discharged all such debts except those falling under the classification of alimony and child support, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), a category which is not pertinent to Calloway’s copyright claim.

Section 523(a)(1)’s tax exception does not apply to a discharge after completion of a Chapter 13 plan under § 1328(a); it applies to a hardship discharge under § 1328(b).

In Re Rothman · filed 1987-06-12(a)(1)

Significantly, § 523(a)(1) which excepts certain taxes from discharge, does not apply to a 1328(a) discharge, but only to a hardship discharge issued under 1328(b).

Section 523(a)(7)’s exception for debts arising from fines, penalties, or forfeitures does not extend to Chapter 13 discharges.

Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport · filed 1990-05-29(a)(7)

Among those exceptions that Congress chose not to extend to Chapter 13 proceedings is § 523(a)(7)’s exception for debts arising from a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture.”

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a qualifying governmental fine or penalty from a discharge under § 1328(a) after completion of a Chapter 13 plan.

In re Williams · filed 1993-07-02(a)(7)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). This section omits a discharge under section 1328(a), to which a debtor would be entitled on successful completion of a chapter 13 plan.

Section 523(a)(3) does not apply in Chapter 13.

In Re Babbin · filed 1994-02-07(a)(3)

Second, Jones is a Chapter 12 case and, while Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 are both subject to the provisions of Rule 3002, section 523(a)(3) of the Code does not apply in Chapter 13.

Section 523(a)(15) can prevent discharge of a divorce debt through a Chapter 13 hardship discharge, but an objection under it is premature before the debtor seeks that discharge.

In Re Auld · filed 1995-08-28(a)(15)

But the § 523(a)(15) exception to discharge, upon which Drummond relies, qualifies the hardship discharge available under § 1328(b). ... However, at this point in the proceeding the objection is premature.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts restitution ordered in a state criminal prosecution from a Chapter 13 hardship discharge through § 1328(c)(2).

Travelers Insurance v. Barth (In Re Barth) · filed 1997-08-15(a)(7)

The Court holds that the Chapter 13 hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) does not discharge payments under a restitution order imposed in a state court criminal prosecution. As construed in Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 107 S.Ct. 353, 93 L.Ed.2d 216 (1986), § 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the exception from discharge by reference from § 1328(c) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(1) can remain applicable after a Chapter 7 case is converted to Chapter 13 when no discharge under § 1328(b) is shown.

Gentry v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In re Gentry) · filed 1997-08-04(a)(1)

Subsection (a) of that statute, the subsection which covers those circumstances where the debtor has completed all payments under a plan, does provide that certain provisions in Section 523 are inapplicable, namely paragraphs (5), (8), and (9) of Section 523(a). ... However, Debt- or/Appellant is appealing the Bankruptcy Court’s application of paragraph (1) of Section 523(a). ... There is no evidence that Subsection (b) is applicable to this matter at this time. As such, the Court finds that Appellee has failed to demonstrate that the issue on appeal is moot.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) permits a confirmed Chapter 13 plan to establish undue hardship and discharge the unpaid student loan balance when the creditor had notice and an opportunity to object.

Andersen v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation (In Re Andersen) · filed 1998-01-26(a)(8)(B)

The plan, instead, resolved a potential controversy about whether payment of the student loan would result in an undue hardship to the debtor. Confinnation of the plan constituted a finding to that effect, thereby rendering the loan dischargeable. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B); 11 U.S.C. § 1327(a). Thus the ultimate order of discharge properly discharged the balance of the student loan obligation.

Section 523(a)(8) presumptively excepts student loan debt from discharge, and payment of an allowed claim through a Chapter 13 plan does not discharge any remaining liability.

In Re Klassen · filed 1998-11-05(a)(8)

In spite of the Klassens’ superdischarge for completing all plan payments, any remaining liability on the nondischargeable student loan claims remains unsatisfied and is presumed nondischargeable. Accordingly, Educational Credit is entitled to recourse against the Klassens personally outside bankruptcy, if it can convince some court that David is liable on the loans.

Section 523(a)(8) does not allow an educational loan to be discharged through a Chapter 13 plan provision; an undue-hardship claim requires an adversary proceeding.

In Re Stevens · filed 1999-03-08(a)(8)

The court rejects debtor’s argument for two reasons: (1) Bankruptcy-Code § 1328(a)(2) specifically provides that a completed plan does not discharge obligations excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8). ... The court considers this a due process requirement and will not permit the discharge of an otherwise nondis-chargeable debt by a provision of a chapter 13 plan.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship exception can be established by a confirmed Chapter 13 plan when the student loan creditor has notice but fails to object or appeal.

Andersen v. UNIPAC-NEBHELP (In Re Andersen) · filed 1999-06-07(a)(8)

This case does not represent an attempt to transform a debt which remained nondischargeable throughout the plan period into a dischargeable debt at the conclusion of the period. Rather, unlike the tax cases, the finding of undue hardship in the confirmed plan changed the nature of the debt into a dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(18)'s exception for qualifying support debts does not apply to discharges under § 1328(a).

In Re: Raymond Cervantes, Debtor. County of Santa Cruz v. Cervantes · filed 2000-07-18(a)(18)

Section 523(a)(18) applies the new discharge exception to discharges under sections 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), and 1328(b), while section 656(b) applies the new exception to any discharge in bankruptcy.

A confirmed Chapter 13 plan provision discharging student loans binds a creditor that had notice and failed to challenge confirmation, even if the provision bypassed an adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(8).

Patton v. U.S. Dept. of Education (In Re Patton) · filed 2001-04-03(a)(8)

Inclusion of plan provisions which attempt to circumvent determination by adversary proceeding of dischargeability of student loans through the plan confirmation process is improper, but plans confirmed with such provisions will be binding on the parties if the confirmation order is not appealed or revoked.

Section 523(a)(15) does not prevent discharge in Chapter 13 of debts that it would make nondischargeable in Chapter 7.

Brunson v. Austin (In Re Austin) · filed 2001-06-04(a)(15)

As the case is proceeding under Chapter 13, this Court dismissed the Complaint at trial because a Chapter 13 discharges debts that in a Chapter 7 case would be declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loans from discharge absent undue hardship, but a creditor that fails to object can be bound by a confirmed plan tolling post-petition interest.

Banks v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Banks) · filed 2001-05-01(a)(8)

Student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can prove that excepting the debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). ... While this Court agrees with ECMC that Mr. Banks’ plan should not have contained language tolling post-petition interest on his student loan, the Court believes that the finality of confirmation makes the post-petition interest tolling provision res judicata.

A final Chapter 13 plan amendment expressly finding undue hardship can discharge student loan debt when the creditor had notice and failed to object, even without an adversary proceeding.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Mersmann (In Re Mersmann) · filed 2004-12-14(a)(8)

As in Andersen, the discharge provision in the debtor’s Amended Plan is an express finding of “undue hardship” that, pursuant to the Amendment Order, “constitutes a binding adjudication of hardship” upon completion of the Plan.

A confirmed Chapter 13 plan does not discharge student loans unless it expressly finds undue hardship.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Nelson (In Re Nelson) · filed 2004-12-14(a)(8)

Accordingly, under Poland, a confirmed plan stating that student loan debt is discharged will not discharge such debt, unless the plan makes an express “finding of undue hardship.”

Section 523(a)(16)'s exception for postpetition condominium fees does not apply to Chapter 13 cases.

In Re Danastorg · filed 2008-02-22(a)(16)

Section 1328 does not mention section 523(a)(16), and the Court finds that section 523(a)(16) is inapplicable to Chapter 13 cases, where the Debtor has an ongoing duty to pay postpetition obligations, such as utilities and condominium fees, as they come due.

Section 523(a)(6) does not provide an exception to a Chapter 13 discharge because § 1328(a)(2) does not incorporate it.

Buckley v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 2008-06-02(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) does not provide a basis for relief for Buckley in this case. Debts excepted from discharge under § 523(a) may be discharged in chapter 13 unless expressly excluded from discharge in § 1328(a)(2). Section 523(a)(6) provides a broader exclusion from discharge than § 1328(a)(4) and is not incorporated into § 1328(a)(2). Therefore, Debtor’s motion to dismiss will be granted to the extent that the complaint relies on § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(15) does not prevent discharge of divorce-related non-support debts after a debtor completes a Chapter 13 plan.

In Re Boller · filed 2008-06-27(a)(15)

However, while the BAPCPA amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(2) excepts § 523(a)(5) debts from discharge, it does not except § 523(a)(15) debts.

A student loan creditor that receives notice of a Chapter 13 plan providing for discharge and fails to object may be bound by the discharge without an undue hardship finding or adversary proceeding.

Needelman v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2009-01-05(a)(8)

Student loans may not be discharged under Chapter 13 unless the debtor can show “undue hardship,” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and such a showing can only be made in an adversary proceeding. ... Based on Espinosa, plaintiff has stated a claim that his student loan debt has been discharged, defendants may not seek enforcement of the debt, and plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for payments made after the Discharge Order.

Section 523(a)(10) does not limit the scope of a Chapter 13 discharge.

In Re Asbury · filed 2009-07-14(a)(10)

As noted, § 523(a)(10) is not applicable to Chapter 13 filings.

Section 523(a)(15) does not except divorce-related debts from an ordinary Chapter 13 discharge granted after plan completion.

Kennedy v. Kennedy (In Re Kennedy) · filed 2010-09-15(a)(15)

With respect to a “normal” discharge granted upon completion of a Chapter 13 plan, debts described in Section 523(a)(15) are not excepted from discharge although debts under Section 523(a)(5) are excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(15) does not create an exception to a chapter 13 discharge.

In Re Nelson · filed 2011-04-22(a)(15)

This is a chapter 13 case, and § 523(a)(15) is not an exception to a chapter 13 discharge.

Section 523(a)(15) does not prevent a divorce-related property settlement debt from being discharged in Chapter 13 when the debt is outside the classes protected by § 1328(a)(2).

In Re Cooke · filed 2011-07-26(a)(15)

In short, the entirety of Ms. Knox’s claim rests on the fact that the debt owed by Mr. Cooke was found to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15). However, in light of Jodoin the Court finds that Ms. Knox’s claim is not subject to nondischargeability in Mr. Cooke’s current Chapter 13 proceeding because it does not qualify as one of the protected classes of claims specified in 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(16)’s exception for condominium association assessments does not apply to a Chapter 13 discharge under § 1328(a).

Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer) · filed 2011-08-22(a)(16)

When evaluating the dischargeability of debts under § 1328(a), the conditions of discharge set forth in § 523(a)(16) simply do not apply.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts domestic support obligations from Chapter 13 discharge, while divorce-related property settlements described in § 523(a)(15) are dischargeable in Chapter 13.

Gaetaniello v. Gaetaniello (In re Gaetaniello) · filed 2013-07-25(a)(5), (a)(15)

The debt is not a domestic support obligation. It is not excepted from discharge pursuant to §§ 523(a)(5) and 1328(a)(2). ... Debts of the type described in § 523(a)(15) are dis-chargeable in a case filed under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(16) does not except condominium assessments from a Chapter 13 discharge entered after the debtor completes all plan payments.

Carrollan Gardens Condominium Ass'n v. Khan (In re Khan) · filed 2014-01-30(a)(16)

Because 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(16) is not specifically listed among the exceptions to a Chapter 13 discharge entered after completion of all of a debtor’s payments under Chapter 13 plan, the in personam obligation to pay condominium fees does not survive as an exception to discharge.

The § 523(a)(16) exception for homeowners association assessments does not apply to a full Chapter 13 discharge under § 1328(a).

In re Coonfield · filed 2014-09-25(a)(16)

The express language contained in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) leads to the same conclusion. By its terms, the discharge exceptions under section 523(a) do not apply to section 1328(a) — the discharge provision relevant here; however, section 523(a) remains relevant to section 1328(a) for other reasons.

A § 523(a)(6) claim in a Chapter 13 case is premature until the debtor seeks a hardship discharge.

Gasunas v. Yotis (In re Yotis) · filed 2014-11-24(a)(6)

Rule 4007(d) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides that the proper occasion for filing a complaint under section 523(a)(6) in a Chapter 13 case is after the debtor seeks a hardship discharge under § 1328(b). ... Yotis has not moved to have a hardship discharge under section 1328(b), therefore a determination of whether the debt to Ga-sunas arose out of willful and malicious conduct is premature at this time.

Section 523(a)(7) alone does not bar a full Chapter 13 discharge of civil fines payable to a governmental unit.

In re Osorio · filed 2014-12-08(a)(7)

Because Congress chose not to include Section 523(a)(7) in this section, debts for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit are dischargeable in chapter 13 cases provided that the requirements of Section 1328(a) are met.

Section 523(a)(16)’s exception for postpetition homeowners’ association fees does not apply to an ordinary Chapter 13 discharge under § 1328(a).

Otter Creek Homeowners' Ass'n v. Davenport (In re Davenport) · filed 2015-07-21(a)(16)

Notably absent from the predicate language of this subsection is subsection 1328(a), the more general, non-hardship discharge conferred on debtors who have successfully completed a Chapter 13 plan.

Section 523(a)(16) does not apply to Chapter 13 discharges.

In re Montalvo · filed 2016-02-25(a)(16)

However, 523(a)(16) does not apply to Chapter 13 discharges, ... and “[t]he discharge does not affect a secured creditor’s interest in real property.”

Section 523(a)(6) does not except debts from an ordinary Chapter 13 discharge under § 1328(a).

Levitsky v. McPherson (In re McPherson) · filed 2017-01-17(a)(6)

The Levitsky’s count under § 523(a)(6) must be dismissed because debts of the kind specified in § 523(a)(6) are not excepted from the ordinary chapter 13 discharge, issued under § 1328(a), which is what the Debtor is currently on track to receive.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) excepts tax debt from discharge when the return was filed late and less than two years before bankruptcy; a plan's general unsecured claims provision does not discharge the unpaid balance.

Reuland v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Reuland) · filed 2018-10-26(a)(1)(B)(ii)

The only provision in the Reulands' plan that affects the IRS's § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) tax debt is the boilerplate paragraph set forth above. Nothing in that paragraph suggests that the § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) tax debt remaining unpaid upon completion of the plan would be discharged.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from Chapter 7 discharge but does not apply to Chapter 13 debtors.

Dale Recycling & Used Auto Parts, Inc. v. Wade (In re Wade) · filed 2019-02-11(a)(6)

However, § 523(a)(6) does not apply to Chapter 13 debtors.

Section 523(a)(6)’s exception for debts arising from willful and malicious injury does not apply in Chapter 13.

Papillon v. Jones · filed 2020-02-25(a)(6)

The Bankruptcy Code’s exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) for debts arising from willful and malicious injury by a debtor is not applicable in Chapter 13.

Section 523(a)(6) does not apply in a pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.

Brooks v. Rosebar · filed 2020-08-10(a)(6)

The complaint invokes 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (6) but that provision does not apply in the debtor’s bankruptcy case that was pending under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(6) cannot support a willful and malicious injury claim in a Chapter 13 case before the debtor seeks a hardship discharge.

HARLAN PAGE CONFER and CHARLOTTE CLUFF CONFER · filed 2021-06-08(a)(6)

Since the Confers have not yet sought--and may never seek--a hardship discharge, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction ... over any § 523(a)(6) cause of action.

Section 523(a)(6)’s exception for debts arising from willful and malicious injury does not apply to a Chapter 13 discharge.

Randall D Johnson and Tabitha Q Johnson · filed 2024-02-13(a)(6)

As the Debtors contend, § 523(a)(6) is not applicable to chapter 13 cases and thus the Complaint, as stated, should be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(6)'s exception for debts arising from willful and malicious injury does not apply to a Chapter 13 discharge.

Deaver v. Johnson · filed 2024-02-13(a)(6)

As the Debtors contend, § 523(a)(6) is not applicable to chapter 13 cases and thus the Complaint, as stated, should be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(6) claims are unripe in a Chapter 13 case when the debtor has not sought a hardship discharge, because debts covered by that exception may be discharged after plan completion.

American Sound & Electronics, Inc. v. Van Meter · filed 2025-05-23(a)(6)

Defendant has not filed a motion for a hardship discharge in his main bankruptcy case, and so Plaintiffs currently have no grounds to rely on § 523(a)(6) to find the debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when it results from defalcation by a fiduciary who held funds in an express or technical trust and acted with knowledge or gross recklessness.

Upper Cumberland Islamic Society v. Mayer · filed 2023-03-30(a)(4)

Notwithstanding denial of Defendant’s discharge under § 727(a)(3), the Court also finds that, based on the record, Plaintiff met its burden of proving that any debt it is owed by Defendant is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) because it was incurred by defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, which encompasses embezzlement as well as the failure to properly account for any funds.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor with fiduciary control over employees’ withheld retirement contributions uses those funds for business expenses instead of remitting them to the plan.

Chao v. Gott (In Re Gott) · filed 2008-04-14(a)(4)

Debtor held the funds in trust for the benefit of the employees. He had no right to use them to further the operations of GMP. When he failed to make sure the employees’ withheld funds were properly being forwarded to MetLife, he committed defalcation in a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4). The resulting debt of $10,722.70 is therefore excepted from Debtor’s bankruptcy discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a corporate officer’s personally guaranteed debt from discharge when the corporation misuses proceeds held in express trust and the officer directs that misuse in breach of his fiduciary duty.

Kubota Tractor Corporation v. Strack · filed 2008-05-01(a)(4)

Because we find that the debt arose by reason of Strack’s "defalcation," or nonfraudulent default, while he was acting in a fiduciary capacity, we find that § 523(a)(4) renders the debt non-dischargeable, and reverse the judgment of the district court.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a guarantor’s debt from discharge when the guarantor personally causes a corporation’s defalcation of trust property while breaching a fiduciary duty to the corporation.

Kubota Tractor Corp. v. Strack · filed 2008-03-11(a)(4)

We therefore conclude, like this court did in In re Ellison, that Strack’s indebtedness to Kubota arose from his “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity” and is therefore excepted from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt nondischargeable when an escrow agent uses funds held in an express trust for personal benefit, committing defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Auburn Development Corp. v. Shorton (In Re Shorton) · filed 2007-12-03(a)(4)

The Court finds that the Debtor committed a defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. Not only did he breach the express terms of the escrow, he was acting in his own self-interest when he elected to utilize Auburn’s deposit for the payment of his outstanding legal fees at a time when he was aware that he was about to lose his license to practice law in the Commonwealth. ... In view of the foregoing, the Court finds the Debtor’s obligation to Auburn is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge debts caused by a debtor’s defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, including misuse of funds held in a statutory construction trust.

Pritchard Concrete, Inc. v. Barnes (In Re Barnes) · filed 2007-10-05(a)(4)

The undisputed facts in this case establish that funds received by Big Mountain from the construction loan and from the sale of the Property were subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute, that Big Mountain committed a defalcation by failing to ensure that all such “disbursements” were held in trust for the unpaid suppliers of material and labor, and that the Debtor is personally responsible for any of Big Mountain’s violations of the Trust Fund Statute. Therefore, the debts owed by the Debtor to each Plaintiff which result from this defalcation are nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires conscious misbehavior or extreme recklessness for a fiduciary’s defalcation debt to be excepted from discharge.

Denton v. Hyman · filed 2007-09-06(a)(4)

In light of this persistent confusion, we now align ourselves with the First Circuit, see Baylis, 313 F.3d at 20, in holding that defalcation under § 523(a)(4) requires a showing of conscious misbehavior or extreme recklessness- — a showing akin to the showing required for scienter in the securities law context.

Section 523(a)(4) requires conscious misbehavior or extreme recklessness for a fiduciary’s defalcation to make a debt nondischargeable.

In Re: Andrew A. Hyman · filed 2007-09-06(a)(4)

In light of this persistent confusion, we now align ourselves with the First Circuit, see Baylis, 313 F.3d at 20, in holding that defalcation under § 523(a)(4) requires a showing of conscious misbehavior or extreme recklessness – a showing akin to the showing required for scienter in the securities law context.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a corporate officer’s personal liability from discharge when his involvement in a breach of trust constitutes defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Bishop (In Re Bishop) · filed 2001-03-06(a)(4)

Because of Bishop’s personal and controlling involvement both with the creation of the trust in favor of ARC and the breach of trust occasioned by the agreement with Occaquan (Roth), the Court has no difficulty in concluding that Bishop’s personal liability to ARC should be excepted from discharge as liability for “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.”

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when it results from fraud or defalcation committed in a fiduciary relationship.

J.M. Mangum v. Siegfried · filed 2001-03-14(a)(4)

Under § 523(a)(4), Mangum had to establish two elements to prevent the discharge of Siegfried’s debt: first, that a fiduciary relationship existed between Siegfried and Mangum, and second, that the debt was attributable to fraud or defalcation committed by Siegfried in the course of that fiduciary relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) treats a corporate officer, director, or controlling shareholder as a fiduciary under California law to the extent the person can control corporate assets.

Cal-Micro, Inc. v. Cantrell (In Re Cantrell) · filed 2001-02-13(a)(4)

The Court agrees with the Bangerter court that the same rule should apply for an officer, director, or controlling shareholder. However, as discussed above, the Court concludes that California law, as distinguished from Washington law, establishes that individuals holding these positions are fiduciaries within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) to the extent they have the ability to exercise control over corporate assets.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a technical trust for fiduciary fraud; a processor–merchant repayment obligation without segregated chargeback funds does not qualify.

Cardservice International, Inc. v. Inman (In Re Inman) · filed 2000-12-13(a)(4)

The relationship between a credit card processor and merchant does not create a “technical trust.” Rather, it is a sort of implied trust similar to the trust relationship between the directors of a corporation and the corporation’s creditors. The fact that Defendant was not contractually bound to segregate the chargeback funds indicates that there existed no technical trust, but instead a contractual right of repayment. Defendant’s inability to repay Plaintiff for the chargebacks constitutes a breach of contract, not a breach of trust. Such a relationship does not give rise to § 523(a)(4) liability.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat limited borrowing authority in an ordinary joint venture as a fiduciary relationship.

Cundy v. Woods (In Re Woods) · filed 2001-01-05(a)(4)

Here the powers are limited to borrowing authority for construction of the second building in a three building project, a matter of ordinary commercial or contractual nature not normally triggering § 523(a)(4) liability.

A debtor's pre-existing position of substantial ascendancy over a creditor can establish a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4).

O'Shea, Patrick F. v. Frain, Michael F. · filed 2000-10-30(a)(4)

There was accordingly a fiduciary relationship for purposes of sec. 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) recognizes a fiduciary relationship when the debtor has a pre-existing position of substantial ascendancy over the creditor.

In Re Michael Frain, Debtor-Appellee · filed 2000-10-30(a)(4)

We conclude, therefore, that based on the contract Frain possessed an ascendant position in relation to appellants. There was accordingly a fiduciary relationship for purposes of § 523(a)(4). The bankruptcy court must now decide whether Frain actually committed any defalcation under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not establish a fiduciary relationship from a security agreement that lacks the elements of an express trust.

Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Hartman (In Re Hartman) · filed 2000-11-01(a)(4)

In the instant case we find that the Security Agreement in question does not create an express trust. The Security Agreement executed by Debtor does not set forth an intent by the parties to create a trust; nor does it designate an ascertainable res, trustee or beneficiary. Without separate and express trust language, the Security Agreement creates no more than a debtor/creditor relationship.

Section 523(a)(4)’s fiduciary-capacity requirement can be satisfied by a confidential relationship under Pennsylvania common law.

Corestates Asset Management v. Kohler (In Re Kohler) · filed 2000-12-08(a)(4)

For all of these reasons, we find that the confidential relationship found to exist between Debtor and Emma Loose under Pennsylvania common law by the Orphans’ Court satisfies the “fiduciary capacity” element of section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

European American Bank v. Lapes (In Re Lapes) · filed 2000-10-19(a)(4)

Count VI seeks relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), which provides that a specific debt will not be discharged if the debt is “for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” The uncontroverted evidence shows that Mr. Lapes, in his capacity as a corporate officer, breached his fiduciary duty to EAB by, inter alia, forging records and transferring accounts receivables. Judgment shall enter for EAB on Count VI.

Section 523(a)(4) makes debts from a personal representative’s fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity nondischargeable.

Nelson v. Nelson (In Re Nelson) · filed 2000-10-04(a)(4)

This act constituted misappropriation of funds belonging to the Nelson Estate, thereby qualifying as a defalcation. Both instances of conduct discussed above give rise to debts that are nondischargeable within the meaning of section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust relationship for a debt based on fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity; general fiduciary duties are insufficient.

Kapila v. Talmo (In Re Talmo) · filed 1994-12-06(a)(4)

The flaw in the Trustee’s argument is that the rather broad concept of “fiduciary duty” under state law is not equivalent to the narrower bankruptcy meaning of “fiduciary capacity” for purposes of § 523(a)(4). In order for statutory or common law to establish “fiduciary capacity,” the law must create an express or technical trust relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor held a power of attorney; the debt must arise from fraud or defalcation while the debtor acted in a qualifying fiduciary capacity.

Bast v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1994-11-16(a)(4)

The debtor here did not commit fraud or defalcation, and did not use a fiduciary capacity to cause plaintiff to make these loans. Therefore, the obligation to plaintiff is dischargea-ble.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s willful breach of fiduciary duty constitutes defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Charpentier v. BG Wire Rope & Slings, Inc. · filed 1994-11-02(a)(4)

Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court correctly found that the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents the Debtors from relitigating the issue of the willful breach of their fiduciary duties owed to the corporation. The Bankruptcy Court also was correct in finding that such acts constitute defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that fraud caused the debt and that a fiduciary relationship existed when the debt was created.

Bell v. Berry (In Re Berry) · filed 1994-12-01(a)(4)

To show nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4), a creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the debt was caused by fraud, and (2) the debtor had a fiduciary relationship with the creditor at the time the debt was created.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge court-awarded attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses arising from a debtor’s defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Freer v. Weinstein (In Re Weinstein) · filed 1994-10-12(a)(4)

The Court holds, accordingly, that all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses assessed to Debtor are non-dischargeable obligations pursuant to section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code and all authorities cited.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat ordinary employee fiduciary duties as fiduciary capacity unless those duties are comparable to a trustee’s.

BPS Guard Services, Inc. v. Woodhead (In Re Woodhead) · filed 1994-09-01(a)(4)

Mr. Woodhead was not the trustee of an express trust and his fiduciary duties as an employee of BPS were of a mundane variety. The duties of Mr. Woodhead as an employee of BPS were not tantamount to those of a trustee.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat an ordinary employee relationship as fiduciary capacity without an express trust or duties tantamount to a trustee's.

BPS Guard Services Inc. v. Myrick (In Re Myrick) · filed 1994-09-06(a)(4)

I conclude that the employee/employer relationship in the present case does not give rise to the elevated level of fiduciary capacity required by § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity; an ordinary debtor-creditor relationship does not suffice.

Wagner v. Abood (In re Abood) · filed 1994-09-08(a)(4)

Because the Debtor did not owe a § 523(a)(4) duty to the Plaintiff, he cannot be held to have committed fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, as Plaintiff alleges.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat a produce buyer as acting in a fiduciary capacity solely because its assets are subject to a PACA trust.

N.P. Deoudes, Inc. v. Snyder (In Re Snyder) · filed 1994-08-26(a)(4)

In addition, Plaintiffs’ complaint must be dismissed, because a PACA debtor does not serve in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of produce suppliers, within the meaning of § 523(a)(4), and thus cannot be guilty of “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.”