11 U.S.C. § 523

State courts may hear nondischargeability claims under § 523(a)(5) because bankruptcy courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over them.

In Re Moralez · filed 1991-06-25(a)(5)

The jurisdiction over nondis-chargeability actions under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) is not exclusive with the Bankruptcy Court.

A § 523(a)(3) dischargeability dispute may be litigated in state court without reopening the bankruptcy case.

In Re Musgraves · filed 1991-07-02(a)(3)

This court, however, sees no reason why the Section 523(a)(3) issue cannot be litigated as part of the state court’s passing on the debtor’s plea in bar.

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over dischargeability of marital debts under § 523(a)(5).

Richards v. Richards (In Re Richards) · filed 1991-07-09(a)(5)

The Bankruptcy Code does provide at § 523(c) that certain dischargeability grounds are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Those arising under § 523(a)(5), however, are not included. Jurisdiction over dischargeability of marital debts is therefore not the exclusive province of the bankruptcy court. Instead, state courts and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such matters.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over the dischargeability determinations it governs.

Hunter v. Cannaley (In re Carlin Investment Co.) · filed 1991-08-06(c)

Congress intended to take the determinations governed by 11 U.S.C. Section 523(c) away from the state courts and grant exclusive jurisdiction to the bankruptcy courts.

Section 523 proceedings determine whether a pre-petition debt is dischargeable and the amount of that debt.

In Re the Marriage of Wright · filed 1992-06-18

When, as here, a party has initiated adversary proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (1989), the role of the bankruptcy court is limited to determining, first, whether a pre-petition debt is dischargeable and, second, the amount of the debt.

A creditor cannot establish a § 523 exception through collateral estoppel when the asserted exception is unspecified and the state court record does not show which findings were essential to the judgment.

Laughter v. Speight (In re Speight) · filed 1992-06-23

Laughter did not specify which paragraph of 11 U.S.C. § 523 he relies on in asserting that his debt should be nondis-chargeable. ... Laughter’s lack of specificity makes is impossible for the Court to determine if the issue sought to be precluded is the same issue involved in the prior litigation. In addition, the record in insufficient to determine if the factual determinations rendered by the state court were essential to the judgment actually rendered. Therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel cannot be applied in this action.

Section 523(a)(5) allows a state court to determine whether a marital debt is in the nature of support and therefore excepted from discharge.

In Re the Marriage of Wisdom · filed 1992-06-18(a)(5)

Therefore, we hold that the trial court has the authority to determine whether wife’s judgment and the Corman debt were dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) dischargeability may be decided by a state court, but a ruling on a support obligation is premature before the obligation is awarded.

Hohenberg v. Hohenberg (In Re Hohenberg) · filed 1992-07-10(a)(5)

In summary, a request for this Court to determine the dischargeability of future “support” obligations which have not yet been awarded is premature. Furthermore, the state court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine matters arising under § 523(a)(5) which therefore may preclude this Court from hearing dischargeability issues in this case.

Section 523(a)(6) nondischargeability of a professional malpractice debt is determined after the malpractice claim is decided.

Waire v. Baker · filed 1992-08-10(a)(6)

This court agrees with the bankruptcy court’s assessment that the determination of nondischargeability rests on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). However, to jump to that analysis before a decision on the professional malpractice claim, denies the plaintiff procedural due process.

State courts may decide dischargeability under § 523(a)(5) when necessary to resolve a marital dispute.

Pidgeon v. Pidgeon (In Re Pidgeon) · filed 1993-05-13(a)(5)

What this means is that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts to make the 523(a)(5) dischargeability determination in appropriate cases where necessary to resolve circularity problems.

Section 523 generally allows state courts and bankruptcy courts to decide whether prepetition debts are dischargeable, except in cases of fraud or wilful and malicious injury.

In Re Carter · filed 1993-07-06

State courts and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of pre-petition debts, except in cases of fraud, or wilful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a) permits a state court to determine whether a divorce obligation is dischargeable when the bankruptcy court dismissed an objection without deciding dischargeability.

Collins v. Collins · filed 1993-06-08(a)

In the instant case, the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant’s complaint because of the appellee’s discharge in bankruptcy. That determination in the bankruptcy court was not binding on the trial court, and the trial court “has ample authority to look behind the judgment to the record to ascertain from the facts and circumstances of the marital situation whether the obligation imposed on the husband ... is dischargeable in bankruptcy.”

Section 523(a)(5)(B) requires a divorce obligation to be actually in the nature of support; a state court’s alimony ruling does not settle that issue when it applies a different standard.

Tavella v. Edwards (In Re Edwards) · filed 1993-07-06(a)(5)(B)

Under Section 523(a)(5)(B), an obligation is “actually in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support” when it is intended to provide support for the spouse, rather than as an equalization of property rights. ... Accordingly, it cannot be said that Edwards was collaterally estopped from raising the issue of dischargeability of the Debts in the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6), including authority to fix the debt and enter a money judgment.

United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Harris (In Re Harris) · filed 1993-06-14(c)

Since in my view an independent legal analysis of the issue rather strongly supports the view that bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to render money judgments in dischargeability cases, I have determined not to follow the district court’s ruling to the contrary in In re Scialdone.

Section 523(a)(5) allows a state court to decide whether alimony debts are dischargeable without the debtor's consent.

Fillet v. Fillet · filed 1993-06-25(a)(5)

The New York Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the dischargeability of alimony debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). In re Bowen, 102 B.R. 752, 754 (9th Cir.BAP 1989). Robert's assertion that state court jurisdiction over the dischargeability issue required his consent is without merit or support in the caselaw.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain dischargeability claims, and they may enter money judgments fixing the amount of nondischargeable debts.

Harris v. United States Fire Insurance · filed 1994-01-11(c)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), the bankruptcy court has exclusive equitable jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court does have jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in a dischargeability proceeding.

Section 523 permits either a state court or a bankruptcy court to determine whether an alimony or support debt is nondischargeable; the creditor need not object to discharge for that debt to survive.

Fortner v. Fortner · filed 1994-01-28(c)

Unlike many other debts, alimony and support are not automatically discharged in the absence of an objection by the creditor. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) (1988). Instead, it is now well-established that both bankruptcy court and state court have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether the debt is a non-dischargeable obligation in the nature of alimony. In re Rabeiro, 151 B.R. 965 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1993); In re Orr, 99 B.R. 109 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1989). Thus, Mrs. Fortner had the option of filing her petition to determine the nature of this debt in either court.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive authority to decide the dischargeability of covered debts; an earlier court’s administrative dismissal of related claims does not bind them.

In Re Dollar Corporation Bra-Con Industries, Inc., Debtors. Dollar Corporation Bra-Con Industries, Inc. v. Ze · filed 1994-06-13(c)

In so doing, Congress intended “to take the determinations governed by 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) away from state courts and grant exclusive jurisdiction in the bankruptcy courts.” ... Bankruptcy courts, in determining whether or not debts are dischargeable, are not bound by an earlier court’s administrative dismissal of a claim; these courts have both the authority and jurisdiction to determine, in an independent proceeding, whether or not conditions for dischargeability have been met.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts alimony from discharge, and state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a divorce debt is alimony.

Siragusa v. Siragusa (In re Siragusa) · filed 1994-06-20(a)(5)

Because the modified alimony was not a Sec. 524 violation, the divorce court had jurisdiction to determine that the payments to Ms. Siragusa were in the nature of alimony, and therefore not dischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5). While federal law controls the determination of whether a debt stemming from divorce is in the nature of alimony or a property settlement, Shaver v. Shaver, 736 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984), state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the issue.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether debts are dischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Thaggard v. Pate (In Re Thaggard) · filed 1995-03-06(a)(5)

Accordingly, the court finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the state court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an unscheduled fraud debt owed to a creditor without timely notice of the bankruptcy to be litigated in state court.

Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Franklin (In Re Franklin) · filed 1995-03-31(a)(3)(B)

Since Franklin concedes that Fidelity was not listed in his bankruptcy schedules and did not otherwise know of the existence of his bankruptcy case before that deadline passed, the prerequisite to exclusive federal jurisdiction over Fidelity’s nondischargeability action based on fraud has not been satisfied. Thus, Fidelity’s nondischargeability action for fraud lies under section 523(a)(3)(B) rather than section 523(a)(2). It qualifies for the exception to the exception and may be litigated in state court.

State courts and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(5).

In Re Crawford · filed 1995-05-31(a)(5)

As to all other exceptions to discharge in section 523(a), including section 523(a)(5), jurisdiction may be exercised by either the bankruptcy court or the state court.

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

Brothers v. Tremaine · filed 1995-09-28(a)(5)

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide dischargeability under § 523(a)(5).

Baker v. Baker (In Re Baker) · filed 1996-04-25(a)(5)

Initially, the court notes that the plaintiff is correct in her contention that the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear questions of dischargeability arising out of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(3) permits nonbankruptcy tribunals to determine whether an unscheduled debt was discharged; bankruptcy courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over that question.

In Re Kean · filed 1996-11-01(a)(3)

While bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6), the primary initial issue in this case involves a determination of dischargeability regarding an unscheduled debt pursuant to § 523(a)(3) under which circumstances exclusive jurisdiction does not rest with this Court.

A state court cannot include a § 523(a) dischargeability ruling in its judgment; the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over that determination.

Randle v. NCNB Texas National Bank · filed 1991-06-24(a)

NCNB’s brief states that it “does not deny that the authority and jurisdiction to determine exception to discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy courts.” It argues that this provision of the judgment does little more than restate the law in this area and suggests that if it is determined that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by entering the adjudication that the judgment be reformed to delete such provision. Point of error four is sustained. The judgment will be modified to vacate the order.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive authority to determine dischargeability of the covered debts, while another court may determine the amount owed.

Saler v. Saler (In Re Saler) · filed 1997-02-24(c)

First, as mentioned earlier, Congress granted exclusive jurisdiction to bankruptcy courts to determine the dischargeability of Harold’s claim, by virtue of section 523(c). Thus, it is problematic that parties could confer such adjudicative powers upon a non-bankruptcy court. They could agree only that a non-bankruptcy forum would determine the amount, if any, due to Harold from Richard.

The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether debts are dischargeable under § 523(a)(2) and (4).

Gaston v. Condra (In Re Condra) · filed 1997-05-16(a)(2), (a)(4)

The Bankruptcy Court clearly has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4).

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(5).

Pope v. Wagner (In Re Pope) · filed 1997-06-16(a)(5)

In contrast to the nondischargeability provisions at issue in Brown, however, the applicability of section 523(a)(5) does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(3) dischargeability claims may be heard in either state or federal court.

In Re Milburn · filed 1998-01-16(a)(3)

The remainder of the § 523(a) nondischargeability actions, including § 523(a)(3), may be heard in either federal or state court.

State and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7).

In Re Honeycutt · filed 1998-12-09(a)(7)

If any party deems it necessary to obtain a determination of nondischargeability of a debt under section 523(a)(7), the state and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to make that determination.

Section 523(c) requires a valid complaint to determine dischargeability; a response to a trustee’s motion to sell property does not suffice.

Hearndon v. Hearndon · filed 1999-01-19(c)

Additionally, the defendant’s response to the Trustee’s motion to sell the property free and clear of liens cannot be construed as a valid complaint to determine dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Claims that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2), (4), (6), or (15) are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court where the debtor’s case is pending.

Howard v. Caranci (In Re Caranci) · filed 1998-12-04(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(15)

However, the jurisdiction to determine claims of nondischargeability under Sections 523(a)(2), (4), (6) and (15) is exclusive and no court but the Bankruptcy Court where the case of the debtor is pending is competent to determine the discharge-ability of a specific debt under these exceptions.

After the deadline for § 523(c) complaints, state courts may decide dischargeability under the remaining § 523(a) exceptions.

In Re Scott · filed 1999-03-17(c)(1)

In other words, the only provisions of § 523(a) which remain viable after the bar date are those paragraphs other than (2), (4), (6), or (15). And state courts have jurisdiction to decide disputes based on those provisions.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) gives state courts and bankruptcy courts concurrent jurisdiction to decide dischargeability when a debtor fails to schedule a debt.

In Re McGregor · filed 1999-03-30(a)(3)(B)

Bankruptcy courts and state courts share concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts based on a debtor’s failure to schedule a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

Jensen v. Froissart · filed 1999-06-25(a)(5)

“state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the issue.”

Section 523(a)(15) reserves the determination that a divorce-related debt is nondischargeable to the bankruptcy court, while allowing it to rely on findings made in state court.

Dodge v. LaCasse (In Re LaCasse) · filed 1999-09-08(a)(15)

Notwithstanding the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to determine nondischargeability under § 523(a)(15), each time such an issue is raised, the bankruptcy court is not required to start the litigation process anew. The only aspect exclusive to the bankruptcy court is the determination that a particular debt or claim is nondischargeable.

State and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

Walters v. Walters · filed 1999-12-01(a)(5)

Instead, state and federal bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of the debts it covers, but limits state court jurisdiction only when the obligation is a pre-petition debt.

Brogan v. Brogan · filed 2000-03-14(c)

Only if the obligation was a pre-petition debt is our jurisdiction limited by § 523(c).

State courts share jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts to decide dischargeability under § 523(a), except for debts described in paragraphs (2), (4), and (6).

Lee v. Lee · filed 2000-03-16(a)

It is well established that a state district court has concurrent jurisdiction with a federal bankruptcy court to determine the issue of the dischargeability of debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), other than those found under subsections (2), (4), and (6).

Section 523(a)(5) allows a state court to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge as alimony, maintenance, or support.

In Re Sutton · filed 2000-05-12(a)(5)

The state court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits bankruptcy courts and other courts to decide whether an unscheduled intentional tort debt survives discharge.

In Re Strano · filed 2000-05-19(a)(3)(B)

The bankruptcy court has concurrent jurisdiction with other courts to determine whether an unscheduled debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523 permits courts with competent jurisdiction to decide dischargeability, except for claims under (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6), which require a bankruptcy court.

Chanute Production Credit Ass'n v. Schicke · filed 2000-07-21

Jurisdiction for a determination of dischargeability is concurrent between the bankruptcy court and a court of competent jurisdiction with the exception of creditor claims brought under § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6).

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property settlement debt is dischargeable under § 523(a)(15).

Carey v. Carey · filed 2000-07-31(a)(15)

Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make a determination under § 523(a)(15), we reverse its judgment that the hold harmless provision of the dissolution decree was non-dis-ehargeable.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction to decide dischargeability claims based on fraud, fiduciary defalcation, and willful and malicious injury.

Stone Street Services, Inc. v. Granati (In Re Granati) · filed 2001-04-09(c)

While state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts to determine the discharge-ability of certain types of debts, the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts alleged to be excepted from discharge on the grounds alleged by Stone Street. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Section 523(a)(2) nondischargeability actions must be brought in bankruptcy court because state courts lack jurisdiction to decide them.

Carole M. Rein Paul M. Driscoll William F. Croce Tina W. Croce and Paul Frenette v. Providian Financial Corporation · filed 2001-06-11(a)(2)

Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over nondischargeabifity actions brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), (6) and (15).

Section 523(a)(2) nondischargeability actions are within the bankruptcy courts’ exclusive jurisdiction.

Carole M. Rein Paul M. Driscoll William F. Croce Tina W. Croce and Paul Frenette v. Providian Financial Corporation · filed 2001-11-05(a)(2)

Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over nondischargeability actions brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), (6) and (15).

Section 523(a)(7) dischargeability may be decided in a nonbankruptcy court, where a debtor's voluntary consent decree stipulation can bind the debtor despite a later general discharge.

Whitehouse v. LaRoche · filed 2002-01-17(a)(7)

Instead, we conclude that because the district court plainly possessed concurrent jurisdiction over the subsection 523(a)(7) dischargeability issue in 1991, when it approved the consent decree, LaRoche cannot now be heard to contend that the general discharge he was granted in 1995 relieved him of liability for the civil penalty.

Section 523(a)(8) allows state courts and bankruptcy courts to decide whether student loan debt is dischargeable.

Haag v. Sallie Mae (In Re Haag) · filed 2002-03-26(a)(8)

A state court has concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy court to address the dischargeability of student loan debts under section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A bankruptcy court may decide whether a debt is dischargeable under § 523(a)(2) despite a state court judgment on the debt.

Sill v. Sweeney (In Re Sweeney) · filed 2002-04-22(a)(2)

Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not forbid the bankruptcy court from exercising jurisdiction over questions of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523 does not provide a basis to assert claims against third parties in bankruptcy court over a jurisdictional objection.

Tank Lines, Inc. v. Bradford Scott Klavan, Triple R Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Klavan) · filed 2002-12-17

The court has been unable to find any case law supporting the use of § 523 to assert claims against third parties in bankruptcy court in the face of a jurisdictional objection. In my opinion, this court does not have jurisdiction over Triple R or Mid-Coast in this case.

State courts may decide whether a debt for alimony or support is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

In Re Burns · filed 2004-02-26(a)(5)

Thus, because a debt in the nature of alimony or support to a spouse or child under § 523(a)(5) is not a type of debt listed in § 523(c), a state court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the debt in question was in fact excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(c) permits non-bankruptcy courts to decide whether tax obligations are nondischargeable under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(7).

In Re Otto · filed 2004-05-06(c)

The other nondischargeability disputes, including the dischargeability of a tax obligation under section 523(a)(1) and (7), are not within the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court under subsection 523(c), and therefore may be determined by non-bankruptcy courts.

Section 523(a)(15) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability, including whether an obligation is a property settlement or support, but limits their role in deciding alimony and maintenance issues.

Henderson v. Henderson (In Re Henderson) · filed 2005-04-11(a)(15)

While this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), including a determination of what is in the nature of a property settlement or in the nature of maintenance, alimony or support, its power to decide alimony and maintenance issues is, and should be limited.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is dischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Eden, Larry v. Chapski, Robert A. · filed 2005-04-22(a)(5)

The Kane County court had concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether Eden’s debt for attorney’s fees was dischargeable, and nothing in the bankruptcy court’s July 29 order precluded the state court from exercising its ... concurrent jurisdiction.

Section 523(a)(5) allows a state court to determine whether a properly raised obligation is in the nature of child support and therefore excepted from discharge.

Burns v. Burns · filed 2005-05-17(a)(5)

As noted above, when the issue is properly raised before a state court, it has jurisdiction to determine the effect of a discharge and to decide whether an obligation is in the nature of child support, thereby meeting the exception from discharge under section 523(a)(5).

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(18).

Foss v. Hall County Child Support Office (In Re Foss) · filed 2005-05-31(a)(18)

Such a procedure is not judicially economic, however, when the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of such obligation under § 523(a)(18) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(18) allows state courts to determine whether a child support obligation is dischargeable.

Foss v. Hall Cty. Child Supp · filed 2005-05-31(a)(18)

Such a procedure is not judicially economic, however, when the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of such obligation under § 523(a)(18) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) leaves the determination of whether guardian ad litem fees are support debts excepted from discharge to the federal bankruptcy court.

In Re MAR · filed 2005-08-11(a)(5)

While the federal bankruptcy court may look to state law when determining the treatment to be given the guardian ad litem fees awarded in this case, it is entirely within the province of the federal bankruptcy court, not this court, to determine the applicability of § 523(a)(5) to such fees.

State and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction over disputes under § 523(a)(3)(A), and a final decision in either court precludes relitigation in the other.

In Re Gustin · filed 2005-12-06(a)(3)(A)

The state court, which determined that the debt was not discharged, has concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy court over issues contested under § 523(a)(3)(A) and a final decision by either court precludes relitigation in the other.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over § 523(a)(15) claims; dismissal of an adversary proceeding after discharge and closure can therefore cause the claimant to lose the claim.

Menges v. Menges (In Re Menges) · filed 2006-01-27(c)

And third, a dismissal without prejudice (which is all Rule 4(m) authorizes) would have the effect, at least in part, of a dismissal with prejudice: because the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over a section 523(a)(15) claim, see 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), and because Louis has been discharged and the underlying bankruptcy has been closed, Christine will lose her- section 523(a)(15) claim altogether if the adversary is dismissed.

Bankruptcy and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether an unscheduled debt is dischargeable under § 523(a)(3).

Rex v. Florida Elks Children's Therapy Services, Inc. (In Re Rex) · filed 2007-02-08(a)(3)

It appears that the Debtor’s Complaint involves § 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, which relates to the dischargeability of unscheduled debts. Bankruptcy Courts and State Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of such debts.

A state court cannot decide whether a debt falls within Section 523’s discharge exceptions before a bankruptcy proceeding is filed.

Meeks v. Meeks · filed 2007-08-17

However, the law does not allow a state court to decide the federal issue of discharge prior to the filing of any bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is nondischargeable under subsection (a)(6).

Adelson v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2008-06-24(c)

To conclude, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over all claims for relief in Adelson’s complaint. It has exclusive jurisdiction over Adelson’s core claim for relief for nondischargeability, and Adelson has consented to this court’s determination and liquidation of any debt owed to him by Smith.

Under former § 523(a)(5), state courts and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a marital debt is a support obligation that cannot be discharged.

Markley v. Markley, 07ca0085 (6-30-2008) · filed 2008-06-30(a)(5)

Accordingly, we find that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether Father's obligation to pay the marital debt was in the nature of support.

A bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

Gradco Corp v. Blankenship (In Re Blankenship) · filed 2009-06-08(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

On the other hand, while the state court has jurisdiction to determine the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff, liquidate any debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, and enter a money judgment against the defendant, it does not have jurisdiction to determine and declare that the debt, if any, owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is or is not nondischargeable by virtue of sections 523(a)(2)(A), (4), and (6).

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction over a claim that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

In Re DiGiovanni · filed 2009-07-16(c)

Further, at least one of the potential legal theories of nondischargeability available to the Demkos (ie., 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)), is one over which the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether debts covered by § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) are excepted from discharge, while state courts may establish the debts.

BUKE, LLC v. Eastburg (In Re Eastburg) · filed 2010-08-23(c)

The bankruptcy court and state court have concurrent jurisdiction over the cause of action to establish the debt under applicable nonbankruptcy law. The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the cause of action to determine whether the debt is excepted from the discharge.

Section 523(c)(1) reserves dischargeability determinations for debts described in § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) to bankruptcy courts, while state courts may decide the validity and extent of the underlying debts.

Buke, LLC v. Eastburg (In Re Eastburg) · filed 2011-04-12(c)(1)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that, although the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over a determination of dischargeability under § 528(a)(2), (4), and (6), bankruptcy courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity and extent of debts arising under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive authority to determine whether a fraud-based debt is dischargeable.

In Re Ulrich · filed 2011-08-12(c)

Not only is Trustar’s Motion not timely, but pursuant to Section 523(c), this Court can not grant Trustar permission to seek a dis-chargeability determination in state court based on fraud.

State courts cannot determine whether a debt falls within § 523(a)(2) or (a)(6)’s discharge exceptions.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Carlson (In Re Carlson) · filed 2012-03-30(a)(2), (a)(6)

Additionally, any state court would lack jurisdiction over the claims concerning the non-dischargeability of Julie’s debt.

Section 523 gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6).

Ackerman v. Eber · filed 2012-07-09(c)(1)

Bankruptcy courts have ... exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability of debts under §§ 523(a)(2) (fraud or deception); (a)(4) (fiduciary fraud, embezzlement, or larceny); and (a)(6) (willful and malicious injury to person or property).

A bankruptcy court may determine whether a debt outside § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) was discharged in an earlier bankruptcy case.

In re Walls · filed 2013-07-09

If, however, the debt is one arising under a subsection of 523 other than (a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6), bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction with non-bankruptcy courts to determine if the debt is dischargeable. ... If a non-bankruptcy forum may decide whether a debt was previously discharged in bankruptcy, the Court finds it similarly may decide whether the IRS’s unsecured nonpriority claim was discharged in the Prior Bankruptcy Case in the Current Bankruptcy Case.

State courts may determine whether a debt is discharged under Section 523(a)(5), but federal law governs whether the obligation is alimony, maintenance, or support.

Castro Jr. v. Castro · filed 2013-05-09(a)(5)

Specifically, bankruptcy courts and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is discharged under section 523(a)(5). ... It remains, however, that whether a particular obligation constitutes alimony, maintenance, or support within the meaning of section 523 is a matter of federal bankruptcy law, not state law.

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to determine nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6).

Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. Wade (In re Wade) · filed 2013-11-06(c)

Determinations of non-dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) are exclusive to the bankruptcy court and cannot be remanded to or decided by the State Court or subject to arbitration.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits state courts to decide whether an omitted creditor’s debt is excepted from discharge, even when they must decide whether the debt falls within § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

In re Steward · filed 2014-04-04(a)(3)(B)

In other words, although the federal court has exclusive authority to except a debt from discharge under those Code sections, it shares authority with the state courts to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3)(B), even if this means a state court has to decide whether the debt falls within § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(c)(1) reserves dischargeability decisions under subsections (a)(2), (4), and (6) to the bankruptcy court, which may keep intertwined liability and damages issues from arbitration.

Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. v. Koper (In re Koper) · filed 2014-09-30(c)(1)

A finding on liability on the Plaintiffs underlying claims by an arbitrator would necessarily involve a finding of fraud, defalcation, or other wrongdoing which would come within the purview of the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of dis-chargeability of such claims under section 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to decide dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6), and the court may retain closely related liability claims when arbitration would disrupt that determination.

Glassman, Edwards, Wyatt, Tuttle & Cox, P.C. v. Wade (In re Wade) · filed 2014-12-16(c)

Here, The Law Firm’s Dischargeability Claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) clearly is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and subject to this bankruptcy court’s “exclusive jurisdiction” to hear and determine.

Section 523(c)(1) leaves the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction to decide a creditor’s standing in an adversary proceeding seeking to except a debt from discharge.

Taylor v. Caiarelli · filed 2015-07-20(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether Caiarelli has standing to pursue the adversary proceeding against Taylor. See U.S.C. 11 § 523(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a willful and malicious injury debt from discharge to obtain a determination from the bankruptcy court.

Loos v. Koperski (In re Koperski) · filed 2015-11-05(c)(1)

Here, "the court” obviously signifies the court with original jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case, i.e. the federal trial court. That would be the bankruptcy court, the repository of judicial authority on reference from the district court as the court of original jurisdiction.

A Section 523(a)(2) dischargeability claim may be resolved alongside the underlying liability claim; dischargeability need not be decided first.

In re Smith · filed 2015-12-11(a)(2)

The District Court can fully resolve both GEICO’s claims against the Debtor and determine whether any resulting judgment is dischargeable. Debtors filing bankruptcy get no special guarantee that all dischargeability issues are resolved before the underlying liability issues are determined.

Section 523(a)(15) does not permit a state divorce court to declare in advance that equitable distribution debts cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Ceballos, M. v. Ceballos-Ramos, Y. · filed 2016-08-03(a)(15)

Accordingly, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to direct that any debts arising out of the equitable distribution award could not be discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523(c) reserves dischargeability decisions under subsections (a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) to the bankruptcy court; other dischargeability claims may be decided by any court of competent jurisdiction.

Williams v. Navient Solutions, LLC (In re Williams) · filed 2017-03-03(c)

Other than claims subject to exception from discharge under sections 523(a)(2), (a)(4) or (a)(6), any court of competent jurisdiction may address whether a claim was discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(15) allows a state court to determine whether a divorce-related debt to a former spouse is nondischargeable when a bankruptcy court has issued only a general discharge.

Adams v. Adams · filed 2017-12-26(a)(15)

We find that the trial court erred in concluding it was unable to rule on the dischargeability of the debt, since such a ruling would not act to alter or otherwise contradict the general discharge rendered by the bankruptcy court. ... Based on the foregoing, the lower court should have determined whether the debt in question was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a state court to determine whether an unscheduled fraud debt survives discharge.

In re Gianopolous · filed 2018-03-15(a)(3)(B)

That court has concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of the Fraud Claim under § 523(a)(3)(B), and the Court sees no reason why the State Court Action should not proceed in that court.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a bankruptcy court to determine liability on an underlying securities claim when deciding whether the debt is dischargeable.

Tillman Enters., LLC v. Horlbeck (In re Horlbeck) · filed 2018-09-14(a)(19)

This Court agrees that bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to determine liability on an underlying securities claim for purposes of § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(5) permits a state court to determine whether a debt is exempt from discharge as a domestic support obligation when the bankruptcy court has not determined its dischargeability.

Dingle v. Carter. · filed 2019-04-24(a)(5)

“That the debtor former spouse has received a general discharge in bankruptcy does not deprive the state court of its jurisdiction to determine whether certain debts of the debtor former spouse are exempt under § 523 (a) (5) from dischargeability.” Rogers, 278 Ga. at 290 (2). Since there was no evidence that the bankruptcy court determined whether the attorney fee was dischargeable, the trial court erred by holding that it lacked jurisdiction to make that determination.

Section 523(a)(5) allows a state court to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge as support when the bankruptcy court has not decided its dischargeability.

Dhane Brooks Dingle v. Carter · filed 2019-05-28(a)(5)

Since there was no evidence that the bankruptcy court determined whether the attorney fee was dischargeable, the trial court erred by holding that it lacked jurisdiction to make that determination. Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial court to determine the dischargeability of the attorney fee debt.

Section 523 permits a bankruptcy court to liquidate an underlying claim when necessary to decide whether the debt is dischargeable.

Walz v. Smith · filed 2019-06-04

It is not surprising that under section 523 bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction to liquidate underlying claims and must often do so to make a ruling on the section 523 claim.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to litigate a fraud-based nondischargeability claim in bankruptcy court.

In re Frantz · filed 2019-07-01(c)

Section 523(c) requires Raders to litigate his nondischargeability claim in the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) dischargeability claims are within the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction, where it can determine whether a debt exists and its amount.

Julie Diana Lyon · filed 2019-07-02(a)(4), (a)(6)

This Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) cases. ... This Court regularly determines, in such proceedings and under its core jurisdiction, whether a debtor owes a debt to the creditor, the amount of that debt, and the alleged nondischargeability of that debt.

The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2).

State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney General Eric S. v. Ross · filed 2019-09-27(a)(2)

This court has both subject matter jurisdiction over and the authority to issue a final order on the State’s Count VI regarding nondischargeability. Indeed, “the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over whether a particular debt should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2).”

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is nondischargeable as alimony, maintenance, or support under § 523(a)(5).

Sidney John Toche · filed 2020-07-10(a)(5)

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine if a debt is of a type that is non-dischargeable as alimony, maintenance or support pursuant to §523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(2) dischargeability is for the bankruptcy court to decide, and a state court’s fraud findings do not bind that determination.

Samuel C. LeBlanc, Jr. · filed 2020-11-10(a)(2)

Finally, as discussed above, although the claims alleged in the Lawsuit should be decided by the State Court, this Court is not bound by any findings in determining § 523 dischargeability.

Section 523(c) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive authority to decide whether claims for fraud, larceny, embezzlement, or malicious injury are excepted from discharge.

Renfrow v. Grogan, Successor Trustee of The Joe · filed 2021-05-07(c)

But only bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to determine whether fraud, larceny, embezzlement, or malicious injury claims are excepted from the discharge.

Section 523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) dischargeability claims are within the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Paul J. Robben · filed 2022-03-17

This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over dischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6); if the motion is granted, the state court cannot rule on dischargeability.

Section 523(c)(1) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dischargeability of intentional tort debts.

Angel Ramon Rodriguez · filed 2022-04-26(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of intentional tort debts. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1). However, the jurisdiction to determine the scope of a bankruptcy discharge is otherwise held concurrently by the bankruptcy court and the state courts.

Section 523(a)’s discharge exceptions may be considered by a domestic relations court after a general bankruptcy discharge if the bankruptcy court did not determine whether the marital debt was dischargeable.

Halbeisen v. Fantozz · filed 2023-12-01(a)

Thus, the trial court had ... jurisdiction to consider the specific exceptions set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), and determine whether the debt was non-dischargeable.

State courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a).

Carmack v. Carmack · filed 2024-04-03(a)

We agree with the bankruptcy court. Although the question of whether a particular debt can be discharged in bankruptcy is a question of federal law, see Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284 (1991), state courts generally may decide the issue, see Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1803 (2019); see also Cummings v. Cummings, 244 F.3d 1263, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that state courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether a debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts domestic support obligations from discharge, but a state court’s designation of a debt as support is only advisory to the bankruptcy court.

Quiles v. Collazo · filed 2024-09-17(a)(5)

Although the bankruptcy court requested the district court to determine the amount of attorney fees and whether they constituted domestic support obligations, the district court’s findings remained advisory. Because the categorization of debts as domestic support obligations is a question of federal bankruptcy law, not state law, we likewise determine that Rodolfo was not prejudiced by the court’s characterization of his debts.

Section 523(c)(1) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to decide whether debts alleged under §523(a)(2), (4), or (6) are excepted from discharge.

Tammy D Cook · filed 2025-02-11(c)(1)

The allegations made in support of excepting the alleged debts from the Debtors’ discharges are based on claims of fraud, embezzlement, larceny, breach of fiduciary duty, and willful and malicious injury to property under §523(a)(2), (4), and (6). Accordingly, the decision about whether the alleged debts will be excepted from the Debtors’ discharges is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court. See 11 U.S.C. §523(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to decide whether debts alleged under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) are excepted from discharge.

Dean R Kohn · filed 2025-02-11(c)(1)

Accordingly, the decision about whether the alleged debts will be excepted from the Debtors’ discharges is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court. See 11 U.S.C. §523(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether debts alleged under §523(a)(2), (4), and (6) are excepted from discharge.

Frank F Lunn, IV · filed 2025-02-11(c)(1)

Accordingly, the decision about whether the alleged debts will be excepted from the Debtors’ discharges is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court. See 11 U.S.C. §523(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether debts alleged under §523(a)(2), (4), and (6) are excepted from discharge.

Francis S Rathbun · filed 2025-02-11(c)(1)

Accordingly, the decision about whether the alleged debts will be excepted from the Debtors’ discharges is exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court. See 11 U.S.C. §523(c)(1).

Under Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15), state courts may determine whether domestic obligations are dischargeable after a bankruptcy case is filed and the automatic stay has terminated.

James C. Stewart · filed 2025-03-05

In addition, once a bankruptcy has been filed, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine the dischargeability of debts under Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) and can make that determination once the automatic stay has terminated.

Section 523 permits a former spouse to pursue in state court whether a divorce-decree payment obligation is discharged.

McKoy v. McKoy (In re McKoy) · filed 1993-11-01(c)

However, this is an issue which Mrs. McKoy may pursue in state court. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and (c).

Section 523(a)(9) dischargeability may be decided by either a bankruptcy court or a state court.

Gage v. Hagen (In Re Hagen) · filed 2000-12-08(a)(9)

Section 523(a)(9) is one type of exception to discharge over which both the bankruptcy court and the state court have concurrent jurisdiction.

Section 523(c) gives the bankruptcy court exclusive authority to determine whether a liquidated debt for willful and malicious injury is dischargeable.

Doe Ex Rel. Hughes v. Martinez (In Re Martinez) · filed 2011-07-15(c)

As the Court recognized in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, although the bankruptcy court “lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate” personal injury tort claims, “it has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate its dis-chargeability once such claim is liquidated.”

Section 523(c) requires a creditor seeking to except a qualifying debt from discharge to file a complaint.

In Re: Linda Marie Rutherford v. Schoenmann · filed 2023-05-19(c)

The bankruptcy court properly granted a discharge to Rutherford because Tang-Fok failed to file a complaint objecting to the discharge of Rutherford’s debt or seeking to except specific debt from discharge.

Section 523(c) discharges debts covered by § 523(a)(2) unless the court determines that they are excepted from discharge.

Leticia R. Couttien · filed 2023-03-01(c)

As stated above, claims brought under Section 523(a)(2) are discharged unless the Court determines that the debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to Section 523(c).

Section 523(c) requires a bankruptcy court determination to except debts covered by section 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge.

Raymond G. Craytor · filed 2023-02-22(c)

Because the Estate did not return to the bankruptcy court for a finding of nondischargeability, the May 2021 Settlement was discharged.

Section 523(a)(4) does not allow a debtor to waive dischargeability of a debt in a prepetition consent judgment.

Greensward, Inc. v. Cietek (In Re Cietek) · filed 2008-04-18(a)(4)

As a result, it finds the Debtor’s pre-petition waiver of discharge-ability in the Consent Judgment unenforceable.

Section 523 dischargeability complaints governed by Rule 4007(c) must meet its filing deadline unless a motion to extend is filed before that deadline; equitable tolling cannot excuse a late complaint under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Western Union Financial Services, Inc. v. Mascarenhas (In Re Mascarenhas) · filed 2008-02-26

In this case, the Meeting of Creditors was originally set for September 25, 2007, thus establishing the deadline for filing a § 523 complaint on Monday, November 26, 2007. ... As the complaint was filed one day later, on November 27, 2007, and no motion to extend time was filed prior to the November 26th deadline, I am required under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent to grant Defendant’s Motion and dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

A creditor seeking to except a debt under § 523(a)(2) or (4) from discharge must file a dischargeability complaint within 60 days after the first date set for the creditors’ meeting.

Zabivnik v. Hannen (In Re Hannen) · filed 2008-03-17(c)

Such a creditor must file a complaint under Rule 4007(c) to determine dischargeability no later than sixty (60) days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors. ... A failure to timely file such a complaint will result in the discharge of those debts.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a) for fraud or other wrongful conduct must assert the claim in an adversary proceeding.

In Re Lyons · filed 2008-01-30(a)

To the extent that Caraleasing contends its claim should not be discharged because it arose from fraud or some other wrongful act of the Debtor, that claim must be asserted in an adversary proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a).

Section 523(c) discharges a fraud debt unless the creditor seeks a determination that the debt is nondischargeable.

Dalembert v. Pendergrass (In Re Pendergrass) · filed 2007-09-24(c)

Section 523(c) evidences Congressional intent that a debtor shall be discharged even from fraudulent debt unless the creditor acts.

A creditor seeking more time to file a complaint under § 523(c)(1) concerning a § 523(a)(2) debt must file a timely motion and show cause; a lack of diligence defeats the request.

In Re Woods · filed 2001-03-16(c)(1)

Consequently, in order to successfully obtain an extension of time in which to file a dischargeability complaint under § 523(c)(1), relating to a debt described in § 523(a)(2), Alabama Telco had to timely file a motion for extension of time, and show cause why the motion should be granted. ... The delay in assigning the case to counsel, counsel’s delay in requesting data to evaluate the case, the failure to attend the section 341 meeting, the apparent lack of follow up by either the Creditor or its attorney, and the filing of the motion to extend on the day of the deadline all point to a lack of diligence. ... Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Creditor Alabama Telco Credit Union’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Adversary Proceeding is DENIED.

Section 523(a)(6) does not permit a creditor to add a nondischargeability claim after the Rule 4007 deadline by amending a timely complaint objecting to discharge under § 727.

Community Bank of Johnson County v. Dollar (In Re Dollar) · filed 2001-01-04(a)(6)

Applying the rule of Ginn to the present case, the Court sustains its rejection of the settlement agreement and denies Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the § 523 complaint after the deadline in Rule 4007 has passed.

A creditor may seek more time to file a Section 523(c) dischargeability complaint through an authorized joint motion, even if its own lawyer does not sign the motion.

French Kezelis & Kominiarek, P.C. v. Carlson (In Re Carlson) · filed 2000-11-14(c)

Furthermore, it is within the court’s discretion to entertain an asserted joint motion actually authorized (as here it was) to be presented by another lawyer on behalf of two creditors even though not signed by counsel for one of the movants as long as the party was specifically mentioned in the motion.

Section 523(c) requires a timely complaint to determine whether a claim is nondischargeable under the specified § 523(a) exceptions.

In Re Schneiderman · filed 2000-10-17(c)

Chase failed to file a timely complaint objecting under 11 U.S.C. § 727(b) to the debt- or's being granted a discharge, and failed to file a timely complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) to determine that Chase’s claim was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1), (2), (4), (6), or (15). Its claim similarly is not nondischargeable under other provisions of § 523(a).

For debts covered by § 523(c), a creditor must timely seek a determination of nondischargeability or the debt is discharged.

In Re Schneiderman · filed 2000-08-16(c)

However, Chase’s claim has been discharged without its timely seeking a determination of nondischargeability or timely obtaining an agreement reaffirming the debt.

A § 523(c) complaint concerning an established debt is governed by bankruptcy filing deadlines, not the state limitations period for the underlying claim.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. McKendry (In re McKendry) · filed 1994-11-09(c)

However, the question of the dischargeability of the debt under the Bankruptcy Code is a distinct issue governed solely by the limitations periods established by bankruptcy law. In this case, the debt has already been established, so the state statute of limitations is immaterial. The only applicable limitations period is the sixty day period provided by § 523(c).

A creditor’s deadline to seek an extension for filing a § 523(a)(2)(B) dischargeability complaint does not begin until the creditor receives proper notice of the bankruptcy proceeding.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. v. Main (In Re Main) · filed 1990-03-23(a)(2)(B)

Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), which pertains to objections to dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), contains virtually identical language: ... The time limitation provided for in these rules is not triggered until a creditor has received proper notice.

A creditor must present sufficient allegations or evidence to establish an exception to discharge under § 523.

Moran v. Saxenian Properties (In Re Moran) · filed 1989-10-03

The Debtor was not found to have committed any acts to prevent discharge or to create any exceptions to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523, and there has not been sufficient evidence or allegation presented by the Defendant in this adversary proceeding to find such acts.

Section 523(c) requires a timely complaint to determine dischargeability; an objection filed after the deadline cannot be considered.

Professional Personnel Consultants v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1987-03-09(c)

Unfortunately for the creditor, the creditor filed an objection to dischargeability on December 18, 1986, more than one year after the last date set for filing a complaint to determine dischargeability under § 523(c). ... The objection to discharge-ability was also filed out of time and cannot now be considered. The debt has been discharged.

A creditor cannot add a § 523(a)(6) claim to a timely objection to discharge after the deadline for dischargeability complaints has passed.

Austin Farm Center, Inc. v. Harrison (In Re Harrison) · filed 1987-03-04(a)(6)

Simply stated, in the case at bar, there is not a “sufficient identity” between Plaintiff’s timely-pleaded § 727(a) claim and its proposed § 523(a)(6) claim to justify amendment in “the interests of justice,” now that the bar date has passed. To hold otherwise would circumvent BANKR.R. 4007(c) by allowing Plaintiff to do indirectly what it could not do directly — almost two years after the bar date has passed, and long after Debtors had the right to conclude that dischargeability issues were at rest.

Section 523 dischargeability complaints covered by Rule 4007(c) must be filed within the rule’s deadline; a rescheduled creditors’ meeting does not reset it.

Schnell v. Tieman (In Re Tieman) · filed 1987-01-22(c)

The time for filing a complaint seeking to have a debt excepted from a debtor’s discharge for a ground based upon 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) which states: ... A complaint to determine the dischargeability of any debt pursuant to § 523(c) of the Code shall be filed not later than 60 days following the first date set for the meeting of creditors held pursuant to § 341(a). ... In fact, Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) specifically requires that the 60-day period within which such complaints must be filed be calculated by reference to the “first date set for the meeting of creditors”.

Section 523 excepts particular debts from discharge and requires a claim and proof distinct from an objection to the debtor’s overall discharge under § 727.

Rufenacht v. Russell (In Re Rufenacht, Bromagen, & Hertz, Inc.) · filed 1987-01-16

Actions under § 727 (complete revocation of discharge) are different from actions under § 523 (exceptions from discharge) “not only in the basis of the claim and its allegations but in the type, measure and burden of proof.”

Section 523 does not let a debtor use the Fifth Amendment privilege alone to avoid a supported determination that a specific debt is nondischargeable.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Frenville · filed 1986-12-09

Even if the result of the invocation of the privilege is not a denial of the discharge, it is clear that Congress did not authorize the use of the privilege with respect to a claim concerning the discharge-ability of a specific debt. Nowhere in 11 U.S.C. § 523 does the privilege arise.

A complaint under § 523(c) to determine dischargeability in a Chapter 7 case must be filed within sixty days of the date set for the first meeting of creditors.

Woodson v. Tosenberger (In Re Tosenberger) · filed 1986-10-27(c)

A complaint to determine dischargeability of any debt in a chapter 7 case pursuant to § 523(c) of the Bankruptcy Code must be filed not later than sixty days following the date set for the first meeting of creditors. ... However, equity and the circumstances of this case dictate that the complaint in the instant case was so untimely filed as to subject the complaint to dismissal.

A debtor does not waive the filing deadline for a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint by defending the complaint through trial.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Kirsch (In Re Kirsch) · filed 1986-10-01(c)

However, in this case as in Hulson, the fact that former counsel answered the adversary complaint, participated in the pretrial process and participated in the trial does not constitute a waiver, because there can be no waiver.

Section 523 provides for judicial determinations of whether particular debts are dischargeable.

Deel v. United States/Internal Revenue Service (In Re Deel) · filed 1986-09-23

The Court has reviewed the Legislative History following 11 U.S.C. § 523. It is clearly stated that the purpose of this Section, as supplemented by the Rules to be made applicable thereto, is to render decisions upon questions of dischargeability and other issues set forth therein.

Section 523(a) requires a debt on which the debtor is liable before a creditor can seek a nondischargeability determination.

Hamilton v. Betz (In Re Betz) · filed 1986-08-08(a)

A review of the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a) indicates that debts arising from the activities set forth in the statute may be held to be nondischargeable. However, the statute’s use of the term “debt” presupposes the existence of a debt on which the debtor is liable. Since the presence of an allowable claim is prerequisite to the existence of a debt, and since the Plaintiff does not have an allowable claim against the Debtor-In-Possession, there is no debt which requires the determination sought by the present Complaint.

Section 523 does not give a bankruptcy trustee standing to seek a determination that a particular debt is nondischargeable under subsection (a)(5).

Matter of Martin · filed 1986-08-04(a)(5)

Thus, in sharp contrast to § 727(c)(1), no power to obtain a determination of dischargeability is given a trustee under the statutory language of either § 523 or BR 4007(a).

A creditor cannot pursue a Section 523 dischargeability complaint while a confirmed Chapter 13 plan is pending.

Illinois Department of Public Aid v. Hudson (In Re Hudson) · filed 1981-03-02

There is no provision in the Bankruptcy Code to contest the dischargeability of a debt under § 523 during the time that a Chapter 13 plan is pending after confirmation.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor seeking to except certain debts from discharge to file a complaint; once the filing deadline expires without an extension, the creditor cannot initiate that litigation.

In Re Leonard · filed 1981-06-23(c)

Inasmuch as the time fixed for the filing of a § 523(a)(2) complaint has expired, the creditor now has no opportunity to initiate § 523 litigation.

A creditor may file a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint after the deadline when the delay resulted from excusable neglect under the applicable bankruptcy rules.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Klayer (In Re Klayer) · filed 1981-07-06(c)

Interim Rule 4003 modifies Rule 409(a)(2) by changing the reference to § 17(c)(2) of the Act to read as a reference to § 523(c) of the Code. ... There is no reason why the limitations of Rule 906(b) should not similarly be applicable to Rule 409(a)(2). ... This reliance constitutes the requisite element of excusable neglect and is a logical conclusion because procedure in this as in all other courts dictates that deadlines for pleadings and other acts should be adhered to.

A creditor seeking to file a Section 523(c) dischargeability complaint after the filing deadline must show excusable neglect to obtain an extension.

Citizens National Bank of Russellville v. Parrish (In Re Parrish) · filed 1981-07-06(c)

Interim Rule 4003 modifies Rule 409(a)(2) by changing the reference to § 17(c)(2) of the Act to read as a reference to § 523(c) of the Code. ... Rule 906(b)(2) requires a showing of excusable neglect to permit an enlargement of time after the originally specified period has expired.

Section 523(c) dischargeability claims are separate causes of action, so a debtor’s lien avoidance complaint does not toll the filing deadline.

Crabtree v. Haladye (In Re Crabtree) · filed 1981-09-09(c)

Defendants’ counterclaim is based on Section 523 and is thus an independent and separate statutory cause of action from the Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 545. Treated as such the counterclaim is permissive and under the facts of the case is not timely filed.

Section 523 requires a creditor seeking a determination that a debt is nondischargeable to file a complaint to determine dischargeability.

In Re Haupt · filed 1981-12-21

Initially, we must note that HFC has not proved, nor properly alleged, any facts to suggest that the debt owed to it by the debtors should be deemed nondischargeable. The proper way to do so is to file a complaint to determine dischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (1979). Until such time as the debt has been determined nondischargeable, any allegations in this regard are the purest speculation.

Section 523(c) makes debts potentially covered by subsections (a)(2), (4), and (6) dischargeable when the creditor fails to file a timely dischargeability complaint.

Rowan v. Morgan (In Re Rowan) · filed 1981-12-14(c)

As in Gutierrez, the sole grounds which appear to be available to Defendants under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a) are those set forth in Subsections (2), (4), and (6). No complaint having been filed, 11 U.S.C. Section 523(c) renders the overpayment dischargeable.

A court-set deadline for filing a § 523 dischargeability complaint may be changed for good cause.

Thorp Credit Corp. v. Nebolsky (In re Nebolsky) · filed 1982-04-08

The order and notice of July 30,1981 does cut off the time for filing complaints pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 et seq., but that is an act of the Court rather than pursuant to Code, and hence vulnerable to changes for good cause.

Section 523(c) permits only the creditor to whom a debt is owed to request a determination that the debt is excepted from discharge.

State v. Pierson (In Re Pierson) · filed 1982-02-24(c)

11 U.S.C. § 523(c) clearly and unambiguously requires that the “creditor to whom such debt is owed” seek a determination of dischargeability. The plaintiff cannot and does not claim to be the creditor to whom the debts are owed. By statute, the plaintiff is barred from commencing this action.

Section 523 requires a debt to be presumed dischargeable unless a proper proceeding determines that it is nondischargeable.

Alan I. W. Frank Corp. v. P. M. A., Inc. (In Re Alan I. W. Frank Corp.) · filed 1982-04-09(c)

By our decision herein, we are not deciding whether the debt in question is dischargeable or nondischargeable. Should it be determined, in a proper proceeding, that the debt in question is nondischargeable then we would, on application, dissolve our injunctive order. Unless and until such a determination is made, however, we must presume that the debt is dischargeable.

A complaint to determine whether a debt is dischargeable under § 523 is timely if filed on the court’s deadline, even after ordinary business hours.

Wentworth v. Warren (In Re Warren) · filed 1982-06-11

Bankruptcy Rule 501(a), however, states in part: “The courts of bankruptcy shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing any pleading....” Because plaintiff’s complaint was, in fact, filed on September 23rd (the last day for filing complaints to dischargeability of debts), it was timely filed.

A late request to extend the filing deadline for a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint requires a showing of excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rules 409 and 906(b).

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Horvath (In Re Horvath) · filed 1982-06-17(c)

Both parties ignore Rule 409 which governs 11 U.S.C. § 523 dischargeability determination. ... Under these circumstances, this court agrees with those authorities which hold that Rule 906(b)’s “excusable neglect” standard should be read in conjunction with Rules 404 and 409 in limiting the court’s discretion under these provisions.

Section 523(c) discharges debts described in § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) unless a creditor files a timely complaint and the court determines after a hearing that the debt is excepted from discharge.

Rockland Trust Co. v. Sheerin (In Re Sheerin) · filed 1982-07-09(c)

Under Section 523(c) the debtor shall be discharged from a debt specified in Section 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) of the Code unless upon a complaint timely filed by the creditor and after hearing, the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge.