11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(c) permits a timely dischargeability complaint concerning an established debt even if the state limitations period for a fraud claim has expired.

In RE McKENDRY · filed 1994-12-20(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 Sec. 523(c).

A creditor with actual knowledge of a bankruptcy must inquire about the deadline for filing a § 523 nondischargeability complaint and may be barred from filing late even without notice from the court clerk.

Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Hoback (In re Hoback) · filed 1995-02-28

Such actual knowledge imposes upon a creditor the obligation to make reasonable inquiry regarding the relevant bankruptcy bar dates and deadlines. ... Even if the Court determined that notice was not received from the Court Clerk, Ohio Casualty would be barred because the evidence shows that it failed to act to protect its rights in a timely fashion.

Section 523(c) dischargeability complaints follow Rule 4007; an extension of the deadline to object to discharge under § 727 does not extend the deadline to file one.

Hsu v. Ginn (In Re Ginn) · filed 1995-03-30(c)(1)

However, the deadline was extended pursuant to FRBP 4004 to permit later filing of a complaint objecting to discharge under § 727(a). Such extensions are inapplicable to a complaint objecting to dischargeability under § 523, which is procedurally governed by FRBP 4007.

Section 523(c)(1) does not require a creditor holding a debt described in § 523(a)(8) to file a proof of claim before pursuing an unpaid balance after discharge.

In Re Hamilton · filed 1995-03-30(c)(1)

... 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1) provides that debt of the kind specified in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) need not be proved in bankruptcy in order for a creditor to pursue the nondischargeable debt after Debtor receives her discharge.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt under § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6) from discharge to file a timely nondischargeability complaint.

Dorfman v. Moorhous (In Re Moorhous) · filed 1995-04-06(c)

However, in order for a debt to be excepted from discharge under Sections 523(a)(4) or (a)(6), the creditor must file a timely nondischargeability complaint. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c); Fed. R.Bankr.P. 4007(c). ... The deadline in the debtor’s case for filing such complaints was April 5, 1994, and the plaintiffs complaint was not filed until April 12,1994. Accordingly, even if the debtor’s conduct in spending the military pay he received prepetition constituted conversion, any claim for damages as a result of such conversion was discharged.

The 60-day period for filing a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint begins when the meeting of creditors is actually held.

Peerless Insurance v. Miller (In Re Miller) · filed 1995-04-13(c)

Based on the foregoing, the court holds that the 60-day period within which to file complaints under Rule 4007(e) begins to run on the date the § 341 meeting of creditors is actually “held.”

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to seek a timely determination that a debt arising from false pretenses is excepted from discharge.

Silagy v. Bank One, Akron, N.A. (In Re Collin) · filed 1995-05-08(c)

In this case, no motion for extension was filed within the original time prescribed in Bankr.RuIe 4007(c). Because of this, the court cannot grant an extension of time to Bank One. However, a complaint other than under § 523(c) may be filed at any time.

A state statute of limitations for fraud actions does not govern an objection to dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Kaleta v. Sokolow · filed 1995-06-22(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court holds that a claim objecting to dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) is not governed by the state statute of limitations for fraud actions, that Sokolow’s dischargeability claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, and that the bankruptcy court is due to be affirmed on this issue.

A court may allow an untimely § 523(c) dischargeability complaint to proceed when its misleading notice warrants equitable relief.

Hartje Lumber, Inc. v. Brach (In Re Brach) · filed 1995-08-03(c)

Regardless of the propriety of issuing an amended notice setting another date, the case law does not deny creditors all relief where the court’s mistake in issuing a notice resulted in the dissemination of erroneous information to the creditor, and under Isaacman, Themy and Anwiler the court can accept an untimely complaint if it is justified under the circumstances.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge to commence a bankruptcy proceeding; otherwise, the debt is discharged.

Cub Cadet Corp. v. Rosage (In Re Rosage) · filed 1995-11-22(c)(1)

This provision requires a creditor to whom a debt is owed under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to commence a proceeding in the bankruptcy court for an exception to dischargeability. Failure to do so will result in the discharge of the debt.

A creditor seeking to extend the Rule 4007(c) deadline for a § 523 dischargeability complaint must move before the deadline expires.

In re Leedberg · filed 1995-12-06

Because of the dictates of Pioneer, I conclude that the deadline for a dischargeability/discharge action can only be extended pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4007(c). As 4007(c) states that a extension of the deadline is only considered if the request is received before the deadline expires, a motion seeking relief nunc pro tunc must be denied.

A creditor’s § 523(c) complaint is not barred by a misleading notice of the filing deadline when the creditor reasonably relies on a later deadline expressly stated by the court.

Wilzig v. Lopez (In re Lopez) · filed 1996-01-23(c)

The September notice was intrinsically un-rebable and could not constitute adequate notice of the deadline for filing complaints. The creditor reasonably rebed on the expressly stated later date. The trial court’s ruhng was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, and is, therefore, reversed. These proceedings are remanded for the court to vacate the September notice and reinstate the creditor’s complaint.

Section 523(c) dischargeability complaints are subject to the Rule 4007(c) filing deadline, and a motion for more time filed in a related case does not extend that deadline.

H.T. Paul Co. v. Atteberry (In Re Atteberry) · filed 1996-03-29(c)

The time limits for filing objections to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 and complaints to determine dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) are identical. ... Paul failed to file a timely motion in this case. The fact that Paul’s counsel submitted a motion in a related case does not change the fact that a timely motion was not filed in this case.

Section 523(a)(2) claims cannot be added after the dischargeability complaint deadline when the original complaint gives no fair notice of the facts underlying them.

Caruso v. Segal (In Re Segal) · filed 1996-05-03(a)(2)

In the instant Proceeding, the Plaintiff admittedly asserts entirely new claims under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B), based on facts which are not even mentioned in the original Complaint. ... This is exactly what F.R.B.P. 4007(c) precludes when it provides that any challenge to dischargeability must be made within the 60-day period, which expired on January 16, 1996, long before the Motion to Amend was filed on April 16,1996.

A creditor seeking a dischargeability determination under § 523(c) must request an extension before the Rule 4007(c) deadline expires; postponing or failing to hold the creditors’ meeting does not automatically extend that deadline.

Datson v. Cote (In Re Datson) · filed 1996-05-23(c)

This Court concludes that the bankruptcy court erred by determining that the bar date had not expired because the meeting of the creditors had not been held. Instead, this Court agrees with the majority rule that the sixty-day period starts running on the first date set for the creditors’ meeting, regardless of when the meeting is actually held. If the meeting of the creditors is rescheduled or if a creditor anticipates that the meeting of the creditors will not be held during the sixty-day period, then the proper remedy is for the creditor to request an extension before the expiration of the bar date pursuant to Rule 4004(a) and Rule 4007(c).

A creditor seeking to establish that a claim is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) must bring an adversary proceeding.

In Re Allard · filed 1996-05-09(a)(6)

Similarly, Great Southern’s arguments about the nondischargeability of its claim against the Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) requires an adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Rule 7001(6).

The deadline for filing a § 523 dischargeability complaint is not jurisdictional and may be subject to equitable estoppel.

Handler v. Steiner (In Re Steiner) · filed 1996-05-29

This Court agrees with the analysis set forth in In re Dombrojf and holds that the time limits delineated in Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) are not jurisdictional. Accordingly, they may be subject to certain equitable defenses, including the defenses of estoppel and waiver.

The deadline for filing a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) is nonjurisdictional and may be subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

In Re Dolores Benedict, A/K/A Dolores Cogliano, Debtor. European American Bank v. Dolores Benedict, A/K/A Dolores Coglia · filed 1996-07-22(c)

We agree with the third line of cases and hold that the time period imposed by Rule 4007(c) is not jurisdictional. ... Accordingly, we think that the bankruptcy court’s March Order was proper and should not have been rescinded for lack of jurisdiction.

A complaint seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(c)(1) must meet the filing deadline, which the court treats as jurisdictional.

Gebhardt v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1996-10-29(c)(1)

Under Taylor and Stoulig, the Court is without jurisdiction to consider untimely discharge or dischargeability actions.

A § 523(a)(15) claim added after the filing deadline relates back to a timely § 523(a)(5) complaint when both arise from the same transactions and facts.

Farmer v. Osburn (In Re Osburn) · filed 1996-12-18(a)(15)

Because Ms. Farmer’s § 523(a)(15) complaint arises out of the same transactions and set of facts giving rise to the timely filed § 523(a)(5) complaint, the amendment relates back to the date of the original filing and is timely under Rule 4007(e).

Whether a claim is nondischargeable under § 523(a) must be decided in an adversary proceeding.

In Re Halko · filed 1996-12-31(a)

Also, whether either of Parker’s claims against the Debtor are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) can only be decided through an adversary proceeding.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2) or (4) must file a timely complaint; an extension of the filing deadline requires cause.

Huntington National Bank v. Lewis (In Re Lewis) · filed 1997-03-04(c)

The Complaint filed by Huntington on January 28, 1997, and for which Huntington has asked for an extension of time to file, is an objection to the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4). ... Under these circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that cause exists for granting Huntington’s motion for an extension of time.

Section 523(c) does not bar a creditor from bringing a later proceeding to determine whether a debt falls under § 523(a)(17).

In Re Vasquez · filed 1997-02-12(c)

No time bar under § 523(c) or Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4007(c) will preclude the filing of an adversary proceeding at this point in time.

Complaints to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(5) have no filing deadline under the Bankruptcy Code or Bankruptcy Rules, and state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over them.

Hopson v. Hopson (In Re Hopson) · filed 1997-02-21(a)(5)

The federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over claims under '§ 523(a)(5), and neither the Bankruptcy - Code nor the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure contain a deadline for filing complaints to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a covered debt from discharge to file a complaint to determine dischargeability.

Schmidt v. Goscicki (In Re Goscicki) · filed 1997-02-25(c)(1)

The Appellant did not file a complaint to determine discharge-ability, as required by Section 523(c)(1).

Section 523(c)(1) discharges debts described in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) without a timely nondischargeability determination, unless § 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Malandra (In Re Malandra) · filed 1997-03-31(c)(1)

Returning then to the statutory framework of Section 523, subsection (c)(1) provides that, in the absence of a timely complaint as to which there is a determination of non-dischargeability, a debtor is discharged of debts of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), unless the exception set forth in Section 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

Section 523(c) permits but does not require the IRS to seek a dischargeability determination before collecting a tax debt after bankruptcy.

United States Internal Revenue Service v. Mathews (In Re Mathews) · filed 1997-06-16(c)

The Bankruptcy Code permits but does not require the IRS to bring a complaint to determine dischargeability before it seeks collection from a taxpayer who has been a debtor in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor to file a complaint to except a debt from discharge only for debts listed in § 523(a)(2), (4), (6), or (15).

Richmond v. United States · filed 1997-07-15(c)(1)

Under § 523(c)(1), a creditor is required to file a complaint only if the debt to be excepted from discharge falls under Section 523(a)(2), (4), (6), or (15).

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor to file a timely complaint to prevent discharge of a covered debt, regardless of the claim’s merits.

First Deposit National Bank v. Glover (In Re Glover) · filed 1997-09-02(c)(1)

Accordingly, if a creditor fails to file a complaint to determine the dischargeability of debt before the expiration of the applicable deadline, that debt will be dischargeable regardless of the merits of the creditor’s claim.

Section 523(c)(1) permits a timely nondischargeability complaint filed by the wrong related creditor to proceed when it identifies the debt and causes the debtor no prejudice.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · filed 1997-07-17(c)(1)

Better that the right entity file the request for non-discharge in time under § 523(c); but if the wrong related entity files for the same debt, a bankruptcy judge is not obliged to toss the request out of court.

Section 523(c) dischargeability complaints are subject to a jurisdictional filing deadline that reopening the bankruptcy case does not extend.

Goodwin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance (In Re Goodwin) · filed 1997-12-17(c)

Again, the court concludes that the deadline for filing Section 523(c) complaints is jurisdictional.

A timely complaint must allege facts supporting a § 523(a) nondischargeability claim for that claim to proceed.

Casey v. Kasal (In Re Kasal) · filed 1997-10-21(a)

A complaint which fails to recite facts which could support any other grounds for challenging a debtor’s discharge or any causes under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) challenging dis-chargeability of the creditor’s particular debt will be confined to the grounds specifically recited therein.

A late § 523(a)(6) claim does not relate back to a timely § 727 complaint that gives no notice of the injury alleged to make the debt nondischargeable.

In Re Magno · filed 1997-12-17(a)(6)

Rigsby's untimely amended complaint, which added a count under § 523(a)(6), pleaded a new theory as well as new facts. The mere mention of the $120,040 claim was not enough to give notice of the facts underlying that claim so as to be a nexus between the two complaints. Therefore, the amended complaint did not relate back to the original, timely-filed § 727 complaint.

A timely complaint can support a later § 523 dischargeability amendment if it gives the debtor adequate notice of the transaction and relief sought.

Shapiro v. Halberstram (In Re Halberstram) · filed 1998-03-20

So while the original complaint was not identified as a proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523, it timely set forth adequate information to apprise the Debtor-Defendant of the transaction in question and the nature of the relief being sought, namely, the recovery of the money they claim to have been defrauded out of by the Debtor-Defendant notwithstanding his potential discharge in bankruptcy.

A complaint under § 523(c) is timely on the next business day when its Rule 4007(c) deadline falls on a Sunday followed by a legal holiday.

Farmers Bank of Maryland v. Beck (In Re Beck) · filed 1998-05-11(c)

By virtue of Bankruptcy Rules 1019(2) and 4007(e), the deadline for filing dischargeability complaints pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) was fixed as February 15, 1998. ... Since the date inserted in the Notice of Commencement of Case under Chapter 7 that was sixty days after the creditor’s meeting, happened to be a Sunday, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) applies to permit an extension of the filing deadline until the first business day after that Sunday and following legal holiday. Plaintiffs complaint was timely filed.

Section 523(c)(1) does not cover debts under § 523(a)(11), so a complaint to determine their dischargeability may be filed at any time under Rule 4007(b).

First Union National Bank of Florida v. Harmon · filed 1998-04-20(c)(1)

Simply stated, Congress’ decision to reference debts under § 523(a)(ll) only in § 523(c)(2), and the plain language of Rule 4007 and § 523, evince Congress’ intention to exclude debts under § 523(a)(ll) from § 523(c)(1), despite the resulting irregularity which arises by including § 523(a)(ll) within § 523(c)(2).

A creditor cannot add a Section 523 dischargeability claim after the filing deadline by relating it back to a state-law lawsuit filed before bankruptcy.

KBHS Broadcasting Co. v. Sanders (In Re Bozeman) · filed 1998-04-23

To relate unfiled section 523 and. 727 causes of action to a state-law action filed over a year before the bankruptcy case was even filed simply does not comport with the Bankruptcy Code, the rules, nor their policies, including the concepts and policies governing discharge and dischargeability.

An extension of time to object to a debtor’s discharge does not extend the time to assert a § 523(a) nondischargeability claim.

Migoscha, S.A. v. Meffert (In Re Meffert) · filed 1998-10-14(a)

After the debtor filed this case on October 27, 1997, the plaintiff sought and received an extension of time to object to his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727, but never sought a corresponding extension to assert a section 523(a) claim. Accordingly, all section 523(a) claims are time-barred.

Section 523(a) dischargeability claims added after the complaint deadline do not relate back when the original complaints gave no timely notice of those claims.

KBHS Broadcasting Co. v. Sanders (In Re Bozeman) · filed 1998-11-20(a)

The Stations’ pleadings in the adversary proceeding were insufficient to give Bozeman timely notice of their objections to discharge-ability under § 523(a) and to discharge under § 727(a). Notice of the Stations’ intent to assert such claims arising outside the pleadings, in their collateral motions and the adversary cover sheet, does not permit their untimely amended complaints to relate back.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a court determination to except debts under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge; Bankruptcy Rule 4007 sets a 60-day deadline for the complaint.

In Re Miller · filed 1999-01-07(c)(1)

All complaints to determine the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to § 523(c) must be filed no later than 60 days following the first date set for the meeting of creditors. Fed. R.Bankr.P. 4007. ... Nor may Marie now file an adversary proceeding to determine the discharge-ability of the debt. The meeting of creditors took place fourteen years ago, a period well beyond the sixty days allowed by the Bankruptcy Rules.

Section 523(c) does not permit a debtor to assert a setoff counterclaim against a complaint seeking only to determine whether an existing judgment is dischargeable.

Hoult v. Hoult (In re Hoult) · filed 1998-11-25(c)

The assertion that it is proper to assert a counterclaim for setoff to a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) is not supported by any rule.

Former § 523(a)(8)(B) requires a debtor to bring an adversary proceeding to determine whether a student loan is dischargeable.

Stout v. United States Department of Education (In Re Stout) · filed 1999-03-08(a)(8)(B)

Unlike some of the exceptions to discharge in § 523, the student loan discharge provision in former § 523(a)(8)(B) is not self-effectuating. Rather, it requires the debtor to bring an adversary proceeding to determine whether the debt is, in fact, dischargeable under provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

A late § 523(a)(2)(A) complaint is subject to dismissal when no deadline extension was granted and the debtor has not waived the timeliness defense.

Mayamex Inc. v. Martinez (In re Martinez) · filed 1999-03-24(a)(2)(A)

On November 26, 1997, Mayamex, Inc. and others (“Mayamex”) filed a complaint objecting to discharge of their claims against Martinez pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) on the grounds of fraud. ... Under the facts of this case, no waiver can be implied. No affirmative ruling on extension of deadline was requested or granted. Therefore, the complaint is not timely and should be dismissed.

A § 523 claim added after the filing deadline cannot relate back to a timely § 727 objection when the original complaint lacks the facts supporting the § 523 claim.

Boan v. Damrill (In Re Damrill) · filed 1999-04-02

Because the Plaintiffs seek to join a § 523 claim to a § 727 claim after the deadline for making such claims has passed and did not provide the factual basis for the § 523 claim in their original Objections, the Court will not allow Counts I-IV of Plaintiffs’ Amended Objections.

A motion to extend the deadline for filing a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint must be filed before the deadline expires.

Snapper, Inc. v. Depencier (In Re Depencier) · filed 1999-03-23(c)

Based on the above, it is clear that this Court does not have the discretion to grant the late filed motion to extend the time to file the dischargeability complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a fraud-based nondischargeability claim when the complaint fairly alleges the required elements.

Collum v. Redden (In Re Redden) · filed 1999-05-19(a)(2)(A)

Regardless of the particulars of the original complaint, we find that the amended complaint fairly alleges the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(8) requires a debtor to bring an adversary proceeding to determine whether student loan debt is dischargeable.

Muir v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In Re Muir) · filed 1999-09-17(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) is not self-effectuating, it requires the debtor to bring an adversary proceeding to determine whether the debt is dischargeable under that section.

A creditor may obtain more time to file a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint if it moves for an extension before the filing deadline expires and shows cause.

In Re McCormack · filed 2000-01-31(c)

The plain language of these extension provisions makes clear that — in contrast to the rule for exemption objections — all that must occur before the discharge/dischargeability deadline is that a motion for extension be “made”, i.e. filed, not that the Court actually grant the extension requested.

A timely Section 523(c) complaint to except a particular debt from discharge cannot be amended after the filing deadline to add an objection to the debtor’s general discharge.

Wright v. Asbury (In Re Asbury) · filed 2000-03-10(c)

Because there is no “sufficient identity” between an objection to discharge pursuant to Section 727 and a request for determination of the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to Section 523, a timely-filed complaint that only sets forth one of the two causes of action may not be amended to include the other cause of action after the expiration of the limitations period.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to file a timely dischargeability complaint; a repayment agreement does not waive that requirement unless it clearly addresses the filing deadline.

Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Mascoll (In Re Mascoll) · filed 2000-03-14(c)

The terms of the Repayment Agreement cannot be read as waiving the protections of § 523(c), which casts the burden on the creditor to file a timely dischargeability complaint.

After a bankruptcy case is dismissed and reinstated, the deadline for a § 523(c) nondischargeability complaint runs from the new first date set for the creditors’ meeting.

State Bank & Trust, N.A. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap) · filed 2000-06-30(c)

Although the meeting of creditors was subsequently moved forward, February 6, 1998 remained the new “First date set” under Rule 4007(c), and consequently, the bar date was correctly docketed as April 7, 1998. Because both creditors made their filings before April 7, 1998, both were timely.

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

Torrez v. Dickinson · filed 2000-11-29(c)

We concur that Rule 4007(c) unambiguously provides that a § 523(c) complaint to determine dischargeability must be filed within sixty days of “the first date set” for the meeting of creditors.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523 must file a dischargeability complaint within Rule 4007(c)’s deadline or request an extension before that deadline expires.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Dishman (In re Dishman) · filed 2000-12-12

In order to make a successful case for determination of the dischargeability of a debt under § 523, a creditor must follow the process outlined in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c), which provides as follows: ... As a result of Citibank’s late filing of its complaint and failure to file for an extension within the period prescribed by Rule 4007(c), the court cannot accept the bank’s late-filed complaint nor the motion to enlarge time.

A creditor seeking an exception to discharge under § 523(c)(1) must meet Rule 4007(c)’s jurisdictional deadline or move for an extension before it expires.

In Re Lufkin · filed 2000-12-19(c)(1)

The deadline for filing complaints to determine the dischargeability of debts under § 523(c)(1) was November 20, 2000. ... This court agrees with the majority line of authority in holding that Rule 4007(c) establishes a jurisdictional requirement.

A creditor must raise a fraud claim under § 523 within the applicable filing deadline.

Fore v. Garris · filed 2001-03-28

The bankruptcy court properly determined that Fore untimely raised his claims for fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523 ... and dismissed his counterclaim.

Section 523 does not prevent a court from applying Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)'s excusable neglect standard to extend the time to serve a nondischargeability complaint.

In Re: Michael W. Sheehan Wilhelmina Sheehan, Debtors. Yoji Oyama v. Michael W. Sheehan Wilhelmina Sheehan · filed 2001-06-19

Nothing in Pioneer or §§ 523 suggests that the excusable neglect provision would not apply in nondischargeability proceedings. ... We thus hold that the excusable neglect standard of Rule 9006(b) applies to the 120-day service period prescribed by Rule 4(m).

Section 523(c) requires a creditor seeking a fraud-based exception to discharge to file a timely complaint.

In Re Miklas · filed 2001-06-26(c)

But again, she is forever foreclosed to litigate this claim under this Section since she failed to seek an exception to the discharge of the Debtor by filing a timely complaint as required by Section 523(c) of the Code.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) fraud complaint can survive summary judgment when an incorporated judgment states particular facts implying fraud.

Durns v. Dawson (In Re Dawson) · filed 2001-06-20(a)(2)(A)

An adversary complaint alleging fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud to comply with the .more rigid standard of pleading required under Rule 9(b). ... Plaintiffs’ complaint is sufficient, by incorporating the prior judgment which states with particularity facts that imply fraud and/or an intentional tort, to survive a Summary Judgment Motion.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a qualifying creditor to file a nondischargeability complaint at any time; laches cannot bar the filing.

Selinger v. Beaty (In Re Beaty) · filed 2001-07-23(a)(3)(B)

A laches defense to the filing of a § 523(a)(3)(B) complaint is in conflict with Rule 4007(b) and therefore is inappropriate.

A § 523 fraud complaint can relate back to a timely motion that gives fair notice of the debt and the alleged fraud, even if the motion does not cite § 523.

Gschwend v. Markus (In Re Markus) · filed 2001-09-28(a)(2)

Since the fraud alleged in the March 29 complaint is the fraud alleged in the January 20 motion, the “new” § 523(a) claim asserted on March 29 “relates back” to January 20. It follows that dismissing the complaint as time-barred was error.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under Section 523(c) must file a complaint within the Rule 4007(c) deadline unless grounds for an extension or equitable relief apply.

Kevin F. v. Erickson (In re Kevin F.) · filed 2001-10-30(c)

Erickson could have filed his objection to dischargeability within the period set by the Rules or requested an extension of the period prior to its expiration. There is no basis for the Court to use its equity power to extend the time in which Erickson may file a complaint objecting to discharge of a debt under Section 523.

A complaint under Section 523(c) must be filed within 60 days of the first date set for the creditors' meeting unless grounds justify extending the deadline.

In Re Higgins · filed 2001-10-30(c)

The time for filing complaints asserting non-dischargeability of debts under Section 523(c) is limited to 60 days from the first date set for the meeting of creditors. ... There is no basis for the Court to use its equity power to extend the time in which Erickson may file a complaint objecting to discharge of a debt under Section 523.

A court cannot dismiss a § 523(a)(2) or (a)(4) complaint as untimely on its own initiative when the debtor has waived the timeliness defense by failing to answer.

Boek v. Guzman · filed 2001-11-08

If the bankruptcy court wishes to give Guzman some relief by allowing her to file an answer, even though she would otherwise be in default, it must nonetheless deem the timeliness defense waived. It may not sua sponte invoke that defense on her behalf.

A bankruptcy court may extend the deadline for a complaint seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523 if equitable grounds exist.

Landmark Community Bank, N.A. v. Perkins (In Re Perkins) · filed 2002-01-09

We likewise hold that a bankruptcy court may extend the deadline by which to file a complaint objecting to a debtor's discharge or dischargeability of a debt, if equitable grounds exist for doing so.

Section 523 complaints may be settled, subject to court approval, even when joined with an objection to discharge under § 727.

In Re Standing Order With Reasons Regarding Objections · filed 2001-12-20

Neither the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the "Bankruptcy Rules") nor the Bankruptcy Code, however, prohibit the settlement of a § 523 complaint when it is combined in the complaint with a § 727 action. In effect, then, the Standing Order modified existing substantive rights of creditors.

Section 523(c) requires objections to dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) to be filed in bankruptcy court within sixty days of the first scheduled creditors’ meeting.

In Re Bock · filed 2002-01-24(c)

In enacting Section 523(c), Congress required dischargeability objections to certain debts be filed only in bankruptcy court and within a very restricted time frame.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt under § 523(a)(2) from discharge to obtain a bankruptcy court determination; the court treats the deadline for filing that complaint as jurisdictional.

In Re Rowland · filed 2002-03-27(c)

In sum, the deadline in Rule 4007(c) for filing nondischargeability complaints is a jurisdictional threshold which bars First Republic from now raising section 523(a) claims against the Debtor.

A complaint to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(c) must meet Rule 4007(c)'s deadline; the debtor cannot waive that deadline by raising it late.

Demirgioglu v. Rinde (In Re Rinde) · filed 2002-04-19(c)

This Court rejects the Kleinoeder approach and adopts the jurisdictional view taken by Poskanzer and the majority of courts that have addressed this question. ... Accordingly, because this Court has no jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ late filed complaint, the adversary proceeding is dismissed.

A creditor must file a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint by the Rule 4007(c) deadline or request an extension before that deadline expires; Rule 9006(f) does not add three days.

Nesler v. Thomason (In re Thomason) · filed 2002-08-02(c)

The uncontroverted facts in this matter clearly show that the Complaint, filed by Plaintiff, Lenore Nesler, was not filed within the time period as prescribed by Rule 4007(c), nor did the Plaintiff file a motion requesting continuance of the deadline prior to the expiration of time. ... Based upon a review of the clear case law on the issue presently before the Court, the Court must conclude that it has no choice but to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint based upon the failure to timely file the complaint, or to move for an extension of time in which the file the complaint prior to the deadline passing.

A complaint under § 523(a)(15) must meet the dischargeability filing deadline; excusable neglect does not permit a late complaint.

Johnson v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 2002-08-14(a)(15)

Although Rule 4007(c) permits a court to extend the time to file a complaint under § 523(c), the motion to extend must be filed before the time has expired. Accordingly, the Court does not have the discretion to allow an untimely complaint under any of the sections set forth in § 523(c) on the basis of excusable neglect.

A claim under § 523(a)(15) is not ripe for adjudication until the amount of the reimbursement debt, if any, is determined.

LeJeune v. LeJeune (In Re LeJeune) · filed 2002-09-18(a)(15)

In this case, no determination of the amount of Mr. LeJeune’s reimbursement claim, if any, has yet been made. Therefore, Mr. LeJeune’s claim under Section 523(a)(15) is not ripe for adjudication.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits a laches defense to a nondischargeability complaint, but the defendant must show extraordinary circumstances and a compelling reason to bar the action.

In Re Thomas R. Beaty and Nancy Z. Beaty, Debtors, Thomas R. Beaty v. Selinger · filed 2002-09-26(a)(3)(B)

We hold that laches is available as a defense to an action filed under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B). In order to establish a successful laches defense, a defendant must show extraordinary circumstances and set forth a compelling reason why the action should be barred.

A § 523(a)(3)(B) nondischargeability complaint may be filed at any time under Rule 4007(b).

In Re Andrew Staffer, Debtor, Andrew Staffer v. Predovich · filed 2002-09-27(a)(3)(B)

The BAP correctly held that, in accordance with Rule 4007(b), which allows a § 523(a)(3)(B) complaint to be filed "at any time," there was no rule-imposed time bar to Predovich's action.

Section 523 dischargeability proceedings determine whether a debt is discharged; when confined to that issue, they do not include third-party claims for damages.

Boucher v. McCarter (In Re McCarter) · filed 2002-11-01(a)

Because the Court has confined the scope of the adversary proceeding to dischargeability, the Third-Party Complaint must be dismissed. Dischargeability actions are declaratory in nature; the Court simply determines whether the defendant’s actions fit within the code sections that bar the discharge of certain types of debt.

A creditor who has actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing in time to meet the deadline must timely seek a dischargeability determination, even without formal notice from the clerk.

Muse v. Muse (In Re Muse) · filed 2003-03-07(c)(1)

The interplay of § 523(c)(1) and Rule 4007(c), which implements § 523(c)(1), is instructive in this regard. ... Dismissal is warranted even when the clerk of the bankruptcy court has not formally notified a creditor of the discharge-ability deadline if the creditor nevertheless has actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing in time to comply with the deadline.

A late § 523(a)(15) claim for divorce-related property awards does not relate back to a timely complaint that addressed only maintenance and child support, even if the divorce order was attached.

Anderson v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 2003-04-09(a)(15)

Therefore, the mere fact that the Amended Order was attached as an exhibit to the Original Complaint in order to support the Section 523(a)(5) and 523(a)(15) Maintenance and Child Support cause of action, which was the only cause of action intended to be set forth in the Complaint, and in fact set forth in great detail, does not justify relating the new Section 523(a)(15) cause of action in the Amended Complaint back to the filing of the Original Complaint.

A timely pleading that gives fair notice of a fraud nondischargeability claim may be amended into a § 523 complaint through relation back.

Waters v. Thomason · filed 2003-06-18(a)(2)(A)

Based upon our review, the bankruptcy court did not err by applying the relation-back doctrine and allowing a § 523 complaint.

The Rule 4007(c) deadline for filing a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint is nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.

Nardei v. Maughan · filed 2003-08-14(c)

By permitting equity to trump the filing deadline set by Rule 4007(c) in one particular circumstance, Isaacman, despite its explicitly narrow holding, compels the conclusion that the deadline is not jurisdictional, for to hold to the contrary would be to hold that equitable considerations can excuse jurisdictional defects.

A § 523(a) claim must give the debtor fair notice of the asserted exception to discharge and its grounds; general references to nondischargeability are insufficient.

Bank One v. Kallstrom (In Re Kallstrom) · filed 2003-09-16(a)

The general references to nondischargeability and § 523(a) were not, even under a liberal reading of the papers, sufficient to give the Debtors fair notice of what the Bank was claiming under § 523(a) or the grounds on which such a claim would have been based.

A creditor that misses the deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint cannot prevent the debt from being discharged.

In Re Jackson · filed 2004-06-23

However, payments made by Aegon directly to the Debtor after the Purchase Agreement with Settlement Capital was in effect, are no longer reachable, as a complaint to determine dischargeability was not filed before the expiration of the bar date. Consequently, these amounts have been discharged by the bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) provides an exception to discharge for debts obtained by fraud; an objection seeking that exception must be raised in bankruptcy proceedings.

The Cottonport Bank v. Dd Group, Inc. · filed 2005-02-02(a)(2)(A)

The applicants assert in the alternative that there are exceptions to the discharge of debts under federal bankruptcy law, citing exceptions found at 11 U.S.C. § 523, which deal with any debt for money obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud. ... This argument has no merit in this court. The proper place to raise these objections was in the bankruptcy proceedings, and this court is powerless to ... undo what a federal court has already done.

A § 523(c) dischargeability complaint must be fully filed by the Rule 4007(c) deadline; starting electronic filing before midnight is insufficient.

Mittman v. Casey (In Re Casey) · filed 2005-03-22(c)

Beginning the electronic filing process prior to midnight is not enough to save the Complaint. The filing must have been completed prior to midnight.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a covered debt from discharge to file a complaint, even when the parties agree to a judgment.

Chattanooga Agricultural Credit Ass'n v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2005-08-02(c)(1)

This court routinely entertains and approves agreed judgments between parties relative to the nondischargeability of debts encompassed within § 523(c)(1), provided, however, that the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure have been complied with regarding the filing of a complaint.

A creditor asserting a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6) must timely obtain a bankruptcy court determination of nondischargeability before pursuing the debt after discharge.

In Re Barry · filed 2005-09-01(a)(6)

The nature of the claims asserted by Singleton and Brooks sound in 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and 727(a)(2)(A)(willful and malicious injury and/or concealment of assets). The deadline for filing an objection to dischargeability or discharge under those sections passed without objection by Singleton or Brooks; and a finding in their favor by this Court was a necessary pre-condition to filing the Superior Court Actions.

Section 523(a)(5)(A) determines the dischargeability of a support debt based on the circumstances at the debtor’s bankruptcy filing or dischargeability hearing.

Froncillo v. Gunn · filed 2005-11-16(a)(5)(A)

We conclude, in accordance with those courts that have addressed it, that a determination on the dischargeability of debts will be controlled by either the date of the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy or the date of the debtor’s dischargeability hearing.

A creditor seeking more time to file a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint must allege and prove cause for an extension under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c).

In Re Garner · filed 2006-03-22(c)

Accordingly, to the extent the Motions are Motions to Extend the Time to File a § 523 Complaint, they are denied for the failure of Cadle to either allege any cause or prove any cause regarding their alleged inability to timely file § 523 Complaints in both cases.

A timely request to extend the filing deadline can cover a § 523(a)(6) complaint when it identifies the intentional-injury debt, even if it calls the request an objection to discharge.

Rodriguez v. Sneed (In re Sneed) · filed 2006-05-04(a)(6)

The Order extending time to file objections outside the Notice period to the Discharge of the Debtor clearly encompasses the Section 523(a)(6) action that Rodriguez timely filed on August 1, 2005.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) complaint may relate back to a timely § 727 complaint when their factual allegations are identical.

Winters v. Brothers (In Re Brothers) · filed 2006-06-05(a)(2)(A)

In the instant action, the basic factual allegations of the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint are identical, and, accordingly, relation back of the First Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint to the date the original Complaint was filed is appropriate.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor to request a ruling that a divorce-related debt is excepted from discharge, even if the creditor was initially omitted from the bankruptcy schedules.

Condie v. Condie · filed 2006-06-15(c)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code required Seals to file an adversary proceeding to protect her rights, even though she was not listed on Condie’s bankruptcy schedules at the outset.

Section 523(c) does not restrict when a creditor may seek a dischargeability determination for a personal injury debt under Section 523(a)(9).

In Re Jones · filed 2006-08-04(c)

Additionally, the order granting relief from the automatic stay specifically preserved Ms. Byer’s right to file an adversary proceeding to determine whether the debt was excluded from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9). Because such a debt is not of the type specified in § 523(c), a complaint to determine dis-chargeability may be brought “at any time.”

Under the pre-BAPCPA version of § 523(a)(15), a creditor had to seek a determination that a divorce-related debt was nondischargeable within 60 days of the first date set for the creditors’ meeting.

DiGeronimo v. Weissberg (In Re DiGeronimo) · filed 2006-11-09(a)(15)

For these reasons, the Court holds that it is too late now — and was too late at the time that the Defendants sought to enforce the debt post-discharge — for the Defendants to argue that the Debtor’s obligations to Weissberg are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(15), as that basis is time-barred. The time within which to seek a determination of the non-dischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(15) is no later than 60 days of the first date set for the meeting of creditors.

An extension of time to file a § 523 complaint requires cause supported by sufficient due diligence.

Legg v. Ballas · filed 2006-12-26

Jonathan D. Legg and Diane Legg (collectively, “the Leggs”) appeal the district court’s affirmance of an order of the bankruptcy court that sustained Chapter 7 Debtor Nickolas C. Ballas’s objection to the Leggs’ motion for an extension of time to file complaints pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 and 727. ... The bankruptcy court found that the Leggs had not exercised sufficient due diligence to demonstrate cause for the requested extension. We find no abuse of discretion in that holding.

Section 523(a)(15) complaints are subject to a filing deadline that limits whether a dismissed complaint can be reopened.

Blake V. Trutwein (In re Trutwein) · filed 2007-04-02(a)(15)

Other claims may be brought against a discharged debtor even if such claims require the debtor’s case to be reopened; however, Congress has determined, by setting a bar date for the filing of such complaints, that a complaint under Section 523(a)(15) is not among them.

The deadline for § 523 dischargeability complaints may be extended for all creditors on one creditor’s motion when cause exists and the court’s order grants the extension to all.

Donegal Mutual Insurance Companies v. Watkins (In Re Watkins) · filed 2007-04-13

The issue is whether the bankruptcy court has discretion to extend the time for all creditors to commence an adversary proceeding under § 523 or § 727 based on a motion by a single creditor. ... The plain meaning of this language, especially in light of the hearing, is that an extension of time was granted to all creditors.

Complaints under § 523(c) must be filed within 60 days after the first date set for the creditors’ meeting, and a motion to extend that deadline must be filed before it expires.

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Lopresti (In Re Lopresti) · filed 2008-02-19(c)

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) governs the time period for filing a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt and sets the deadline for filing such a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) as “60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a).”

Sections 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) permit claims alleging fraud and willful, malicious injury to proceed despite a Chapter 7 discharge when the complaint pleads their essential elements.

Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2008-10-03(a)(2), (a)(6)

Ms. Johnson pleads all of the essential elements of a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(6) in the FAC. ... Accordingly, Mr. Bernstein’s motion to dismiss is denied.

The Rule 4007(c) deadline for a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint starts automatically when the rule specifies.

Alabama Ex Rel. Alabama Department of Community & Economic Affairs v. Lett (In Re Lett) · filed 2009-03-23(c)

the Court finds that the Rule 4007(c) deadline for filing a dischargeability complaint begins to run automatically, by operation of the rule.

A timely filing that gives the debtor notice of a § 523 dischargeability challenge may be amended to serve as a complaint despite pleading defects.

WILKERSON FUEL, INC. v. Elliott · filed 2009-03-17(c)(1)

After reviewing the case law, the court finds that although the Motion did not specifically pray for a judgment of nondis-chargeability, the Motion, the certification and the state court complaint, taken together, allege that the claim is nondis-chargeable based on fraud referencing the relevant statutory section, § 523(a)(2). Therefore, the court finds that although the Motion and accompanying documents are deficient in certain respects, they were certainly sufficient to place Elliott on notice that Wilkerson challenged the dis-chargeability of the claim.

Section 523(c) complaints are subject to a filing deadline that a creditor cannot circumvent by seeking late service of a timely filed complaint after the filing and service periods expire.

New York v. Mart (In Re Shtayyeh) · filed 2010-03-05(c)

Consequently, the Court may not circumvent the strict limitation on “filing” of the Complaint under the guise of granting late service of a timely filed Complaint upon a Motion filed long after not only the Statute of Limitations for the filing of the Complaint, but also the time granted under the Rule for service of the Complaint.

A complaint seeking a determination under § 523(c) is timely when Rule 4007(c)'s deadline falls on a legal holiday and the complaint is filed on the next business day under Rule 9006(a).

Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Weber (In Re Weber) · filed 2010-03-11(c)(1)

Since the 60th day after the date first set for the § 341 meeting of creditors was on Friday, January 1, 2010, which is New Year’s Day, Chase had until Monday, January 4, 2010, to file a timely complaint objecting to discharge under § 523(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Chase filed its Complaint on January 4, 2010; therefore, it was timely filed.

A § 523(a)(6) dischargeability complaint electronically filed before the deadline may be treated as timely despite an unpaid filing fee.

In Re Rutherford · filed 2010-03-31(a)(6)

Yet Congress also has imposed an equally short deadline for bringing dischargeability actions under § 523(a)(6). ... Consistent with these local rules and procedures, the Court declines to deem the Complaint unfiled due to the failure to pay the filing fee.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to request a dischargeability determination within the applicable time period; otherwise, a covered debt is discharged.

In Re Grant · filed 2010-04-29(c)

However, by operation of Section 523(c), non-dischargeable debts are nevertheless discharged unless, upon request of the creditor within the requisite time period, the bankruptcy court determines that the debt is to be excepted from discharge. ... Therefore, it is appropriate for this Court to deny the Creditors Motion for Leave to Amend and/or Adopt Creditor’s Second Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay (Doc. No. 56) and this Court is satisfied that this creditor did not timely file a complaint to determine the dis-chargeability of debt in this case.

The court treated the attorney-fee debt as discharged because no order had determined it nondischargeable under § 523(a).

In Re Thompson · filed 2010-05-06(a)

No debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a) unless and until a Court order is issued determining the debt to be nondischargeable.

Section 523 does not require a dischargeability complaint when a creditor seeks recovery only from the debtor’s insurer through a suit naming the debtor as a nominal defendant.

In Re Morris · filed 2010-06-07

Tennessee Farmer’s has also alleged that Benham waived her right to bring the state court lawsuit because she failed to file a complaint objecting to dis-chargeability under § 523 of the Code. ... Nor is she alleging that Morris owes her a debt that was excepted from his discharge. She is instead proceeding against Morris in name only as a way to perhaps recover from the insurance company. There simply was no need for her to file a dischargeability complaint against Morris.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) fraud claim can survive summary judgment when the complaint’s allegations, if proven, would support an exception to discharge.

Popa v. Calinoiu (In Re Calinoiu) · filed 2010-06-10(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Complaint is timely filed and the allegations as set forth in the Complaint, if proven, are sufficient to sustain a cause of action, at least for purposes of denying the Motion.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions for particular debts become moot when the debtor is denied a general discharge.

Bank of Bennington v. Thomas · filed 2010-06-22(a)

Since Keith is not receiving a discharge, it is obvious the question of whether a debt is excepted from his discharge is irrelevant.

Section 523(a) claims to except particular debts from discharge are moot when the debtor’s entire discharge is denied under § 727.

Massachusetts v. Sohmer (In Re Sohmer) · filed 2010-07-20(a)

In view of the Court’s determination that the Plaintiffs have sustained their burden under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4)(A), and (D), the Court need not address the Plaintiffs’ remaining counts under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) and (a)(5). The Court shall enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint. Count II under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), (6) and (7) is moot.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) has no filing deadline for a creditor who lacked timely notice, but laches may bar the action if the debtor shows unreasonable delay and particularized prejudice.

Ward Hardwood Floor Service, Inc. v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins) · filed 2010-07-06(a)(3)(B)

Thus, there is no statutory time limit for filing actions under section 523(a)(3)(B). ... Yet, there is another important reason why laches is an appropriate defense to a section 523(a)(3)(B) action. ... In addition to showing unreasonable delay, Debtor must also make a particularized showing of prejudice arising from Plaintiffs’ delay in filing. ... Because Debtor cannot demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ delay has been prejudicial, he cannot satisfy this element of the laches defense. Accordingly, laches does not bar Plaintiffs’ claims against him.

A creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2) must timely raise and prove nondischargeability in an adversary proceeding.

In Re Pearsall · filed 2010-09-10(a)(2)

Based on the statute and procedural rules governing § 523(a)(2) determinations, the court finds that it is the creditor’s burden to timely raise and prove nondischargeability in an adversary proceeding in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, notwithstanding the incongruence of the deadlines governing redemption and nondischargeability proceedings.

A creditor cannot add a new § 523 claim by amending a § 727 complaint after the deadline for filing nondischargeability actions has passed.

Crescent Centre Apartments v. Fries (In Re Fries) · filed 2010-09-17

In this case, the Court cannot permit the amendment. As Debtors correctly note, a complaint under § 727 cannot be amended to add a new claim under § 523 after the deadline for filing nondischargeability actions has passed.

Section 523(a)(2) requires facts supporting the elements of fraud before a creditor can obtain a default judgment of nondischargeability.

American General Financial Services, Inc. v. Rowell (In Re Rowell) · filed 2010-11-10(a)(2)

Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient allegations in its Complaint to prove the five elements of fraud listed above; in fact, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to prove any of those five factors. ... Plaintiff should not be entitled to its requested relief, as it has not made a prima facie showing of nondis-chargeability under section 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(7) actions have no filing deadline.

United States v. Horras · filed 2011-01-26(a)(7)

The Debtor’s challenge to the timeliness of the Government’s § 523(a)(7) claim is easily disposed of because there is no deadline for § 523(a)(7) actions.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking a dischargeability ruling to pursue an adversary complaint; dismissing that complaint forfeits the opportunity for a ruling.

Lyon v. Aguilar · filed 2011-02-11(c)(1)

The bankruptcy code has a specific procedure for creditors to challenge the discharge of claims by filing an adversary complaint within sixty days after the first creditors’ meeting. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c). ... By dismissing their complaint, plaintiffs relinquished their opportunity to have the bankruptcy court rule on the dischargeability of their claims against defendants.

Section 523(c) claims under § 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) are time-barred when a creditor misses the filing deadline without grounds for tolling, waiver, or estoppel.

Wahrman v. Bajas (In Re Bajas) · filed 2011-03-10(c)

The deadline for filing a § 523(c) non-dischargeability action is not jurisdictional. Rather, it is subject to the defenses of waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. ... For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ §§ 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(4) claims are time-barred, and must be dismissed.

Section 523(c)(1) leaves debts described in (a)(2), (4), or (6) subject to discharge unless the bankruptcy court determines that an exception applies; filing a timely complaint alone does not make them nondischargeable.

In Re Gibellino-Schultz · filed 2011-04-11(c)(1)

Thus, this provision renders a debt dis-chargeable "unless” the bankruptcy court concludes that section 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) is applicable; not the reverse.

A creditor seeking a determination that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a) must file an adversary proceeding.

In Re Storozhenko · filed 2011-09-16(a)

Thus, Findling must file an adversary proceeding in order to obtain any determination that the debt in question is nondis-chargeable, under any provision of § 523(a).

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

Lyon v. Aguilar (In Re Aguilar) · filed 2012-03-13(c)

Section 523(c) provides that, except in certain conditions not relevant to this case, the debtor will be discharged from debts of the kind specified in paragraphs (2), (4) and (6) of subsection (a) unless, on request of the creditor, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines that that debt is excepted from discharge.

A complaint under § 523(a)(3)(B) has no filing deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(b).

Leventhal v. Schenberg (In re Leventhal) · filed 2012-10-09(a)(3)(B)

Bankruptcy Rule 4007(b) does not establish a time limit for filing complaints under § 523(a)(3), so Schenberg’s complaint was not untimely.

Section 523(c)(1) does not require an ex-spouse creditor to file an adversary proceeding within sixty days to preserve a property-settlement debt’s exception from discharge.

Garcino v. Noel · filed 2012-10-23(c)(1)

Consequently, an ex-spouse creditor is no longer required to file an adversary proceeding within sixty days of the meeting of creditors or forfeit his right to contest the debt’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an unscheduled creditor who lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy to seek a dischargeability determination after the ordinary deadline, if the debt qualifies under (a)(2), (4), or (6).

Media House Productions, Inc. v. Amari (In re Amari) · filed 2012-11-27(a)(3)(B)

The penalty to debtor for failure to schedule such debts is not nondis-chargeability but instead it is loss of the 60-day limitation period that applies under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4007. Therefore, a complaint to bar dischargeability may be considered timely even if filed after the deadline set by Rule 4007(c) if the creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely request for determination of dischargeability.

An amended § 523(a)(2)(A) complaint may be timely when the original complaint gave the debtor notice of the nondischargeability claim.

Carroll v. Farooqi · filed 2013-02-19(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Carroll was sufficiently on notice as to the § 523(a) nondischargeability claims being asserted against him by Farooqi. ... Accordingly, the court holds that Farooqi’s Complaint was not untimely filed, and, therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err in overruling Carroll’s objection to Farooqi’s Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

A complaint seeking relief under § 523 need not name a specific subsection when its allegations make the requested exception to discharge clear.

Danbom v. Prewitt (In re Prewitt) · filed 2013-01-29(a)

If Defendant contends a complaint must cite to § 523 or a subsection thereof, the argument is not well taken. ... The pro se Plaintiffs are not required to name specific statutory subsections in their Complaint.

Section 523(c) requires a creditor to request a determination of nondischargeability for a debt described in § 523(a)(2); without that determination, the debt is discharged.

United Community Bank v. Harper (In re Harper) · filed 2013-01-29(c)

Debts that meet the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2) are not automatically excepted from discharge. In fact, the Code provides that such debts will actually be discharged, except as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) (which does not apply in this case), or “unless on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines” otherwise. 11 U.S.C. § 523(c).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) imposes no deadline for a dischargeability complaint by an unscheduled creditor who lacked sufficient notice to seek a timely determination.

Hathorn v. Petty (In re Petty) · filed 2013-05-08(a)(3)(B)

Since there is no deadline to file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B), Mr. and Mrs. Hathorn have the right to proceed with their complaint to try to prove that they hold a debt of a kind described in § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a corporate Chapter 11 debtor’s fraud debt owed to a domestic governmental unit from discharge to obtain a bankruptcy court determination.

United States ex rel. Minge v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (In re Hawker Beechcraft Inc.) · filed 2013-07-24(c)(1)

Accordingly, I conclude that § 523(c)(1) applies to debts owed by a corporate chapter 11 debtor to a domestic governmental unit under Clause 1 of § 1141(d)(6)(A).

Section 523(a) nondischargeability claims are moot when the debtor is denied a general discharge.

Siu v. Martinez (In re Martinez) · filed 2013-09-25(a)

Mr. Siu has established that Mr. Martinez is not entitled to a discharge in Case No. 08-57266-ASW under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2). The nondischargeability claims under § 523(a) are moot, and Mr. Siu has asserted no other causes of action.

A creditor’s fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) survives summary judgment if specific facts create a genuine dispute on each required element.

Le Van-Voegler v. Myrtle (In re Myrtle) · filed 2013-10-15(a)(2)(A)

At this stage, the Voeglers simply must set out specific material facts that establish a genuine issue as to each element of section 523(a)(2)(A) to survive Defendants’ motion and proceed to trial.

Section 523(c)(1) discharges debts covered by § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) unless the creditor requests and obtains a determination excepting the debt from discharge.

Bong H. Chae v. Bennett · filed 2013-11-13(c)(1)

It correctly determined that there was no purpose for granting stay relief since the malpractice and negligence actions were dischargeable debts, and the fraud claim was discharged when Mr. Chae failed to file an adversary proceeding by the deadline to do so.

A dischargeability complaint under Section 523 may be filed without reopening the closed bankruptcy case.

Goldstein v. Diamond · filed 2014-04-22

For these reasons, we hold that reopening a case is not a prerequisite to filing a dischargeability complaint.

Section 523’s bar date does not apply when a creditor seeks to establish when a debt arose rather than to except it from discharge.

In re Wright · filed 2014-03-31

Country does not argue that its debt is based on fraud or other proscribed conduct, nor does Country argue that its debt is the type of enumerated debt, such as child support or taxes, that would be excepted from discharge under Section 523. Therefore, the bar-date under Section 523 cannot apply to this dispute.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to file a timely adversary proceeding; new claims based on the same core facts may relate back to a timely complaint.

ZVI Construction Co. v. Huggard (In re Huggard) · filed 2014-05-22(c)(1)

In a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor asserting the nondischargeability of a debt under §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) must timely commence an adversary proceeding seeking a declaration of nondischargeability, or the creditor’s claim will be discharged. ... Accordingly, the Amended Complaint relates back to the Original Complaint such that it will be deemed timely filed and not barred by the deadline set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c).

A complaint to determine dischargeability under § 523(c) must meet Rule 4007(c)’s deadline; a court cannot retroactively extend that deadline on a motion filed after it expires.

Stuart v. Mendenhall (In Re Mendenhall) · filed 2014-07-22(c)

Despite the conclusion reached in In re Soler, we cannot interpret the relevant bankruptcy rules to permit an extension of time to file a dischargeability complaint under Rule 4007(c) when the motion is made after the time for seeking it has already expired.

A § 523(a)(6) dischargeability determination must await liquidation of an underlying personal injury tort claim when it requires factual findings reserved for the district court.

Barber v. Arnott (In re Arnott) · filed 2014-07-11(a)(6)

Despite Defendants’ contentions, the issue of dischargeability is not ripe for consideration. Although the Court does have jurisdiction to determine dischargeability under § 523(a), a ruling on dischargeability will potentially require factual findings on the underlying claims, which can only be made by the district court.

The importance of the exceptions in § 523(a)(2) and (4) does not excuse a creditor from meeting the deadline for a dischargeability complaint.

Moushigian v. Marderosian · filed 2014-09-03(a)(2), (a)(4)

But, Moushigian cannot explain how the importance of those statutory exceptions to discharge is sufficient to overcome the bankruptcy policies favoring the orderly and timely disposition of § 523(a) claims.

Section 523(c)(1) permits a timely, sufficiently detailed request for a dischargeability determination to function as a complaint despite defects in its form.

Barrazo v. Carter (In re Carter) · filed 2014-08-29(c)(1)

This result is supported by the language of § 523(c), which does not require the filing of a complaint, and can easily be read to state or imply that nondischarge-ability disputes should be handled by a “request” filed in the bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to plead facts that give the debtor fair notice of the applicable ground.

Frederick Harth, Jr. v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · filed 2014-09-02(a)

Tal was obliged to include in his complaint allegations of fact that were sufficient to give the Debtor fair notice of the grounds that Tal claimed brought the debt within one of the provisions of § 523(a) that could except the debt from discharge.

A creditor cannot extend the deadline for a § 523(c) complaint based on equitable arguments that do not establish adequate cause under Rule 4007(c).

In re: Steven D. Molasky · filed 2014-10-20(c)

We conclude that none of the arguments offered by Bustos would support an extension of the deadline for filing a § 523(c) complaint under the more recent Ninth Circuit case law.

The deadline for filing a dischargeability complaint under § 523(c) is nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling, but a creditor must substantiate the circumstances warranting relief.

In re: William Doyne v. · filed 2014-12-04(c)

Thus, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), the deadline for objecting to discharge was October 28, 2013. ... While there is some ambiguity in the Denial Order as to whether the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard, on balance the Panel reads the Denial Order as applying the correct legal standard (i.e. treating the relevant deadline as non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling). ... Given Appellant’s failure to supplement the record with, at a minimum, a sworn statement, the Panel finds it reasonable for the bankruptcy court to have deemed Appellant’s assertions insufficient to warrant equitable relief.

A complaint to determine dischargeability under § 523(c) must be filed within Rule 4007(c)’s 60-day deadline.

Grant v. Leon (In Re Leon) · filed 2014-12-22(c)

The bankruptcy court properly determined that Grant untimely raised his fraud claims because the deadline to file a complaint challenging the dischargeability of the debt had passed. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c) (a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) must be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 341(a)); Anwar v. Johnson, 720 F.3d 1183, 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 2013) (Rule 4007(c)’s time limit is strict and cannot be extended unless a motion is filed before the time limit expires; there is no excusable neglect exception to the time limit).

Section 523(c)(1) discharges a debt alleged to arise from fraud unless the bankruptcy court determines that it is excepted from discharge.

Mario L. Sims, Sr., and Tiffiny Sims v. John Tiffany (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-03-20(c)(1)

Contrary to the Simses’ claim that Tiffany’s debt was non-dischargeable as a matter of law, the Bankruptcy Act specifically requires that such debts are discharged unless the Bankruptcy Court determines that it is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor to seek a determination that a debt arising from fraud is nondischargeable when the complaint plausibly alleges a false representation, intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and damages.

Allen v. Freund · filed 2015-06-04(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the Court finds that Allen adequately pled his 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(c)(1) requires a creditor to obtain a bankruptcy court determination before a debt obtained by fraud is excepted from discharge.

Auxier Financial Group v. Joseph T. Sellars & Gregory Greene · filed 2015-06-29(c)(1)

Fraudulent debts will be discharged unless the creditor requests a hearing and the bankruptcy court determines that the debt is exempted as a result of being obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

The deadline to file a Section 523 dischargeability complaint is not extended for a creditor acting as trustee or officer when only that creditor, individually, timely requests an extension.

In re Siegal · filed 2015-07-29

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004(b), 4007(c) and 9006(b), the time within which Martin Siegal, as Trustee of Marty’s Realty Trust (or as an officer of any other entity in which he has an interest), could file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523, 727 expired on November 10, 2014, as only Martin Siegal, individually, timely requested an extension on November 10, 2014.

A motion to extend the deadline for filing a § 523(c) nondischargeability complaint must be filed before that deadline expires.

In re: NABILSI YUNES ABUD, AKA Yunes Adub Nabilsi · filed 2015-09-03(c)

In turn, Rule 4007(c) mandates that any motion to extend the deadline to file a § 523(c) complaint must be filed before the complaint filing deadline expires.

A creditor alleging fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) must plead facts identifying the debtor as the person who made the alleged misrepresentation.

Phillips 66 Co. v. Miltenberger (In re Miltenberger) · filed 2015-09-22(a)(2)(A)

As such, Phillips66 has not pled that Debtor is the one who made the statement but rather that either Steven or Debtor, or someone else at the direction of either Steven or Debtor, made the statement.