11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(d) authorizes attorney fees and costs only for qualifying consumer debt dischargeability proceedings, not commercial transactions.

National City Bank v. Beatty (In Re Beatty) · filed 2009-02-18(d)

Under the express terms of § 523(d), an award of attorney fees and costs is only authorized in consumer transactions.

Section 523(d) allows a debtor to recover reasonable fees and costs for defending an unjustified consumer debt dischargeability action even if the creditor seeks to dismiss it.

Congressional Federal Credit Union v. Pusateri (In Re Pusateri) · filed 2010-06-30(d)

Pusateri was entitled to seek his attorney’s fees even after the credit union attempted to withdraw the action. The congressional purpose behind § 523(d) demands that the debtor be made whole for defending an ill-conceived action, even if the plaintiff dismisses the suit.

Section 523(d) limits its attorney fee and cost remedy to dischargeability cases under § 523(a)(2).

Dorris v. Chacon (In Re Chacon) · filed 2010-10-01(d)

Section 523(d)'s text limits relief to 523(a)(2) cases, however.

Section 523(d) does not authorize attorney fees for defending a dischargeability claim involving business debts.

Garrett v. Cook (In Re Cook) · filed 2011-03-15(d)

In the bankruptcy context, the only provision for allowing a debtor attorney fees for defending against a dischargeability claim is in 11 U.S.C. § 523(d), which provides: ... The debts in this case are business debts, not consumer debts. Therefore the statute does not apply, and the default position is that no attorney fee award is available.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney’s fees incurred protecting a child support award from discharge as a domestic support obligation, even when the fees are payable directly to counsel.

Altman v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 2011-03-21(a)(5)

Accordingly, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Macy teaches that attorney’s fees incurred in protecting a child support award are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Attorney’s fees and costs awarded in connection with a judgment under § 523(a)(14) are nondischargeable.

Fry v. Dinan (In Re Dinan) · filed 2011-04-22(a)(14)

In this appeal, we address an issue of first impression in this or any other circuit: whether an award of attorney’s fees and/or costs in connection with a judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(14) ... is nondischargeable. We conclude that it is.

Section 523(d) does not support a debtor’s fee award when the court cannot find that the creditor’s position was not substantially justified.

Desiderio v. Parikh (In Re Parikh) · filed 2011-05-24(d)

The Court cannot find that the Plaintiff's position in this case "was not substantially justified” and therefore, declines to grant fees to the Debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 523(d).

Section 523 does not except prepetition fees for bankruptcy representation from discharge merely because the fee agreement allocates payment to postpetition services.

Walton v. Clark & Washington, P.C. · filed 2011-07-12

Because section 523 does not specifically exclude prepetition attorney’s fees, they are dischargeable in bankruptcy. ... Even though Clark & Washington specifically segregated its flat fee between prepetition and postpetition services in this proceeding, the Court concludes that the reasoning in Waldo applies with equal force in this case.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts for willful and malicious injury, including attorney’s fees awarded as damages for that injury.

Kasper v. Turnage (In Re Turnage) · filed 2011-11-30(a)(6)

Because Defendant committed intentional torts that caused damage to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorney’s fees incurred in connection with that recovery because, under Georgia law, they constitute additional, special damages for the willful and malicious injury inflicted by Defendant. The debt for attorney’s fees is thus nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(d) awards a debtor reasonable fees and costs when a creditor’s consumer debt dischargeability action under § 523(a)(2) fails without substantial justification, unless special circumstances make the award unjust.

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Conant (In re Conant) · filed 2012-01-23(d)

The Court, having found that the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was substantially unjustified, concludes that the Debtor’s attorney, GC, is entitled to fees in the sum of $9,583.75.

Section 523(d) requires a debtor seeking attorney’s fees to show that the disputed debt is a consumer debt.

Stelmokas v. Kodzius · filed 2012-02-02(d)

Thus the business character of the loan was undisputed, and the bankruptcy judge erred by concluding that Kodzius met his burden to demonstrate the factual basis for attorney’s fees under § 523(d).

Section 523(d) permits costs and reasonable attorney’s fees when an unsuccessful dischargeability complaint lacks substantial justification.

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Knoche (In re Shahidulla) · filed 2012-02-22(d)

Based on the utter lack of justification for the complaints, the fact that plaintiff had been put on notice of the initial complaint’s deficiency, the substantial time and effort that defendant spent defending this case ... defendant is entitled to the same.

Section 523(d) does not authorize attorney fees for a debtor who defeats a § 523(a)(2) claim if the debt is not a consumer debt.

Reyes v. Farhangkhah (In re Farhangkhah) · filed 2012-03-21(d)

The debt incurred by Debtor to Plaintiff is not a consumer debt, but rather a debt arising as a result of litigation of a statutory tort claim by Plaintiff. The court concludes that Section 523(d) does not provide a basis for an award of attorney fees.

Section 523(d) requires an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees when a creditor’s unsuccessful consumer debt dischargeability action was not substantially justified, unless special circumstances would make the award unjust.

FIA Card Services, N.A. v. Conant · filed 2012-08-16(d)

In essence, there was no abuse of discretion in the bankruptcy court’s awarding of fees and costs under § 523(d) because the judge properly determined that the position of the creditor was not substantially justified, and that there were no special circumstances that would otherwise make the award unjust.

When the underlying liability is nondischargeable, the associated attorney’s fee award is also nondischargeable.

Partners for Health & Home, L.P. v. Seung Wee Yang · filed 2012-09-28(a)(6)

Where the underlying liability is held to be non-dischargeable, as was held in this case (Order [146] at 2:3-4), any enhanced damages including treble damages and any fee awards are also nondischargeable.

Section 523(d) lets a debtor seek attorneys’ fees after a consumer debt is discharged, and the creditor bears the burden of showing its dischargeability challenge was substantially justified.

Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. MacHuca (In Re MacHuca) · filed 2012-12-14(d)

To support a request for attorneys’ fees under § 523(d), a debtor initially needs to prove: (1) that the creditor sought to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a), (2) that the subject debt was a consumer debt, and (3) that the subject debt ultimately was discharged. ... “Once the debtor establishes these elements, the burden shifts to the creditor to prove that its actions were substantially justified.”

Section 523(d) does not authorize attorney’s fees for a commercial debt because it applies to consumer debt.

Advanced Coatings, International, Inc. v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 2013-01-11(d)

Here, it is undisputed that ACI’s alleged debt involved commercial rather than consumer debt, so § 523(d) does not apply.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a divorce attorney’s fee award from discharge when it is in the nature of support, even if payable directly to the attorney.

Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall) · filed 2013-04-03(a)(5)

Accordingly, the fact that the attorney’s fee award is payable directly to Mr. Hubbard has no bearing on whether the debt is a DSO. ... Therefore, the debt is non-dischargeable under §§ 523(a)(5) and 1828(a)(2) and is entitled to priority under § 507(a)(1).

Section 523(d) places the burden on a creditor to show that its unsuccessful consumer debt dischargeability claim was substantially justified.

Discover Bank v. Warren (In re Warren) · filed 2013-11-26(d)

The remaining issues are whether Plaintiffs position was “substantially justified” and whether “special circumstances” make an award unjust. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing its position was substantially justified.

Section 523(d)'s special circumstances exception requires complete denial of fees and costs; it does not permit a partial reduction.

In re: Chartri Daecharkhom · filed 2014-02-18(d)

We hold that a special circumstances determination within the meaning of § 523(d) requires a complete disallowance of fees and costs.

Section 523(d) requires complete disallowance of fees and costs when special circumstances make an award unjust; those circumstances cannot justify a partial reduction.

Daecharkhom v. Waugh Real Estate Holdings, LLC (In Re Daecharkhom) · filed 2014-02-18(d)

We hold that a special circumstances determination within the meaning of § 523(d) requires a complete disallowance of fees and costs.

Section 523(d) does not treat a creditor’s reliance on a presumption covering only one element of its claim as automatically substantially justified.

Discover Bank v. Warren (In re Warren) · filed 2014-03-21(d)

Consequently, the Court declines to create a per se rule whereby a creditor who relies on an evidentiary presumption as to only one element of a cause of action for which that creditor bears the burden of persuasion as to all elements is substantially justified for purposes of section 523(d).

Section 523(d) does not authorize costs or attorney fees when no consumer debt exists and no debt is discharged.

Doyle v. Howie-Cox (In re Howie-Cox) · filed 2014-06-30(d)

The Court concludes that § 523(d) does not apply. The Court has determined that Doyle is not a “creditor” of Howie-Cox, and no debt, let alone a “consumer debt,” of Howie-Cox to Doyle exists. So no such debt “is discharged.” For these reasons, § 523(d) does not apply.

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney’s fees nondischargeable when they are a domestic support obligation for the benefit of the debtor’s children.

In re Edinger · filed 2014-10-16(a)(5)

This Court finds that as a domestic support obligation, the award of attorney’s fees to Cabel McKinley is a non-discharge-able debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney’s fees owed to a former spouse for a child custody dispute nondischargeable when the fees are in the nature of support.

In re Beacham · filed 2014-10-22(a)(5)

Accordingly, the attorney’s fees Beacham owes Youssefi are in the nature of support and are non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(4) includes allowable attorney’s fees arising from the fiduciary defalcation that made the underlying debt nondischargeable.

Schwertner Backhoe Services, Inc. v. Kirk (In re Kirk) · filed 2015-01-28(a)(4)

But only fees that are allowed — in this case, $12,420 — can be included within the debt excepted from discharge.

Section 523(d) permits a court to deny attorney fees when special circumstances would make an award unjust, including when fees attributable to the § 523(a)(2) claim are minimal and difficult to determine.

Swenby v. Swenby (In re Swenby) · filed 2015-04-23(d)

Even when a case is not substantially justified, § 523(d) gives discretion to deny a motion for fees “if special circumstances would make the award unjust.” ... Therefore, the amount of resources devoted to defending the § 523(a)(2) action were likely small and the related fees de minimis and hard to determine. Accordingly, awarding the entire amount requested would be unjust. The motion is denied.

Section 523(d) does not exclude a debtor who represents himself from recovering attorney’s fees when its requirements are met.

Trustees of the Will County Carpenters, Local 174, Health & Welfare Fund v. Cooney · filed 2015-05-29(d)

The language of § 523(d) does not limit an award of costs and fees to private attorneys.

Section 523(d) permits an attorney’s fee award to a debtor only if the debt is discharged and the creditor’s position was not substantially justified.

Kansas ex rel. Gordon v. Oliver (In re Oliver) · filed 2016-01-20(d)

As awards for attorney’s fees are only available to a debtor if the Court discharges the debt and finds that the creditor’s position was not substantially justified, the Court denies Debtor’s request for attorney’s fees.

Section 523(d) allows a court to deny a debtor’s attorney’s fees when special circumstances would make the award unjust.

Tomey v. Dizinno (In re Dizinno) · filed 2016-10-14(d)

For these reasons, the Court finds that special circumstances exist such that an award of Debtor’s attorney’s fees would be unjust under 11 U.S.C. § 523(d).

Section 523(d) allows a debtor to recover costs and attorney’s fees for a discharged consumer debt challenged under § 523(a)(2), subject to the statute’s conditions.

Fukuda v. Daniel (In re Daniel) · filed 2016-10-26(d)

Section 523(d) applies only to an objection to the discharge of a consumer debt, and Mr. Daniel has not proven that this debt was a consumer debt.

Section 523(d) awards reasonable attorney’s fees to a debtor who successfully defends a consumer-debt dischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2) when the creditor was not substantially justified and no special circumstances make the award unjust.

McComb Financial, Inc. v. Webster (In re Webster) · filed 2017-07-07(d)

The Court finds that MeComb Financial was not substantially justified in initiating the Adversary and that there are no special circumstances that would make an award of attorney’s fees unjust. It should have known that it could not carry its burden of proving that the Debtors violated § 523(a)(2), causing the Debtors to incur $6,420.00 in attorney’s fees. The Court concludes that the Debtors are entitled reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of litigating the Adversary under § 523(d).

Section 523(d) does not award fees to a creditor for successfully defending a debtor’s automatic stay claim.

Malloy v. J & V Developers, Inc. (In re Malloy) · filed 2017-08-24(d)

There is no basis for a defendant or respondent to invoke § 523(d) based on a successful defense of a debtor's claim that the defendant or respondent violated the automatic stay.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts attorney's fees from discharge when a statute awards them for the conduct that made the underlying debt nondischargeable.

NF Clean v. Kakal (In re Kakal) · filed 2019-01-24(a)(4)

The attorney's fees are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(15) treats divorce-related attorney’s fees awarded to a former spouse as a debt to that spouse even when payable directly to the spouse’s attorney.

Davis, Matthews & Quigley, P.C. v. Elhag · filed 2019-08-19(a)(15)

The Court therefore finds that the Attorney’s Fees are a debt to the Former Spouse for purposes of § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(6) does not itself authorize a creditor to recover attorney’s fees for prosecuting a willful and malicious injury claim; recovery requires an applicable statutory or contractual basis.

First American Title Insurance Company v. Smith · filed 2019-09-05(a)(6)

In summary, First American’s action under § 523(a)(6) arises from the Debtor’s tortious conduct in the formation of Northwest Title and the taking of its employees and customers. The American Rule precludes First American’s recovery of attorney’s fees in the absence of an applicable statutory or contractual provision. There is no statutory basis under the Bankruptcy Code or the Utah Code expressly authorizing fees in such actions.

Section 523(d) allows fees for defending a § 523(a)(2) claim only when the debt is a consumer debt.

STRATTON v. TOMASZEWSKI · filed 2019-12-27(d)

Although Defendants seek attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this case under § 523 (d), no fees will be awarded to Defendants under this Section because § 523(d) allows fees only in connection with the defense of a § 523(a)(2) consumer debt. The transactions between these parties resulted in Defendants’ commercial obligations, not consumer debts.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts attorney’s fees incurred to enforce child support or custody rights from discharge, but does not except sanctions imposed for failing to answer discovery when they had no tangible effect on the children’s welfare.

Carpenter v. Amos · filed 2020-02-24(a)(5)

This Court finds that the attorney’s fees Debtor owes to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Finding and Judgment of Modification are domestic support obligations, and are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(5). ... The sanctions entered against Debtor for failing to comply with discovery requests are not domestic support obligations and, therefore, are dischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not itself authorize attorney’s fees for prosecuting a nondischargeability claim; recovery requires a contractual or statutory basis.

Key Equipment Finance, a Division of KeyBank Natio v. Cyr · filed 2020-06-11(a)(2)(B)

Moreover, Plaintiff’s only remaining theory of recovery is under § 523(a)(2)(B)—which does not provide for attorney’s fees.

Section 523(d) permits a prevailing debtor to recover attorney fees only in a consumer debt dischargeability action under § 523(a)(2).

Matthews, Jr. v. Gamboa · filed 2020-09-17(d)

As noted above, the only Bankruptcy Code provision which specifically provides for attorney fees to a prevailing debtor is § 523(d), a fee-shifting statute which applies only to § 523(a)(2) claims in consumer debt cases.

Section 523(d) does not permit an attorney’s fee award when the creditor’s nondischargeability claim was substantially justified.

Fiebelkorn v. Cooke · filed 2020-10-30(d)

More importantly, if and when she does receive a discharge, Plaintiff has demonstrated to this Court’s satisfaction that pursuit of his complaint in this Adversary Proceeding was substantially justified.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts a custody litigation attorney’s fee award from discharge when the award functions as support for a child.

Morrell v. Stamp · filed 2021-04-08(a)(5)

This debt is nondischargeable as a DSO under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(5) excepts custody proceeding attorney’s fees from discharge when the award supports the child’s welfare, even if the domestic court did not expressly consider the parties’ finances.

Sealock v. Portivent, esq. · filed 2021-10-05(a)(5)

Because the award of attorney’s fees is “in the nature of” support, it is a “domestic support obligation” within the definition of 11 U.S.C.§ 101(14A). As such, the claim for attorney’s fees is entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1), and it is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(d) allows a debtor to recover fees for defending a discharged consumer debt against a § 523(a)(2) claim when the creditor’s position was not substantially justified.

DR. GIL CENTER FOR BACK, NECK AND CHRONIC PAIN REL v. Rigney · filed 2021-10-12(d)

Considering the entire record in this case, the court finds that the plaintiff’s request for a declaration that its claim was nondischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) had a reasonable basis in both law and fact. Accordingly, the court finds that the inclusion of such claim was substantially justified.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes attorney’s fees arising from a fraud claim nondischargeable when a state statute governing the claim awards those fees.

Krizan v. Krizan · filed 2022-03-08(a)(2)(A)

But Cohen clarifies that to be entitled to attorney’s fees under section 523, attorney’s fees must be supported by a state statute governing the nature of the section 523 claim that awards attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. ... Such sums are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts attorney’s fees from discharge when they arise from the same willful and malicious conduct as the underlying nondischargeable debt.

Reece v. Carey · filed 2022-05-23(a)(6)

Here, the attorney’s fees awarded relate solely to the Verdict, and the debt pursuant to that Verdict has been deemed nondischargeable by this Court. Therefore, the attorney’s fees awarded are also nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(d) applies only to consumer debts and does not provide fees for litigation over a commercial debt.

Black v. Akins · filed 2022-05-25(d)

Next, asserting without merit that 11 U.S.C. § 523(d), which applies only with respect to a consumer debt, applies to the commercial debt at issue in this Adversary and all other debts if the court so chooses to ignore the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(d),2 and then excluding billing statements from this Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees would also be near the top of the list.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a settlement debt for willful and malicious injury from discharge, including contractually authorized fees and interest incurred to enforce it.

Hilgartner v. Yagi · filed 2022-06-30(a)(6)

With an independent contractual basis for these awards, this Court finds that such awards are contained within the overarching debt deemed non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts allowable enforcement fees and costs from discharge when they are ancillary to a nondischargeable settlement debt for willful and malicious injury.

Yagi v. Hilgartner · filed 2022-06-30(a)(6)

Given the Bankruptcy Court and this Court’s agreement that the Principal Amount secured by the Settlement Agreement is non- dischargeable under § 523(a)(6), the ancillary allowable enforcement and collection fees and costs contemplated by the Settlement Agreement are also non-dischargeable.

Section 523(d)'s special circumstances exception can prevent an attorney's fee award when the award is disproportionate to the debt and the creditor also brought a claim under § 523(a)(6).

Aboud and Aboud PC v. Cary · filed 2022-11-29(d)

The Court finds that special circumstances exist, and the Bankruptcy Court erred in deciding otherwise. Section 523(d)'s goal of curbing abusive practices by institutional creditors would not be furthered by requiring Appellant to pay $60,000 on a claim for an original $27,000 debt. Moreover, the complaint was not limited to claims under § 523(a)(2) but also alleged an exemption under § 523(a)(6). Accordingly, the Court will reverse the Bankruptcy Court's award of attorney's fees to Debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts attorney’s fees arising from a debt obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation from discharge along with the underlying damages.

Happy Hollow Ranch, LP v. Howley · filed 2024-02-02(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiffs prevail under either of the § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(4) theories, the attorney’s fees incurred in connection with those damages are also nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) does not independently authorize attorney’s fees for a creditor who proves a debt nondischargeable.

Guse v. Carter · filed 2024-05-10(a)(6)

Because Plaintiff sued the Defendant under § ... 523(a)(6), this statute does not provide such relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover the attorneys’ fees that he has incurred for the successful prosecution of this adversary proceeding.

Fraudulent intent does not remove a debt from consumer-debt status for purposes of § 523(d) fee liability.

In re: Megan Christine Fiedler · filed 2024-05-13(d)

In the Sanction Order, the bankruptcy court correctly determined that as a “matter of law, fraudulent intent does not disqualify a debt from ‘consumer debt’ status.” Because there was no justifiable legal basis for the inclusion of paragraph 14, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in determining that the allegation was added to the Complaint for two possibly improper purposes: (1) to intimidate as part of an effort to extract an unjust settlement; and/or (2) a “transparent effort to evade § 523(d) liability for a creditor who sues unsuccessfully to establish a consumer debt was obtained by nondischargeable § 523(a)(2) fraud.”

Section 523(a)(5) can except divorce attorney’s fees from discharge as a domestic support obligation even when the fees are payable directly to the attorney and are not tied to child custody or alimony.

Flodquist v. Christon Griffin · filed 2024-10-10(a)(5)

And given the authorities cited above, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by declaring the attorney’s fees to be a domestic support obligation.

Section 523(d) does not award a debtor fees merely because a creditor’s dischargeability claim fails; the creditor’s position must lack substantial justification.

Berrian v. Kennedy · filed 2025-01-22(d)

Although the Plaintiff’s cause of action here was not successful, it would be incorrect to say pursuing the matter was not “substantially justified.”

Section 523(d) does not allow a debtor to recover attorney’s fees for defending a dischargeability action involving a business loan.

Vasquez v. Mascareno · filed 2025-03-21(d)

Here, the Court holds that the debt was a business loan, not a consumer debt and as such attorney’s fees are not recoverable by the defendant.

Section 523(d) authorizes fees for a discharged consumer debt challenged under § 523(a)(2) when the creditor lacked substantial justification, but does not cover § 523(a)(6) claims.

Doug Woods v. Landingham · filed 2026-03-17(d)

However, the plain language of section 523(d) makes it applicable only to debts related to section 523(a)(2), not section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes qualifying debts from discharge but does not independently authorize an award of attorney’s fees.

Nedd · filed 2026-03-26(a)(2)(A)

At the outset, the relief afforded by Section 523(a)(2)(A) addresses the dischargeability of a debt. It is not an independent basis to seek an award of attorney’s fees, no matter how egregious the circumstances.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) includes postpetition attorney's fees in a nondischargeable fraud debt when a contract grants the creditor a right to those fees that is enforceable under state law.

Luce v. First Equipment Leasing Corp. (In Re Luce) · filed 1992-05-20(a)(2)(A)

Like section 523(a)(2)(B), section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the debt incurred "by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud," which encompasses "state-approved contractually required attorney's fees."

A creditor who prevails on a § 523(a)(6) dischargeability claim may recover reasonable attorney’s fees when an enforceable contract provides for them.

John Deere Co. v. Deresinski (In Re Deresinski) · filed 2000-07-11(a)(6)

Thus, a creditor who prevails in a dischargeability action is properly awarded attorney’s fees if a valid contract provides for such an award.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts from discharge only the portion of a civil penalty payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit.

Cabardo v. Patacsil · filed 2023-06-09(a)(7)

Having determined that § 523(a)(7) applies to civil penalties awarded Private Attorney General Act plaintiffs, what is the amount of the penalties that may be excepted: the entire amount or only 75%? This court finds that only 75% of the penalties may be excepted.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts civil penalties from discharge only to the extent they are payable to and retained by a governmental unit.

Cabardo v. Patacsil · filed 2023-04-25(a)(7)

While the District Court judgment awarded civil penalties, which will ultimately be divided, 75% to the State of California and 25% to the aggrieved employees, it is only the portion of the civil penalty payable to the government itself that is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a penalty payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit from discharge when it does not compensate for actual pecuniary loss; the creditor need not prove intent.

Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Turner · filed 2023-05-24(a)(7)

The Court notes that there is no intent element in determining whether a penalty is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) does not let a Chapter 7 discharge eliminate a criminal restitution order imposed afterward.

Drake v. State · filed 2008-04-22(a)(7)

Several courts interpreting Kelly and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) have held that an order of criminal restitution payable to a governmental entity is exempt from discharge in bankruptcy. ... We conclude that Drake's previous Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge did not discharge the district court's restitution order and, hence, we affirm the district court.

Section 523(a)(7) does not automatically except California attorney discipline costs from discharge merely because state law labels them penalties; controlling Ninth Circuit precedent treats those costs as compensatory.

Findley v. State Bar (In Re Findley) · filed 2008-04-07(a)(7)

However clear the California legislature may have been regarding its intentions visa-vis § 523(a)(7) and the result in Taggart, we cannot say with sufficient confidence that the Ninth Circuit would regard “new” § 6086.10 as leading to a conclusion different than its conclusion under “old” § 6086.10. In other words, we cannot say that the State Bar is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(13) excepts restitution orders issued under Title 18 from a debtor’s discharge under § 727.

United States v. Pipkin · filed 2008-02-19(a)(13)

Section 320934 of the Act, which at all relevant times was codified at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(13), provides that a discharge under § 727 “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... for any payment of an order of restitution issued under title 18, United States Code.” Accordingly, any discharge Defendant may have received from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa under § 727 does not apply to an order of restitution in this case under the MVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a sanction from discharge when it is payable directly to private litigants rather than to a governmental unit.

Stein v. McDowell (In Re McDowell) · filed 2008-01-28(a)(7)

Even if the Court accepts this allegation as true, the debt is not payable to a governmental unit; it is payable directly to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court finds that the Sanction Award does not fall within the § 523(a)(7) exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except civil administrative proceeding costs from discharge when they reimburse a government board’s actual expenses rather than serve as a fine or penalty.

Schaffer v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (In Re Schaffer) · filed 2008-01-24(a)(7)

Our holding that the Board’s costs are not a fine, penalty, or forfeiture is buttressed by our conclusion that the costs assessed are “compensation for actual pecuniary loss” and do not fall within § 523(a)(7)’s definition of nondischargeable fines.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts traffic violation surcharges from discharge when they are fines payable for a government’s benefit and do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Holder v. Texas Department of Public Safety (In Re Holder) · filed 2007-09-28(a)(7)

Therefore, the court finds that the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that Holder’s surcharge fines were nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) makes attorney disciplinary cost assessments nondischargeable when they are penalties rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

In re William McNeir Richmond · filed 2007-09-27(a)(7)

Because the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the costs assessed against Richmond were in the nature of a fine or penalty and were not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, its decision to deem Richmond’s disciplinary assessment nondischargeable is affirmed.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary cost assessments from discharge when they are fines or penalties for a governmental unit and do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct v. Richmond (In Re Richmond) · filed 2007-09-27(a)(7)

Because the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the costs assessed against Richmond were in the nature of a fine or penalty and were not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, its decision to deem Richmond’s disciplinary assessment nondischargeable is affirmed.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts costs imposed as a sanction in an attorney disciplinary proceeding from discharge.

Logal v. Education Credit Management Corp. (In Re Logal) · filed 2007-10-25(a)(7)

The Court determines that to the extent that Logal asserts that the costs imposed by the Supreme Court are not within the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the affirmative defense of the defendants in this context is sustained under Fed. R. Bank. P. 7012(b)/ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution and fines from discharge even when the government distributes restitution payments to victims.

In Re Byrd · filed 2000-11-16(a)(7)

In sum, under Kelly and the limited precedent developed thus far in this circuit, the court concludes that the restitution and fines Byrd paid were, pursuant to the Nevada statute, within the “fine, penalty or forfeiture” language of § 523(a)(7). It is clear that a restitution award can be payable “to and for the use of the governmental unit” even if the government receives the money and then disburses it to victims.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts from Chapter 7 discharge only penal sanctions arising from the debtor’s own wrongdoing, so a surety’s bail bond debt arising from the defendant’s failure to appear is dischargeable.

In Re Gi Nam · filed 2000-11-03(a)(7)

We hold that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) excepts from discharge in Chapter 7 fines, penalties, and forfeitures that are penal sanctions resulting from the debtor’s wrongdoing. Thus, Debtor Gi Nam’s debt to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania resulting from the forfeiture on his son’s bail bond does not meet this requirement and is thus dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7)'s criminal restitution exception did not cover a payment made to secure dismissal of charges without an adjudication of guilt.

Gandara v. Bitterroot Rock Products (In Re Gandara) · filed 2000-10-03(a)(7)

Therefore, both § 523(a)(7) and Woods are distinguishable from the instant case by the absence from this record of an adjudication of James’ guilt.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a fine or penalty from discharge only if the debt is both payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit.

Jeff-Mark Partnership v. Friedman (In Re Friedman) · filed 2000-09-29(a)(7)

The plain meaning of the statute is that the debt must be both payable to a governmental unit and for the benefit of a governmental unit to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts federal criminal restitution from discharge when it benefits the government and is primarily penal.

BT Commercial Corp. v. Kochekian (In Re Kochekian) · filed 1995-01-03(a)(7)

For the reasons stated herein, this court finds that the order for criminal restitution entered by the District Court is non-dis-chargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(7), and the debt evidenced by the Civil Judgment is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a contempt penalty from discharge when it vindicates a court’s authority, even if the penalty is payable to a private party.

PRP Wine International, Inc. v. Allison (In Re Allison) · filed 1994-10-31(a)(7)

In the case of contempt judgments, it is enough that the fine or penalty, although made payable to a party, be awarded to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution judgments from discharge regardless of how their amounts are calculated.

New York v. Sokol (In Re Sokol) · filed 1994-08-11(a)(7)

Judgments of restitution, regardless of how they are computed, are penal and not dischargea-ble under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts federal and state criminal restitution orders from Chapter 7 discharge, regardless of when restitution is ordered.

United States v. Vetter · filed 1990-02-01(a)(7)

We agree that the Supreme Court’s rationale in Kelly applies equally to restitution orders entered as part of a criminal sentence by federal and state courts. Therefore, since such restitution orders are excepted by section 523(a)(7) from discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, whether the restitution was ordered before or after the bankruptcy proceeding commenced is irrelevant.

Section 523(a)(7) does not bar discharge of Virginia criminal court costs because they compensate the Commonwealth for actual pecuniary loss.

Workman v. City of Roanoke · filed 1989-11-30(a)(7)

Court costs imposed in criminal cases in Virginia’s state courts are not fines or penalties; they are compensation for actual pecuniary loss. Therefore, discharge of these costs is not barred by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a criminal appeal bond forfeiture owed to the state from discharge, without requiring the state to file a dischargeability complaint.

Scott v. Alabama (In Re Scott) · filed 1989-10-10(a)(7)

Further, the debtor’s obligation to the State of Alabama is nondischargeable ... pursuant to § 523(a)(7) ... which excepts from discharge debts for a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”

Section 523(a)(7) makes parking fines owed to a city nondischargeable even if an administrative agency, rather than a court, imposed them.

City of Chicago v. Gallagher (In Re Gallagher) · filed 1987-03-09(a)(7)

However, there is nothing contained within § 523(a)(7) which mandates that the fine or penalty be imposed by a court. If the relevant state or municipal laws provide that an administrative agency may impose fines, such fines, if they fall within the ambit of § 523(a)(7), are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) makes criminal restitution nondischargeable when the state collects it for the victim as part of a criminal penalty.

Thompson v. Lewis (In Re Thompson) · filed 1987-01-30(a)(7)

Neither the Tennessee statute nor the facts put this case beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision. The debtor’s duty to make restitution was not discharged in his bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(7) makes criminal court costs imposed as a condition of probation nondischargeable even when they partly compensate the state.

In Re Barry Dale Hollis and Tammy Lanelle Hollis, Debtors. State of Tennessee v. Hollis · filed 1987-01-27(a)(7)

In summary, we believe that the Supreme Court’s unequivocal holding in Kelly requires us to find that the criminal court’s assessment of costs against appellee does not constitute a dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts restitution imposed as part of a state criminal sentence from discharge, even when payments go to the victim.

Kelly v. Robinson · filed 1986-11-12(a)(7)

But we need not address that question in this case, because we hold that § 523(a)(7) preserves from discharge any condition a state criminal court imposes as part of a criminal sentence.

A creditor's failure to object under § 523 allows its civil claim to be discharged, while restitution imposed as a condition of criminal probation remains enforceable.

In Re Button · filed 1981-02-11

In view of the foregoing, it seems clear that the debt owed by the debtor to the creditor, Sheridan Oil Company, has been discharged because they did not file an objection to discharge under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, the criminal sentence of restitution as a condition of probation is an entirely different matter. This is part of the punishment for the crime to which the debtor pleaded guilty.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a governmental forfeiture claim from a Chapter 7 discharge.

Sachs v. Ryan (In Re Ryan) · filed 1981-11-20(a)(7)

Despite the subordinate status of a forfeiture claim in the order of distribution, § 523(a)(7) provides that such a claim is expressly excepted from a discharge granted under Chapter 7 of the Code.

Section 523(a)(7) does not prevent discharge of a debt that compensates a governmental unit for actual pecuniary loss.

Ohio Ex Rel. Brown v. Kovacs (In Re Kovacs) · filed 1982-02-23(a)(7)

It must be clear from what we have said above and without further discussion, that the significance to plaintiff of the affirmative obligation of the Judgment Entry is that defendant pay compensation to plaintiff for pecuniary loss, that occasioned by the necessity for the clean up. Discharge of such an obligation is not barred by the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a punitive contempt fine from discharge even when the fine is payable directly to a creditor.

Thruway Messenger Service, Inc. v. Marini (In Re Marini) · filed 1983-03-11(a)(7)

As earlier indicated, the fact that the fine was to be paid directly to the plaintiff is not necessarily relevant. The key is whether it was punitive or compensatory. This court finds that it was punitive inasmuch as there were separate provisions in the stipulation with regard to a settlement of claims between the parties and for the violation of the temporary restraining order, and because of the State Court’s deliberate use of the term “fine” to describe the $2,000 debt. Under those circumstances, the $2,000 can only be labeled as a measure to punish the defendant for disobeying the court ordered injunction. Therefore, the debt is nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) makes a liability to pay a municipal traffic fine nondischargeable.

City of Memphis v. Wilson (In Re Wilson) · filed 1983-04-27(a)(7)

Based on all the foregoing and the case record as a whole, the court finds, under the circumstances, that a liability to pay a traffic fine is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a compensatory award of civil litigation costs from discharge as a fine, penalty, or forfeiture.

People v. Hemingway (In Re Hemingway) · filed 1983-09-12(a)(7)

In this Court’s view, the $2,000.00 additional allowance is not a “fine, penalty or forfeiture.” Rather, it is simply a recognition by the state court that the prosecution was an unusual one and that some additional compensation was required to make the prosecuting party whole again.

Section 523(a)(7) makes government parking fines and penalties nondischargeable, but allows discharge of charges that compensate the government for actual pecuniary loss.

Caggiano v. Office of the Parking Clerk of Boston (In Re Caggiano) · filed 1983-10-06(a)(7)

Although not as clearly associated with a specific cost reimbursement as the final $5 surcharge (see infra) payable to the registrar, this Court finds this a charge to recover a pecuniary loss due to the work and expense involved in the renewed hearing provisions and forwarding of the papers to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 20AV2. Therefore, this additional $15 surcharge is dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal prosecution costs imposed as part of a sentence from discharge, even when the costs are measured by the county's trial expenses.

In the Matter of James Michael Zarzynski and Kathryn Kleist Zarzynski, Debtors-Appellants · filed 1985-08-26(a)(7)

Nor does the fact that the costs are based on what the county expended in the criminal trial convert the costs into "compensation for actual pecuniary loss." The costs can be viewed a part of the penalty even though it is a penalty measured by the extent of certain county expenditures for the trial.

Section 523(a)(7) permits discharge of criminal restitution to the extent it compensates actual pecuniary loss, even if it also serves a punitive purpose.

In Re ROBINSON · filed 1985-10-29(a)(7)

We conclude that a debt that has compensation for actual pecuniary loss as at least one of its purposes is not, to the extent that it does not exceed the amount of the loss, excepted from discharge by Sec. 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) requires a fine, penalty, or forfeiture to be payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit to be excepted from discharge.

Kentucky Central Insurance v. Lueking (In Re Lueking) · filed 1986-03-11(a)(7)

As indicated earlier, the present statute requires a debt “for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit.” By no stretch of the imagination can plaintiff be considered even remotely as a “governmental unit.”

Restitution designed to compensate a victim for actual pecuniary loss is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(7).

Heincy v. Superior Court of the State of California (In Re Heincy) · filed 1986-03-26(a)(7)

In this case, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) is the only code section which could apply to except Heincy’s restitution debt from discharge. ... The probation officer’s report, taken together with Boylan’s testimony as summarized above, lead inexorably to the conclusion that the restitution order was designed to compensate Boylan and therefore is a dischargea-ble debt.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a contempt penalty imposed to uphold a court’s dignity from discharge, but does not except amounts compensating actual pecuniary loss.

City of Colton v. Corbly (In Re Corbly) · filed 1986-06-04(a)(7)

As to the second issue, the Court finds that $3,000.00 of the $7,824.90 contempt judgment, which the City of Colton received against the debtor, is a fine or penalty to and for the benefit of a governmental unit and, therefore, holds that it is nondis-chargeable under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(7). However, the Court also finds that the remaining $4,824.90 is compensation for actual pecuniary loss and, therefore, not precluded discharge under that section.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a state civil restitution judgment from discharge when it primarily compensates consumer fraud victims for their losses.

People v. Taite (In Re Taite) · filed 1987-06-11(a)(7)

Therefore, this court concludes that Section 523(a)(7) should not be extended to include civil restitution judgments obtained by the State on behalf of victims of a consumer fraud scheme, because they are primarily “compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”

Section 523(a)(7) excepts restitution imposed as part of a federal criminal sentence from discharge.

United States v. O'Connell (In Re O'Connell) · filed 1987-12-08(a)(7)

Since this rationale applies equally whether restitution is imposed as part of a state or federal system of justice, the Court holds that Debtor’s restitution obligation is not dischargeable and that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for the amount of the obligation.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except civil False Claims Act remedies from discharge when they compensate the government for loss.

United States v. Stelweck (In Re Stelweck) · filed 1988-06-06(a)(7)

In light of the compensatory nature of the False Claim Act, we believe that the civil remedies provided by the Act do not constitute a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts civil penalties payable to and for a governmental unit from discharge when they do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Poule v. Registrar of Contractors of California (In Re Poule) · filed 1988-07-05(a)(7)

In addition, although the trial court did not make a specific finding on this issue, the record indicates that the judge considered the issue and implicitly found that the civil penalties levied by the Registrar come within the scope of section 523(a)(7). We agree. The penalties are payable to and for a governmental unit and they are not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution from discharge when it benefits a governmental unit and serves punishment or rehabilitation rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1988-06-24(a)(7)

As to Issue 1, this Court holds that Wright’s obligation to pay restitution is nondischargeable as a matter of law pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). The restitution ordered by the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa is payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit and is not “compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”

Section 523(a)(7) excepts state court criminal restitution from discharge even when the restitution order is entered after bankruptcy for prepetition conduct.

O'Malley v. Rarer (In Re O'Malley) · filed 1988-08-24(a)(7)

Second, it is clear that Plaintiff’s liability under any restitution order which the Le Sueur County District Court may enter in any criminal case initiated on the complaint of any of these four defendants was excepted from Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 discharge by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts environmental civil penalties from discharge when they serve a governmental purpose rather than compensate for pecuniary loss.

Renfrow v. Kentucky, Kentucky Natural Resources Environmental Protection Cabinet (In Re Renfrow) · filed 1989-07-17(a)(7)

Based on this statutory language, it is clear that K.R.S. Chapter 350 was enacted for the environmental welfare of the people and property in the State of Kentucky, and, therefore, is not pecuniary in nature. Accordingly, the civil penalties assessed against Renfrow, individually, ($25,800.00) as a result of the Order entered by Secretary for the Cabinet on June 4, 1986, shall be deemed nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(7) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal fines, penalties, and restitution obligations from Chapter 7 discharge.

Erickson v. District Court of the State of Colorado (In Re Erickson) · filed 1989-08-14(a)(7)

The language in sections 523(a) unambiguously excepts from a Chapter 7 discharge, inter alia, debts for criminal fines and penalties, including restitution obligations.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts governmental civil penalties from discharge when they are penal in nature rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

United States v. Lueking · filed 1990-10-22(a)(7)

The civil penalties involved in this suit are clearly penal in nature — the calculation of penalties bears no relationship to the cost of reclaiming the mines; there is no requirement that the penalties collected be used to reclaim a Lueking Coal Company mine; and the government has not suffered any actual pecuniary loss. Accordingly, the exception to discharge provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), applies to the penalties at issue in this case.

Section 523(a)(7) makes criminal restitution orders nondischargeable in Chapter 7.

Nashawaty v. Massachusetts (In Re Nashawaty) · filed 1990-09-28(a)(7)

In view of the fact that restitution orders are not dischargeable in Chapter 7 pursuant to section 523(a)(7), ... the Court hereby denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and allows the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except an award of costs from discharge when the costs compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Illinois Ex Rel. Burris v. Tapper (In Re Tapper) · filed 1991-01-24(a)(7)

Clearly the $4,110 awarded Plaintiff as costs was nothing more than “compensation for actual pecuniary loss” as that phrase is used in § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) prevents discharge of a criminal fine imposed for rehabilitation and punishment, even when the judgment says the fine includes incarceration costs.

United States v. Neil (In Re Neil) · filed 1991-09-05(a)(7)

In the present matter, I conclude that the fine of $7,000.00 is nondischargeable. ... Instead, such fine was imposed in furtherance of society’s interest in rehabilitation and punishment, which interest underlies the criminal statutes involved.

Section 523(a)(7) treats a municipal fine payable to a governmental unit as a debt that is not discharged in bankruptcy.

People Ex Rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp. · filed 1991-10-17(a)(7)

Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge under its provisions does not discharge a debtor from any debt “to the extent such debt is for a fine *** payable to *** a governmental unit.” (Emphasis added.) (11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7) (1985).) We interpret this to mean that even under the Bankruptcy Code, a municipal fine is one category of debt; such a fine is simply not dischargable as other debts are under the law.

Section 523(a)(7) makes attorney disciplinary costs nondischargeable when they are payable to a governmental unit and serve a penal rather than compensatory purpose.

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Haberman (In Re Haberman) · filed 1992-02-05(a)(7)

The costs imposed against Mr. Ha-berman are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7) in the sum of $10,125.58 together with interest on the Wisconsin Supreme Court judgment from December 16,1985 at the rate of 12% per annum (pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 815.05[8]) and costs consisting of the $120 adversary filing fee.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts restitution required as a condition of New Jersey pretrial intervention from discharge when it benefits the state and is not compensation for the victim’s loss.

In re Quinn · filed 1992-04-03(a)(7)

It is the conclusion of this court, therefore, that restitution which is imposed as a condition in New Jersey PTI programs by the debtor meets the two requirements for nondischargeability of section 523(a)(7) as set forth by the Kelly court.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a governmental disgorgement debt from discharge when its deterrent purpose makes it penal and it does not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Telsey (In Re Telsey) · filed 1992-09-09(a)(7)

This Court finds the deterrence purpose of the disgorgement order sufficiently penal to characterize the resulting debt as a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” within the meaning of § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7)(B)'s three-year limitation applies to non-tax penalties, allowing discharge when the related event occurred more than three years before the bankruptcy petition.

In Re Corbly · filed 1992-12-23(a)(7)(B)

The Court finds that non-tax penalties may also be considered in relation to Section 523(a)(7)(B). ... The plain language states that in order for a debt to be excepted from discharge, the transaction or event occurring in conjunction with the “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” must have occurred within “three years before the date of the filing of the petition.”

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they are a penalty payable to a governmental unit rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court v. Betts (In Re Betts) · filed 1993-01-07(a)(7)

The Court finds that for purposes of section 523(a)(7), ARDC constitutes a “governmental unit.” In addition, the Court finds that the costs assessed against Betts are a fine or penalty because they are penal in nature. Such costs are not compensation for any actual pecuniary loss to ARDC because they are expenses advanced and incurred by ARDC in the disciplinary proceedings against Betts.

Section 523(a)(7) requires a debt to be payable to a governmental unit to be excepted from discharge, even if payment would benefit one.

Commercial Bankers Life Insurance v. Strutz (In Re Strutz) · filed 1993-04-08(a)(7)

Thus, a debt must be payable to a governmental unit to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7). If the obligation is owed to something other than a governmental unit, the debt will be a dischargeable one.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a government penalty from discharge when it is not calculated from actual pecuniary loss, even if it roughly compensates investigative and prosecutorial expenses.

United States v. Wrw Corporation, Roger Richardson Noah Woolum and William Woolum · filed 1993-05-07(a)(7)

However, because the penalty in question falls within the parameters of “rough justice” permitted under principles of double jeopardy and yet does not compensate the Government for actual pecuniary loss, it is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution from discharge when it serves the state’s rehabilitative interests, even if the state statute does not expressly mention those interests.

Zajder v. Hills Department Store (In Re Zajder) · filed 1993-05-25(a)(7)

The restitution order is not dischargeable for reasons set forth below. ... The Supreme Court, however, did not hold that the § 523(a)(7) exception to dischargeability required explicit reference to the State’s interests in imposing restitution. ... Accordingly, under Pennsylvania law, the restitution portion of the statute at issue in this case, which directs debtor to reimburse the victim for the face amount of the bad checks written, serves a rehabilitative purpose.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts treble damages payable to a state from discharge when they are a civil penalty rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

New York v. Kelly (In Re Kelly) · filed 1993-06-09(a)(7)

The treble damages in this case fall within the broad exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). The treble damages are payable to a state, a governmental unit as defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(27). They do not represent compensation for monetary loss as the judgment of restitution entered by the state court provides for compensation for the State’s actual pecuniary loss. Manifestly, they constitute a civil fine or a penalty. As a civil penalty, the State’s claim for treble damages is automatically nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) makes a federal criminal restitution debt nondischargeable in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Soderling · filed 1993-07-13(a)(7)

We therefore hold that, as a matter of law, the FDIC is entitled to summary judgment that its claim based on the federal court criminal restitution order is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts federal criminal restitution orders from discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Soderling (In re Soderling) · filed 1993-07-13(a)(7)

We therefore hold that, as a matter of law, the PDIC is entitled to summary judgment that its claim based on the federal court criminal restitution order is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution orders from discharge, and § 523(a)(9) can except a debt established by a criminal judgment for injury caused by legally intoxicated driving.

Steiger v. Clark County, Washington (In Re Steiger) · filed 1993-10-19(a)(7), (a)(9)

Orders for restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence conviction are nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(7), as set out in Kelly v. Robinson. Criminal judgments which establish a debtor’s liability for injury caused while operating a motor vehicle when legally intoxicated are judgments which may make a resulting debt nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(9).

Section 523(a)(7) makes costs imposed on a disciplined attorney under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 773 nondischargeable because they are punitive and payable to a governmental unit.

Betts v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission · filed 1994-01-26(a)(7)

The Bankruptcy Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Appellee based upon its determination that costs imposed upon the Debtor in an attorney disciplinary proceeding are nondischargeable is affirmed.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts Virginia criminal court costs from discharge because their assessment is part of the criminal sentence, even when payment was not a condition of probation.

In Re Joseph A. Thompson, Debtor. Joseph A. Thompson v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 1994-02-01(a)(7)

The fact that in some instances punishment will be contingent on court costs is sufficient, for definitional purposes, to lift Virginia’s requirement that convicted defendants pay court costs into § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they are a fine or penalty rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Cillo v. Florida Bar (In Re Cillo) · filed 1994-03-18(a)(7)

Based on the foregoing, this Court therefore finds that the Bankruptcy Court correctly determined that The Florida Bar’s claim is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss and is accordingly excepted from the Appellant’s discharge as a fine or penalty under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) requires a fine or penalty to be payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit and to be noncompensatory.

Wash v. Moebius (In Re Wood) · filed 1994-04-08(a)(7)

The language of § 523(a)(7) is clear. In order to be nondis-chargeable the fine or penalty must be “payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit”. Further, it must not be compensatory in nature.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts from discharge a criminal restitution obligation imposed as a condition of probation.

Clifford Electronics, Inc. v. Prieto (In Re Prieto) · filed 1994-06-15(a)(7)

Therefore, the debt owed pursuant to the restitution order is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excludes unpaid traffic violation debts from discharge when they are fines or penalties payable for a governmental unit’s benefit rather than compensation for actual loss.

Garfias v. City of Mesa · filed 1995-02-01(a)(7)

The record reflects that the unpaid traffic violations are the types of debts that are prohibited from being discharged under section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) bars discharge of punitive attorney disciplinary costs that do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

In the Matter of John A. Betts, Debtor-Appellant. In the Matter of John A. Betts, Debtor. Appeal of Kenneth A. Kozel · filed 1995-03-14(a)(7)

Because the costs assessed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 773 are punitive in nature, and not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, those costs are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts attorney fees and court costs from discharge when they accompany a debt for willful and malicious injury.

AU Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Whitner (In Re Whitner) · filed 1995-03-27(a)(6)

As a result, this Court finds that the award of attorney fees against Whitner is nondis-chargeable as well as the award of court costs. Thus, the debt is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(7) requires a penalty to be payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit; assigning a penalty awarded to individuals to a governmental unit does not make it nondischargeable.

University of New Mexico v. Bailey (In Re Bailey) · filed 1995-04-07(a)(7)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) requires that it be payable “to and for the benefit of a governmental unit.” ... The University cannot make a dischargeable into a nondischargeable debt by securing an assignment thereof. When the character of a debt is defined in terms of the holder thereof, that character cannot be changed by its assignment.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts federal criminal restitution from Chapter 7 discharge when it benefits a governmental unit and does not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

United States v. Prodan · filed 1995-04-21(a)(7)

The restitution order in the instant ease clearly meets the two requirements for exemption from discharge found in § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) makes restitution imposed as part of a state criminal sentence nondischargeable.

Neff v. Knodle (In Re Knodle) · filed 1995-07-14(a)(7)

Based on the holding of the Supreme Court in Kelly v. Robinson that orders for restitution imposed as part of a criminal sentence and conviction are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7), this court concludes that the restitution ordered by the state court in Criminal Case No. 94-K-0343 as a condition of Knodle’s criminal sentence is nondis-chargeable as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(7) makes costs assessed in Michigan attorney disciplinary proceedings nondischargeable as a penalty.

State Bar of Michigan v. Doerr (In Re Doerr) · filed 1995-08-14(a)(7)

I adopt the rationale of the Haber-man and Betts cases, supra, and hold that costs assessed by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board relative to a disciplinary action are a “fine, penalty or forfeiture” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) and are nondischargeable in a chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(7) prevents discharge of a debt payable to a governmental unit when the government's interest is penal, even if injured people may receive compensation from the recovery.

U.S. Department Of Housing & Urban Development v. Cost Control Marketing & Sales Management Of Virginia, Incorporated · filed 1995-09-08(a)(7)

We interpret these cases to say that so long as the government's interest in enforcing a debt is penal, it makes no difference that injured persons may thereby receive compensation for pecuniary loss. In other words, the "not compensation for actual pecuniary loss" phrase in Sec. 523(a)(7) refers to the government's pecuniary loss.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts federal criminal restitution from discharge when it serves a penal purpose, even if it also compensates the victim.

United States v. Gelb (In Re Gelb) · filed 1995-09-18(a)(7)

The restitution imposed herein was not solely intended to compensate the victim but, rather, was a key component in the Debtor’s punishment. Accordingly, this Court finds that the debt evidenced by the instant restitution order is non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a fine, penalty, or forfeiture from discharge when it is payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit and does not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Federal Trade Commission v. Wright (In Re Wright) · filed 1995-10-25(a)(7)

That Section requires (1) that there be a “debt ... for a fine, penalty or forfeiture”; (2) that such debt be “payable to and for the benefit of a government unit”; and (3) that such debt “is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss”.

Section 523(a)(7) leaves criminal restitution enforceable despite a Chapter 7 discharge, even when the discharge precedes the restitution order.

State v. Sprang · filed 1995-10-25(a)(7)

In State v. Davis, 116 Or App 607, 610, 843 P2d 460 (1992), we applied Kelly v. Robinson, 479 US 36, 50, 107 S Ct 353, 93 L Ed 2d 216 (1986), to hold that a chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge the obligation to make restitution that is imposed as part of a criminal sentence.1 It is not relevant whether the discharge in bankruptcy occurred after the restitution order, as in Kelly, or before the restitution order, as in Davis.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution from discharge even if the restitution order is entered after the bankruptcy petition.

In Re McMullen · filed 1995-11-09(a)(7)

Thus an order of restitution is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(7) even if the order is entered post-petition.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts fines, penalties, and forfeitures payable to a government from discharge when they do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Wisconsin v. Weller (In Re Weller) · filed 1995-12-11(a)(7)

The $228,-630 portion of the judgment is for “forfeitures”, the $50,298.60 portion is a “penalty”, and the judgment is not “compensation for actual pecuniary loss”. The plain language of § 523(a)(7) applies to Weller’s obligation. The debt, including the $50,298.60 penalty portion, is accordingly nondischargeable, and it was not discharged by Weller’s earlier chapter 7 discharge.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts New Jersey motor vehicle surcharges from discharge as penalties benefiting governmental units, except for amounts covering collection costs.

Matter of Kent · filed 1995-12-05(a)(7)

With all § 523(a)(7) elements established, we conclude that debtor’s obligation to repay motor vehicle surcharges, net of administrative expenses of collection charged by the DMV, are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a surety’s forfeited bail bond debt from discharge when the surety was not the criminal defendant and faced no penal sanction.

County of Berks v. Damore (In Re Damore) · filed 1996-04-25(a)(7)

We agree with the Paige court’s analysis and conclude that, where, as in the case before us, the debtor is not the defendant who failed to appear in the underlying state court criminal proceeding, but rather, is merely the surety on a forfeited bail bond who had no penal sanctions imposed against him, the debtor’s obligation on the bail bond is contractual rather than penal in nature and is not rendered nondischargeable by Section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) makes statutory driver’s license restoration fees nondischargeable when they are penalties payable to a state agency and do not compensate it for actual loss.

Clayton v. Tennessee Department of Safety (In re Clayton) · filed 1996-08-07(a)(7)

That is, the contingent statutory “debts” owed by Ms. Clayton to the Department in this chapter 7 case are nondischargeable penalties under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7) and must be paid as one of the three preconditions to the Department’s reissuance of a Tennessee driver’s license to Ms. Clayton.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts from discharge an obligation to pay taxes, interest, and penalties imposed as a condition of a criminal sentence when that obligation constitutes a fine.

Burke v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Burke) · filed 1996-07-18(a)(7)

I adopt the rationale articulated in these cited eases, and find that the order requiring Mr. Burke to pay all of his taxes, interest and penalties for the years 1980-1990 constitutes a “fine” under § 523(a)(7). Mr. Burke’s taxes for these years are not discharged, and therefore the IRS’s collection efforts did not violate the post-discharge injunction.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts properly assessed attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they function as a penalty rather than compensation for loss.

Carlson v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (In Re Carlson) · filed 1996-11-14(a)(7)

In contrast, an attorney disciplinary hearing is akin to a quasi-criminal proceeding and costs awarded are more akin to a fine than to compensation for losses.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a fine payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit from discharge when it does not compensate actual pecuniary loss.

Federal Trade Commission v. Paradise Palms Vacation Club, James R. Quincy · filed 1997-01-15(a)(7)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), a petition for bankruptcy does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss. ... We agree with the FTC that the obligation is in the nature of a fine imposed on Quincy as a result of his defiance of the court's authority. Therefore, we hold that its collection is not stayed by Quincy's petition for bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts New Jersey motor vehicle surcharges from discharge as civil penalties benefiting a governmental unit, but permits discharge of collection costs that compensate actual pecuniary loss.

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish) · filed 1997-02-10(a)(7)

Because Code § 523(a)(7) excludes from its coverage debts payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit as compensation for actual pecuniary loss, the debtor’s obligation to pay that portion of costs and fees retained by the DMV to cover administrative expenses is dischargeable. ... It not being disputed that surcharges are debts payable to a governmental unit and having found that surcharges are civil penalties payable for the benefit of a governmental unit and not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, the court finds as a matter of law that the motor vehicle surcharges imposed against the debtor in the instant ease, net of the collection costs, are nondischargeable pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(7).