11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(1)(C) does not require the IRS to obtain a bankruptcy court determination before collecting a tax debt it believes is excepted from discharge.

Internal Revenue Service v. Murphy · filed 2018-06-07(a)(1)(C)

We agree that "the IRS need not appear and object in the bankruptcy court to be excepted from [a] discharge under § 523(a)(1)(C)." Console v. Comm'r, 291 Fed. App'x 234, 237 (11th Cir. 2008). Nothing in our decision today forces the IRS to obtain a pre-enforcement determination before seeking to collect on tax obligations like Murphy's.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a required return was not filed or a required return or equivalent report was filed late within two years before bankruptcy.

In re Defreze · filed 2018-08-29(a)(1)(B)

The Court holds that, by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i) or, alternatively, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii), Mr. DeFreze's 2008 tax obligation to NYSDTF is nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the return’s due date, including extensions, falls within three years before the bankruptcy filing.

Randy Richardson & Melissa Richardson v. Commissioner · filed 2018-11-13(a)(1)(A)

All liabilities for 2011 and 2012 were excepted from discharge by the three-year rule because the extended due dates for those returns (October 15, 2012, and October 15, 2013) were within three years of March 24, 2015, the date on which petitioners filed for bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. secs. 507(a)(8)(A)(i) and 523(a)(1)(A) (2012).

Section 523(a)(1)(C) does not allow partial discharge of a tax debt when the debtor willfully attempts to evade or defeat the tax.

Feshbach v. Dep't of Treasury · filed 2018-11-14(a)(1)(C)

The bankruptcy court did not err in finding that § 523(a)(1)(C) does not allow partial discharge.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debts from discharge when the debtor filed fraudulent returns or willfully attempted to evade payment.

Terrell v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Terrell) · filed 2018-12-14(a)(1)(C)

The Court has determined that, pursuant to Section 523(a)(1)(C), Terrell's 1998 and 1999 income taxes are not dischargeable because he filed fraudulent returns and willfully evaded payment of those taxes.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge tax debts covered by section 507(a)(8), including taxes assessable after the bankruptcy case begins.

Harold F. Jung and Alia I. Jung - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-07-02(a)(1)(A)

Section 523(a)(1)(A) includes as nondischargeable tax debts provided for in section 507(a)(8). ... Any additional tax liability for 2012 and 2013 is nondischargeable under section 507(a)(8)(A)(iii), regardless of fraud.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge income tax debts covered by Section 507(a)(8), including debts brought within its three-year period by tolling for prior bankruptcy cases.

Nachimson v. United States of America ex rel Internal Revenue S · filed 2019-08-23(a)(1)(A)

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion is GRANTED and summary judgment is entered in favor of the United States and against Debtor determining Debtor’s federal tax liability for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 to be excepted from Debtor’s discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(1)(A).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a required return was not filed.

Brown v. Ohio Department of Taxation · filed 2019-08-21(a)(1)(B)(i)

The facts that Plaintiff Karen R. Merrell-Brown was required to and did not file income tax returns with ODT for the tax years 2009-2011 establish as a matter of law that she is not entitled to the declaration requested in the Complaint that her income tax debts to the State of Ohio for the tax years 2009-2011 fall outside the exception to discharge under § 523(a)(1).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) leaves a debtor liable for post-petition interest on nondischargeable income taxes after a Chapter 13 discharge, even when the taxes were paid through the plan.

Milton Douglas Widick and Robin Carlotta Widick · filed 2019-09-10(a)(1)(B)

In Hanna, the appellate court explained that, while “[p]ostpetition interest is disallowed against the bankruptcy estate under section 502 [and p]riority tax claims remain nondischargeable for individual debtors” under § 523, “Congress has determined that the problems of financing the government override granting debtors a wholly fresh start,” and accordingly, post-petition interest and penalties are nondischargeable, and the debtors “remain personally liable for that interest subsequent to bankruptcy proceedings.” Id. at 831. ... The debtors in this case have presented no legal argument distinguishing their case from Hanna or otherwise explaining why the legal principles of Hanna do not apply here. Therefore, their motion is denied.

Section 523(a)(7)(B) treats a penalty for possession of untaxed cigarettes as a tax penalty and measures the three-year period from the administrative order establishing liability when seizure alone cannot impose the penalty.

Fayyaz Karim and Lisa A. Karim · filed 2020-01-21(a)(7)(B)

Based on the foregoing, the Court holds that the penalties imposed against Karim under §§ 18b and 18c of the CTA are tax penalties for purposes of § 523(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Thus, the Court holds that entry of the order of dismissal on June 13, 2017 is the relevant “event” for purposes of § 523(a)(7)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor willfully attempts to evade it; each spouse’s conduct and intent must be assessed separately.

United States v. Eaton · filed 2020-04-17(a)(1)(C)

Both elements of § 523(a)(1)(C) are met as to Mr. Eaton.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debt from discharge when a debtor willfully attempts to evade or defeat the tax; the government must establish the debtor’s intentional violation of a known duty to pay.

United States v. Eaton · filed 2020-05-28(a)(1)(C)

Therefore, Ms. Eaton did not act with the requisite mental state to have “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat” payment of the Eatons’ 2006 taxes.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) does not treat an offer in compromise as an attempt to evade taxes by itself, even if the IRS rejects the offer.

Feshback v. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service · filed 2020-09-09(a)(1)(C)

Approaching the IRS with an offer-in-compromise is not, by itself, an act to evade taxes or evidence of attempted evasion. That is true even if the IRS rejects the taxpayer’s offer.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts priority tax claims under section 507(a)(8) from discharge.

Alexander v. United States of America Internal Revenue Service · filed 2020-11-20(a)(1)(A)

Thus, section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge all priority tax claims set out in section 507(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(1) excepts federal income tax liabilities from discharge when the debtor first filed the returns after filing the bankruptcy petition.

Boudreau v. United States · filed 2020-12-11(a)(1)

Therefore, the IRS’s assessment of taxes in 2017 was timely and the Debtor’s resulting tax liabilities were excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1).

Section 523(a)(7)(B) permits discharge of an excise tax penalty tied to a tax event more than three years before the bankruptcy filing.

Frederick E. Jaynes · filed 2020-12-11(a)(7)(B)

Therefore, the Penalty is an excise tax penalty assessed due to Debtor’s failure to pay the cigarette tax and/or use tax on or about October 2, 2015. As Debtor’s Petition was filed May 15, 2019, the Penalty was discharged.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) prevents discharge of employer-withheld income taxes in Chapter 7, whether or not the taxing authority filed a claim.

J.M. Mandler & Nuclear Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Com. of PA · filed 2021-03-03(a)(1)(A)

Accordingly, this Court concluded that the Board properly denied Taxpayers relief because employer-withheld income taxes were trust fund taxes that were not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and funds were not set aside to satisfy the Taxes. After review, this Court discerns no error in its March 2, 2020 conclusion.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) makes a priority tax debt nondischargeable whether or not a claim for the tax was filed or allowed.

Marc S. Barnes & Anne M. Barnes · filed 2021-05-04(a)(1)(A)

And the fact that the IRS did not amend its proof of claim to include the 2003 liability is irrelevant: A priority tax claim, such as the IRS’ claim for the 2003 liability, is nondischargeable “whether or not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed.”

Section 523(a)(7)(B) permits discharge of tax penalties for transactions or events that occurred more than three years before the bankruptcy petition.

United States v. Gorokhovsky · filed 2021-12-10(a)(7)(B)

Thus, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7)(B), Gorokhovsky’s bankruptcy discharged any tax penalties assessed against Gorokhovsky personally for tax years 2003 through 2012.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) does not except unpaid taxes from discharge when the debtor’s conduct does not show an attempt to evade or avoid them; the IRS bears the burden of proof.

Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America v. Ransdell · filed 2022-02-01(a)(1)(C)

Their essential dispute is whether the bankruptcy court made a clearly erroneous factual finding when it determined that Ms. Ransdell’s conduct did not evidence an attempt to evade or avoid taxes, an issue on which the IRS bore the burden of proof at trial. ... Having reviewed the law, the trial transcript and the rest of the record, the bankruptcy court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the parties’ briefs, the Court discerns no clear error with this finding.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) makes tax debt entitled to priority under § 507(a)(8) nondischargeable.

Halsey Minor v. United States · filed 2022-04-18(a)(1)(A)

Tax debt that is entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) is nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A).

Section 523(a)(1)(C) permits the IRS to pursue a separate action to determine whether a tax debt is nondischargeable after a motion concerning lien avoidance.

Acuna v. Illinois Department of Revenue · filed 2022-07-29(a)(1)(C)

Whether or not the IRS decides to do so, the IRS is still able to pursue a section 523(a)(1)(C) action.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts from discharge a priority income tax debt when the required return was due within three years before the bankruptcy petition.

Acuna v. Illinois Department of Revenue · filed 2022-07-29(a)(1)(A)

Because the Debtor’s unpaid income taxes for 2017 is for a debt for a taxable year ending on or before the petition date and the Debtor’s amended return was last due, including extensions, after three years before the petition date, it is a debt that falls under section 507(a)(8)(A) and is therefore nondischargeable pursuant to 523(a)(1)(A).

Tax debts and domestic support obligations remained nondischargeable after conversion to Chapter 7.

Bin Hao · filed 2022-09-07(a)(1), (a)(5)

The Debtor’s domestic support obligations and his tax debt are both non-dischargeable and will be non-dischargeable be under Chapter 7 as well.

Section 523(a)(1) excepts priority income tax debts from a Chapter 7 discharge when they satisfy either the three-year rule or the 240-day rule.

Kun v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2022-11-18(a)(1)

To summarize, if an income tax obligation satisfies either the three-year rule or the 240-day rule, it will not, as a matter of law, be discharged by a Chapter 7 proceeding.

Section 523(a)(1) left the debtor’s tax debts for 2012 through 2014 nondischargeable.

In Re: Albert Kun v. Irs · filed 2025-05-23(a)(1)

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed as to Kun’s 2012 and 2013 tax years, and properly granted judgment on the pleadings as to Kun’s 2014 tax year, because Kun’s tax obligations for these three years were not discharged in bankruptcy as a matter of law.

A tax debt covered by § 523(a)(1)(B)(i) is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Robertson v. United States · filed 2025-05-19(a)(1)(B)(i)

As the district court correctly determined, Robertson’s tax debt for the 2007 tax year was not dischargeable in bankruptcy, see 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i), and the limitations period for collecting this debt had not expired at the time his overpayment of Maryland state taxes was remitted to the Internal Revenue Service to be applied to his outstanding balance for 2007, see 26 U.S.C. § 6503(h).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts trust fund recovery penalty liabilities from discharge because they are taxes required to be collected or withheld.

Mock v. United States · filed 2025-07-29(a)(1)(A)

Although the bankruptcy court granted Mock’s petition for a discharge, § 523(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code excludes from discharge “any debt for a tax . . . of the kind and for the periods specified in section 507(a)(3) or 507(a)(8)” of the Code. ... Thus, when read together, the Code provisions make clear that a TFRP liability is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)’s exception for tax debts cannot be overridden through a bankruptcy court’s equitable authority under § 105(a).

Stone v. Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

This Court cannot override 523(a)(1)’s exception of these tax debts from discharge.

Section 523(a)(1) excepts certain tax debts from discharge; the undue hardship standard for student loans does not apply to those debts.

Stone v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

The Brunner Test does not provide a framework to analyze whether the Debtor’s federal tax liabilities should be discharged under section 523(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code because the “undue hardship” standard does not apply to that subsection.

Section 523(a)(1) excepts covered tax debts from discharge, and a court cannot use section 105(a) to override that exception.

Brandi Stone · filed 2025-08-08(a)(1)

This Court cannot override 523(a)(1)’s exception of these tax debts from discharge. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the Taxes A.P. is GRANTED.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts priority tax debts described in section 507(a)(8) from a Chapter 7 debtor’s personal discharge.

John J. Mongogna & Michelle L. Mongogna · filed 2025-08-18(a)(1)(A)

Therefore, under 11 U.S.C. § 523, unsecured tax debts incurred for tax years 2017 through 2019, i.e., within three years before December 8, 2020, are excepted from personal discharge, and respondent may collect such debts against petitioners in personam.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debts from discharge when a debtor deliberately deceives the IRS to prevent collection.

Winick · filed 2026-01-20(a)(1)(C)

This fraud—a willful attempt to evade his tax obligations—renders Winick’s federal income taxes for 2012 through 2016 exempt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(7) permits discharge of tax penalties and interest on those penalties when the underlying events occurred more than three years before the bankruptcy petition.

Matter of Quenzer · filed 1993-11-30(a)(7)

The government candidly concedes that these penalties, and the interest thereon, are dischargeable as arising from events occurring more than three years prior to the filing of ... the subject petitions.

Section 523(a)(1) excepts certain tax debts from discharge, including priority taxes and taxes involving missing or fraudulent returns or willful evasion.

Turner v. United States (In Re Turner) · filed 1995-01-09(a)(1)

Pursuant to section 523(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, a discharge in bankruptcy does not release a debtor from liability for the following taxes: (a) taxes entitled to priority under section 507(a)(2) or [section] 507(a)(7); (b) taxes for which a required tax return was not filed; (c) taxes for which a tardy tax return was filed within two years of the bankruptcy filing; (d) taxes for which a fraudulent tax return was filed; and, (e) taxes which the debtor otherwise willfully attempted to evade or defeat.

Section 523(a) does not make every tax debt nondischargeable; disputed dischargeability must be determined in an adversary proceeding.

In re Ransom · filed 1995-08-25(a)

The IRS’ argument fails because the IRS has not proven that it has any nondisehargeable tax claims. Not all claims for taxes are nondisehargeable. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure mandate that an adversary proceeding must be filed in order to determine the dischargeability of a debt. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7001(6).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) makes priority tax debts nondischargeable, including liability for failing to pay withheld employment taxes.

Mosbrucker v. United States · filed 1999-10-05(a)(1)(A)

After careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly denied the Mosbruckers’ objection to the IRS’s proof of claim: under United States v. Sotelo, 436 U.S. 268, 275 (1978), the tax liability imposed under section 6672 for failure to pay withheld employment taxes to the IRS is a tax, not a penalty. Therefore, the debt is entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(C) and is nondischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(1)(A), 1228(a).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) can except tax liabilities from discharge in bankruptcy.

Kurnik v. Commissioner · filed 2005-06-22(a)(1)(B)

The Tax Court properly found that the Kumiks’ tax liabilities had not been discharged in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B).

A claim that a tax debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1)(C) is not subject to the sixty-day deadline following the date set for the first meeting of creditors.

United States v. Haimes (In Re Haimes) · filed 1992-10-19(a)(1)(C)

The Bankruptcy Court also denied the United States’ motion to amend the complaint to seek an exception for discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) as untimely because the United States had not done so within the sixty-day period following date set for the first meeting of creditors. Haimes concedes that the sixty-day limitation does not apply to actions for exception from discharge of a tax obligation. (Appellee’s Br., at 12.) Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in denying the United States’ motion to amend on the grounds that it was time-barred.

Section 523(a)(7)(B) permits discharge of a tax penalty imposed for an event more than three years before the bankruptcy petition.

Gore v. United States (In Re Gore) · filed 1995-01-09(a)(7)(B)

The tax penalties owed by the Debtors to the IRS were imposed with respect to an event that occurred more than three years before the date the petition in this case was filed. The tax penalties are therefore not exempt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excludes priority income taxes from discharge, and the three-year lookback period is tolled while an intervening bankruptcy case is pending.

Collins v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Collins) · filed 2009-03-10(a)(1)(A)

As a result, income taxes for which a return is last due within three years before the filing of a bankruptcy petition are not dischargeable in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. ... However, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. United States, the three-year lookback period is subject to equitable tolling during the pendency of an intervening bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) leaves a debtor liable for nondischargeable tax debt, including post-petition interest, even if the IRS files no proof of claim.

Salazar v. Commissioner · filed 2009-07-23(a)(1)(A)

Moreover, Taxpayers would have remained liable on their non-dischargeable liability— including interest — even had the IRS not filed a proof of claim in their bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) prevents discharge of income tax debt when the debtor filed the return late and less than two years before filing for bankruptcy.

Chenault v. Comm'r · filed 2011-03-09(a)(1)(B)(ii)

Moreover, even if the due date for petitioner’s 2003 Federal income tax return related to a point outside the 3-year lookback period described above, her 2003 Federal income tax liability would still not have been dischargeable because she filed her return untimely less than 2 years before she entered into bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts an excise tax debt from discharge when it falls within § 507(a)(8)(E), even if the debtor’s liability for the tax is derivative.

Quiroz v. Michigan, Department of Treasury · filed 2012-03-27(a)(1)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code excepts from the discharge of an individual debtor “any debt ... for a tax ... of the kind and for the periods specified in section ... 507(a)(8).” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A). ... The Court concludes that it is irrelevant under § 507(a)(8)(E) that Quiroz’s liability is derivative of his company’s liability.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a debtor who can pay consciously chooses to spend the money elsewhere instead of paying the tax.

United States v. Helton · filed 2021-04-14(a)(1)(C)

That element is met when the taxpayer has “the financial means to meet his outstanding tax liabilities” but makes “a conscious decision not to apply” those monies “toward his tax debt.”

Section 523(a)(1) makes unpaid income tax debts nondischargeable even when a confirmed Chapter 11 plan fixes the amount payable by the bankruptcy estate.

Charles Breland, Jr. v. Commissioner of IRS · filed 2024-05-31(a)(1)

This reading reflects the bankruptcy code and caselaw interpreting it, which provide that unpaid income taxes are not dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1141(d)(2), 523(a)(1); In re Gurwitch, 794 F.2d at 585–86.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes restitution damages nondischargeable when they arise from the debtor’s fraudulent acts.

Federal Trade Commission v. Abeyta (In Re Abeyta) · filed 2008-05-08(a)(2)(A)

Based on these conclusions, the Court is satisfied that the damages award was based upon Defendant’s fraudulent acts and is, therefore, non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes damages arising from fraud nondischargeable, including treble damages and statutory attorney’s fees.

Fowler v. Garey (In Re Garey) · filed 2000-09-29(a)(2)(A)

Under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, the actual damages may be trebled to $6,903.18, a penalty that in this case is fully warranted. All damages, including attorney’s fees provided by statute, are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes attorneys’ fees ancillary to a nondischargeable fraud debt nondischargeable as well.

Bank One-Rockford, N.A. v. Mayer (In Re Mayer) · filed 1994-10-31(a)(2)(A)

There were no errors of any nature in the bankruptcy court’s decision that Mayers’ debt to Bank One, including the full amount of attorneys’ fees, was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor to recover compensatory damages proximately caused by fraud, measured by the benefit of the bargain, including the contract purchase price and valid contractual finance charges when the debtor fraudulently obtained property.

Knott Co. v. Wilson (In Re Wilson) · filed 1981-06-25(a)(2)(A)

The court concludes, therefore, that policy considerations require that when a debt is excepted from the discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), the creditor is entitled to recover compensatory damages proximately caused by the fraud measured by the benefit-of-the-bargain rule. When the debtor has obtained property by fraudulent representations, as in this proceeding, the creditor is entitled to such damages measured by the contract purchase price plus interest and/or finance charges as provided in the contract to the extent valid under applicable nonbankruptcy law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes water damage nondischargeable when it is a direct consequence of the debtor’s fraud.

Eastern Food Service, Inc. v. Leger (In Re Leger) · filed 1983-11-08(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, I find the $3000 in water damages to be a direct consequence of the fraud and nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable only to the extent the creditor proves a loss caused by the debtor’s misrepresentation.

First National Bank Mansfield v. Nelson (In Re Nelson) · filed 1991-12-04(a)(2)(A)

Since, by virtue of the estoppel findings and conclusions, the Bank did end up with a lien on the property, the only proven § 523(a)(2)(A) loss that it suffered was the attorney expense it incurred in prosecuting these proceedings substantially successfully. Accordingly, only the attorney fee and expense portion of the debt in the amount of $67,047.56 is found non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury.

Wilson v. Schoor (In Re Schoor) · filed 1992-03-06(a)(6)

However, section 523(a)(6) does not distinguish between actual and punitive damages.

Section 523(a)(6) can except punitive damages from discharge, along with costs associated with a nondischargeable judgment.

Washington Ranch Ltd. v. Green (In Re Green) · filed 1992-04-16(a)(6)

This Court will follow the weight of authority and holds that punitive damages may be excepted from dischargeability as a matter of law. The punitive damages at issue here will be nondischargeable. ... Thus, where the underlying debt is nondis-chargeable, the costs associated with that debt will be nondischargeable as well. Having held that the judgment rendered in the state court action is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), the Court holds that the costs associated with the judgment are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove resulting damages.

Zedd v. Sandler (In Re Sandler) · filed 1992-07-09(a)(2)(A)

Damages are an essential requirement of the dischargeability issue in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts punitive damages and attorneys’ fees from discharge when they are part of a judgment debt arising from willful and malicious injury.

Littlefield v. McGuffey (In Re McGuffey) · filed 1992-09-30(a)(6)

In summary, this Court finds that the entire judgment debt which McGuffey owes to Littlefield, including those portions of the judgment which represent punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, are nondis-chargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from the same fraudulent conduct as a compensatory damages award.

St. Laurent v. Ambrose (In re St. Laurent) · filed 1993-05-20(a)(2)(A)

We hold, however, that punitive damage awards flowing from the same course of fraudulent conduct necessitating an award of compensatory damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) makes punitive damages nondischargeable when they result from a debtor’s willful and malicious injury.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Hale (In Re Hale) · filed 1993-06-01(a)(6)

Considering the broad definition of “debt” and the plain meaning of the language contained in § 523(a)(6), this court concludes that a “debt” held to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) includes punitive damage awards.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts statutory treble damages from discharge when they arise from willful and malicious conduct.

Katahn Associated, Inc. v. Wien (In Re Wien) · filed 1993-06-08(a)(6)

This Court holds that a debtor who has engaged in a continuing course of willful and malicious intentional conduct is not entitled to discharge statutorily calculated treble damages by use of the fresh start provided by the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from the same fraud as a compensatory award.

In Re Louis S. St. Laurent, Ii, Debtors. Louis S. St. Laurent, II v. William J. Ambrose and Patty A. Ambrose · filed 1993-06-22(a)(2)(A)

We hold, however, that punitive damage awards flowing from the same course of fraudulent conduct necessitating an award of compensatory damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) makes punitive damages nondischargeable when they flow from the same fraudulent conduct as compensatory damages.

Kibler v. Winters (In Re Winters) · filed 1993-10-18(a)(2)

It is therefore the opinion of this Court that the debt for punitive damages should be found nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an entire judgment debt arising from actual fraud from discharge, including punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Sack v. Friedlander (In Re Friedlander) · filed 1994-03-31(a)(2)(A)

As a matter of law, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment declaring that the entire amount of the judgment debt is excepted from discharge by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) makes compensatory and punitive damages for fraud committed while acting in a fiduciary capacity nondischargeable.

In Re Randolph C. Bugna, Debtor. Randolph C. Bugna v. McArthur · filed 1994-08-16(a)(4)

The bankruptcy court correctly concluded, as a matter of collateral estoppel, that the compensatory and punitive damages Bugna owes McArthur are a debt “for fraud ... while acting in a fiduciary capacity,” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), and that they are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts treble damages from discharge when they arise from the same fraud as a nondischargeable debt.

De La Cruz v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 1995-06-19(a)(2)(A)

In keeping with the broad definition of “debt” under the Bankruptcy Code, all debts arising from the § 523(a)(2)(A) violation should be deemed nondischargeable. As a result, the “debt” that will be deemed nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) shall include the treble damages as specified by the Act.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge attorneys’ fees included in a state court fraud judgment when they are an actual pecuniary loss caused by the debtor’s misrepresentation.

CaterCorp, Inc. v. Henicheck (In Re Henicheck) · filed 1995-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Pursuant to § 523(a)(2), a debt is excepted from discharge only “to the extent obtained by ...” the intentional misrepresentation. ... In this instance, CaterCorp had to incur additional attorneys’ fees in state court because of debtor’s conduct; thus, the attorneys’ fees are an actual pecuniary loss.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from the same fraudulent conduct as compensatory damages.

Duguid v. Rogers (In Re Rogers) · filed 1996-02-05(a)(2)(A)

In this case, the state court’s award of $443,118.21 in exemplary or punitive damages is not dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) because it flows from the course of conduct necessitating the award of compensatory damages to Plaintiffs.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts statutory treble damages obtained by false pretenses from discharge.

De La Cruz v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 1996-02-07(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs contend correctly, the Court concludes, that statutorily imposed treble damages obtained by false pretenses are not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge treble damages that flow from a debtor’s embezzlement.

David M. Landis, P.A. v. Britt (In Re Britt) · filed 1996-02-08(a)(4)

As a result of Britt’s embezzlement, Britt’s debt of $59,169.09 to Landis is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits punitive damages arising from a nondischargeable fraud debt to be nondischargeable as well.

Sullivan v. Clayton (In Re Clayton) · filed 1996-05-09(a)(2)(A)

Thus, we conclude that the language of neither § 523(a)(2)(A) nor § 523(a)(6) precludes a declaration that punitive damages are nondischargeable, at least in certain circumstances. We therefore find no statutory impediment, in these Code sections, to our conclusion that punitive damages are a permissible aspect of a nonbankruptcy court’s liquidation of a nondischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts punitive damages arising from a debtor’s fraud from discharge.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Roberti (In Re Roberti) · filed 1996-10-10(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the award of punitive damages is nondisehargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) makes punitive damages for willful and malicious injury nondischargeable.

Kuzniar v. Keach (In Re Keach) · filed 1996-11-19(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) states that debts incurred “by willful and malicious injury” to another are nondis-chargeable. ... Based on the record of the State Court proceedings, and as we are bound to apply the bankruptcy law in light of that record, it is ORDERED that the jury award of punitive damages in the amount of $30,000 is also nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the entire debt arising from fraud nondischargeable, including punitive damages.

In Re: Edward Cohen v. · filed 1997-02-06(a)(2)(A)

For the above reasons, we conclude that punitive damages are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes all damages caused by a debtor’s fraudulent misrepresentations nondischargeable.

McCain v. Fuselier (In Re Fuselier) · filed 1997-08-05(a)(2)(A)

But for the Debtor’s misrepresentations, the McCains would not have hired him, and would not have had an unsound construction. Therefore, the Court finds that all of the McCains’ damages are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming false representation to prove damages caused by the representation.

Dynamic Ceramic Tile v. Cullen · filed 1997-11-21(a)(2)(A)

However, we agree with the district court that the bankruptcy court's finding that Dynamic suffered no damage when they gave up a dubious claim against Mrs. Cullen was not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge all liability arising from fraudulently obtained money or property, including treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Cohen v. De La Cruz · filed 1998-03-24(a)(2)(A)

We hold that § 523(a)(2)(A) prevents the discharge of all liability arising from fraud, and that an award of treble damages therefore falls within the scope of the exception.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge costs to complete and repair work when those costs result from the debtor’s fraudulent inducement of a construction contract.

Morlang v. Cox · filed 1998-05-20(a)(2)(A)

In the case at bar, Cox fraudulently coerced Morlang to enter into the construction contract and to convey to him at least $6,000.00. As a result of this fraudulent misrepresentation, Morlang incurred over $7,000.00 in costs to complete and repair Cox’s work. This liability of Cox arose as a result of his fraudulent misrepresentation. Accordingly, I conclude that there is a sufficient causal relationship between Cox’s fraudulent misrepresentation and the damages suffered by Morlang.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge all damages arising from a debtor’s fraud.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Markarian (In Re Marrarian) · filed 1998-11-20(a)(2)(A)

This Panel, having affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s granting of the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel, holds that all of the damages awarded by the District Court and affirmed by the First Circuit are debts arising out of the Appellant’s fraud; thus, these debts are excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge all liability arising from fraud, including treble damages.

McCart v. Jordana (In Re Jordana) · filed 1999-04-16(a)(2)(A)

In light of the Supreme Court’s holding that treble damages are nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), the bankruptcy court did not err when it held that the treble damages award against the Debtor is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge all liabilities arising from fraud, including punitive damages.

Lincoln Trust Custodian FBO Wendell William Mercer No. 61067486 v. Parker (In Re Parker) · filed 1999-11-18(a)(2)(A)

My holding that Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents the discharge of all liabilities arising from the finding of fraud, includes the punitive damages portion of the Wyoming State Court judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge, including related RICO liability determined in a separate action.

Berman v. Hollinger (In Re Berman) · filed 2000-03-08(a)(2)(A)

The Court does, however, conclude that the debt owed by Berman to Hollinger, including any liability under RICO statutes, as determined and fixed by the Missouri District Court, shall be excepted from Berman’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the entire debt arising from fraud from discharge.

Alworth v. Levy (In Re Levy) · filed 2000-06-07(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the entire fraud-based judgment is subject to § 523(a)(2)(A)’s exception from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud judgment, including its punitive damages, from discharge when collateral estoppel establishes the required fraud elements.

Mogley v. Fleming (In re Fleming) · filed 2001-11-30(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that, through the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Mogley has established the fraud exception to his state court judgment under § 523(a)(2)(A). Consequently, Mogley’s state court judgment, including the punitive damages portion, is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a state court award of attorney's fees and costs nondischargeable when the debt was obtained by fraud.

In Re SS · filed 2002-01-09(a)(2)(A)

This court found, consistently with Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998), that the Superior Court judgment against the debtor for counsel fees and costs in the amount of $12,759.19 was a debt obtained by fraud and, therefore, nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a state court judgment for attorney’s fees and costs nondischargeable when the debt was obtained by fraud.

V. M. v. S. S. (In re S. S.) · filed 2002-01-09(a)(2)(A)

This court found, consistently with Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998), that the Superior Court judgment against the debtor for counsel fees and costs in the amount of $12,759.19 was a debt obtained by fraud and, therefore, nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a state court fraud judgment and related fee and expense orders from discharge.

Bench v. Rygiol · filed 2002-02-20(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment for the limited partners was proper because the California state court judgment against Rygiol for fraud, and the state court orders for fees and expenses, constitute non-dischargeable debts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes punitive damages arising from fraud nondischargeable.

Roussos v. Michaelides · filed 2002-04-24(a)(2)(A)

We reject the Roussoses’ contention that the bankruptcy court erred in finding the punitive damage award nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires damages caused by the creditor’s reliance on fraud to except a debt from discharge.

Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc. v. Herdean · filed 2003-11-26(a)(2)(A)

Damages are an essential element of fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), and the fraudster is only liable if those damages are caused by its victim’s reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts damages caused by a debtor’s fraud from discharge, including renovation losses fairly attributable to fraudulent misrepresentations.

Hoit-Thetford v. Levine (In Re Levine) · filed 2005-01-13(a)(2)(A)

In summary, the court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from debtor in the amount requested, $176,616.76. The reduction of their actual expenses by the contract price of $100,000.00 makes up sufficiently for any of plaintiffs’ expenditures that may not have been fairly attributable to debtor’s fraud. A separate order will be entered granting plaintiffs a nondischargeable judgment in the amount of $176,616.76, pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes punitive and compensatory damages flowing from fraud nondischargeable, even when they exceed the amount the debtor obtained.

Tanner v. Barber (In Re Barber) · filed 2005-03-11(a)(2)(A)

As a matter of law, nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) is not limited to the actual value a debtor obtains through fraud, but includes punitive and compensatory damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraud-based compensatory damages and related fees and punitive damages from discharge, but does not except damages arising only from breach of contract.

Integrated Practice Management Inc. v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 2005-04-21(a)(2)(A)

As discussed above, some of Integrated’s damages were for breach of contract and were not proximately caused by fraud. The state court judgment to the extent of those damages will not be excepted from the discharge. The award of punitive damages, however, is attributable at least in part to Olson’s fraud. ... Thirty-three percent of the awards for attorney fees ($10,500) and punitive damages ($1,500,000) is $498,465. The court will find this amount nondischargeable as well.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising directly from fraud, including resulting costs the debtor did not receive.

Sinha v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 2005-10-03(a)(2)(A)

The debt should be held non-dis-chargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A). ... The $14,597.59 was not “obtained” by Mr. Clark, but the debt arose directly from his fraudulent conduct and misrepresentations and, therefore, should not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts attorney fees from discharge when they arise from a debt obtained by fraud.

Snook v. Jan v. Popiel, Inc. · filed 2006-02-22(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Snook’s debt for the attorney fees award is also exempt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes punitive damages assessed as part of a fraud judgment nondischargeable.

Avatar Industries, LLC v. Innovative Medical Care, Inc. (In Re Innovative Medical Care, Inc.) · filed 2007-08-08(a)(2)(A)

Punitive damages assessed as part of a judgment based on fraudulent conduct are also non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge liability arising from fraudulently obtained money, including treble damages.

Laughlin v. Sprouse (In Re Sprouse) · filed 2008-07-17(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, according to Cohen, the entire treble damages judgment is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts both compensatory and punitive damages arising from actual fraud from discharge.

In re: Clayton B. Smith v. · filed 2008-12-30(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in de la Cruz, § 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses not only the compensatory damages portion of the Fraudulent Transfer Judgment, but also its punitive damages component.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cap a nondischargeable fraud debt at the amount the debtor initially obtained.

Miller v. Lewis · filed 2008-12-23(a)(2)(A)

Miller’s argument that the Lewises should only recover the amount invested is without merit. As the Supreme Court clearly outlined in Cohen, no such restitutionary cap applies to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a contempt award for attorneys’ fees nondischargeable when the award does not arise from fraud underlying the debt.

West Coast Rentals, Inc. v. Perez (In Re Perez) · filed 2009-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Because the Contempt Judgment does not address the underlying causes of action, the Court cannot conclude that the attorneys’ fees represent an amount “obtained” by Defendant by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except an award for fraud in the inducement from discharge.

Lewis v. Lowery (In Re Lowery) · filed 2010-12-16(a)(2)(A)

Recognizing that the Superior Court Order clearly sets forth an award of $250,000 for fraud in the inducement, the $250,000 award is, therefore, nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a loss proximately caused by fraud, and out-of-pocket damages may establish that loss when the benefit-of-the-bargain measure does not accurately measure it.

Bauer v. Gilmartin (In Re Gilmartin) · filed 2011-11-16(a)(2)(A)

The linchpin of the Bankruptcy Court’s Judgment in this case is the finding that the Bauers failed to prove the fifth element — that they sustained a loss as a proximate result of James Gilmartin’s alleged misrepresentations. ... Since the Bankruptcy Court found against them on the damages issue without considering whether the “out of pocket” measure of damages is applicable, we reverse and remand.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not limit nondischargeable fraud damages to the loss in collateral value; consequential and punitive damages caused by the fraud may also be nondischargeable.

In re: Daryl J. Rogers Monica E. Rogers · filed 2011-12-28(a)(2)(A)

However, we conclude the language in the Third Amended Judgment is an improper limitation on Patterson’s damages. It essentially precludes the state court from determining whether Patterson suffered any consequential or punitive damages, which he prayed for in his nondischargeability complaint. At the very least, it appears to render such damages, should the state court find any, dischargeable. This is contrary to Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998)(holding that any debts incurred as a result of debtor’s fraud, including attorney’s fees or punitive damages, are nondischargeable).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor’s false representation proximately caused the claimed loss.

Conway v. Heyl (In Re Heyl) · filed 2012-02-13(a)(2)(A)

This false representation is insufficient to prove that Mr. Conway’s loss is the proximate result of the false representation made by Debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge only losses proximately caused by a creditor’s reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentations or false pretenses.

Tweedie v. Hermoyian (In re Hermoyian) · filed 2012-02-14(a)(2)(A)

In the “Damage Description” section of the Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator found among the actual damages an outstanding balance owing by Tweedie to Alden State Bank of $310,987.00. That is the only amount of Tweedie’s loss that was proximately caused by Tweedie’s reliance on the Debtor’s misrepresentations and by the Debtor’s false pretenses. Therefore, that is the only portion of the Arbitration Award that is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor alleging fraud to show that the debtor’s misrepresentation proximately caused its damages.

Marinucci v. SG Homes Associates, LP · filed 2012-04-09(a)(2)

A fraud plaintiff objecting to the discharge of debt in bankruptcy must also show that the defendant’s misrepresentation proximately caused the plaintiffs damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor’s fraud induces a creditor to continue a transaction after signing a contract and the reliance causes a foreseeable loss.

Sharfarz v. Goguen (In Re Goguen) · filed 2012-08-15(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, Goguen's pouncing on the fact that the lies came after the contract's formation gains him nothing. ... Sharfarz wins because he adequately proved causation and Goguen did not bear his burden of showing an intervening or superseding cause.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from fraud, including related exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Wu v. Rhee (In re Rhee) · filed 2012-10-19(a)(2)(A)

The debt excepted from discharge includes exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, as these debts also arise from Rhee’s fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the damages attributable to fraud, as established by the state court record.

In re: Brian George v. · filed 2013-01-11(a)(2)(A)

The record in the bankruptcy court supports the court’s conclusion that the Appellants are entitled to damages of $171,000 for fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), and not the entire $513,000 awarded under the Colorado Judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for a false representation from discharge only to the extent the representation caused the creditor’s loss.

Wagner v. Wagner (In re Wagner) · filed 2013-04-30(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds, however, that the full consequences of the Defendant’s default on the Cabin Loan were not caused by the Defendant’s fraud. His fraud related only to the promise to pay down the Cabin Loan by $100,000.00 following sale of his home in Forest Lake. Thus, the Plaintiffs fraud damages are limited to $100,000.00 plus interest from the date of default.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a loss caused by the debtor’s misrepresentation; it excepts a fraudulently obtained commission from discharge when the creditor suffered such a loss, but not commissions on bonds that caused no loss.

Sears v. United States · filed 2013-08-20(a)(2)(A)

For a debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor must show that it “sustained a loss as a result of the misrepresentation.” ... Although Sears made misrepresentations about the collateral supporting nine of the bonds at issue in this case, the government has not shown that it suffered a loss as a result of those nine misrepresentations because Sears never defaulted on those bonds. ... The four percent commission Sears received constitutes “money . . . fraudulently obtained by the debtor,” as the government would not have accepted Sears as a ... surety and paid him a commission but for his false statements about the collateral supporting his bonds.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a contempt sanction nondischargeable when it arises from the same fraudulent conduct as an underlying nondischargeable debt.

In re: Sherri Nicodemus v. · filed 2013-10-07(a)(2)(A)

The Cohen opinion makes clear that to the extent that debts in the nature of a sanction arose from an underlying nondischargeable debt, such sanctions are also nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a contempt sanction from discharge when it arises from the same fraud as a nondischargeable debt.

Lowry v. Nicodemus (In re Nicodemus) · filed 2013-10-07(a)(2)(A)

The Cohen opinion makes clear that to the extent that debts in the nature of a sanction arose from an underlying nondischargeable debt, such sanctions are also nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts damages for intentional misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud, and fraudulent concealment from discharge, while a judgment for constructive fraud or conversion alone does not establish the exception.

Phillip v. Reecher (In re Reecher) · filed 2014-07-24(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons that follow, this court concludes that the damages awarded by the Circuit Court for intentional misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and concealment and non-disclosure are claims that are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), and that those awarded for constructive fraud and conversion are dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require proof of an exact monetary loss when a debt arises from fraud.

Light v. Whittington (In re Whittington) · filed 2014-08-20(a)(2)(A)

Rather, “loss” in this context is construed in a broad sense to include all grounds for recovery — “any debt,” as the statutory language indicates — arising from fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraud-based restitution and related attorney fees from discharge when the elements of fraud are proven.

Texas v. Garner (In re Garner) · filed 2014-09-05(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has proven all four elements under § 523(a)(2)(A) for the $12,100,000 restitution portion of the Final Judgment. As to the $640,000 attorney fee award also provided for in the Final Judgment, attorney fees resulting from a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) also are deemed nondis-chargeable.

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

Fox v. Crowgey (In re Crowgey) · filed 2014-09-24(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, this Court holds that the entire $634,395.73 debt is nondis-chargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes losses caused by reliance on a debtor’s fraudulent promise nondischargeable.

Knaub v. Rollison (In re Rollison) · filed 2014-11-03(a)(2)(A)

The Knaubs established each element of § 523(a)(2)(A), and the sole issue remanded to this Court is to determine the amount of “out-of-pocket” damages, if any. ... In sum, the Court finds the Knaubs suffered out-of-pocket damages caused by their reliance on Rollison’s promise to build a new home in the total amount of $17,293.16 ($229.41 + $20 + $75 + $14,968.75 + $2,000).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a contempt sanction arising from the debtor’s fraud.

Richardson v. Caswell (In re Caswell) · filed 2015-03-25(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds the Contempt Order arises out of the Caswell’s fraud and misrepresentations, and as such it should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge both actual and exemplary damages arising from fraud.

Gomez v. Saenz (In re Saenz) · filed 2015-07-27(a)(2)(A)

The total amount excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) is $412,500.00. This figure is the sum of the actual damages ($330,000.00) plus exemplary damages ($82,500.00).

Section 523(a)(2) can except attorney fees incurred establishing a debtor’s fraud from discharge when the fees are traceable to the fraud.

Kondapalli v. Demasi · filed 2016-02-11(a)(2)

For the above reasons, the Court holds that the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing Kondapalli’s adversary complaint to the extent the complaint alleged that the attorney fees were non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a debt to be obtained through a materially false financial statement but does not require separate proof of damages.

Hurston v. Anzo (In re Anzo) · filed 2016-03-25(a)(2)(B)

In § 523(a)(2)(B), Congress clearly laid out all elements required for a debt to be declared nondischargeable; excluded from the list of required elements is one for damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts damages for false representations or actual fraud from discharge; a mixed damages award may require findings to identify amounts caused by other conduct.

Van Dang v. Gilbert (In re Anh Van Dang) · filed 2016-10-24(a)(2)(A)

The jury’s $900,000 award for exemplary damages and $280,000 award for mental anguish satisfy the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) for false misrepresentations or actual fraud. The only remaining question is how much, if any, of the $204,000 awarded for repairs and lost use of the home, and of the $205,000 awarded for attorney’s fees, may have been caused by Dang and Chau’s unintentional unconscionable conduct or statutory fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging fraud in a settlement agreement to show that reliance on the alleged misrepresentation caused a loss, such as a lost or reduced collection remedy.

In re: Alvin L. Souza, Jr. and Robyn G. Souza · filed 2016-11-17(a)(2)(A)

The correct measure is the value of the collection remedies available to MHT and lost or reduced due to its reliance on Mr. Souza’s agreements to settle the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes treble damages, attorney fees, and costs nondischargeable when they arise from money obtained by fraud.

Deloycheet, Inc. v. Beach (In re Beach) · filed 2017-04-07(a)(2)(A)

The court agrees that Cohen controls, and the treble damages, attorney fees, and costs awarded to Deloycheet under the UTPA for Beach’s fraudulent misrepresentations are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a loss from discharge only when the debtor’s fraud proximately caused it; a loss caused by breach of contract remains dischargeable.

Ifeorah v. Flegal · filed 2017-03-20(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the bankruptcy court clearly erred when it found that Flegal’s loss of the kitchen equipment was a proximate result of fraud. Rather, as Ifeorah argues, the loss of the kitchen was caused by the breach of his promise to leave a turnkey kitchen if he defaulted on the settlement agreement. Damages resulting from a breach of contract, however, are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts penalties arising from fraud from a Chapter 13 discharge, even when the penalties also fall under § 523(a)(7).

Stanley Kozlowski, III v. Mich. Unemployment Ins. Agency · filed 2018-05-29(a)(2)(A)

This decision demonstrates that the penalties associated with fraud should be regarded as essentially the same as the fraud itself and are to be included under the § 523(a)(2) exception from discharge, as debt arising from fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge punitive damages and attorney's fees arising from money obtained by fraud.

Dave v. Baessler (In re Baessler) · filed 2018-07-19(a)(2)(A)

Because the punitive damages and attorney's fee awards are debts that arose from money that Baessler obtained by fraud, they are also nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraud damages, including treble damages, from discharge; subsection (a)(7) excepts governmental civil penalties unrelated to actual loss.

City of Chi. v. Spielman (In re Spielman) · filed 2018-08-06(a)(2)(A), (a)(7)

Although the City argues in Count II that both the treble damages and civil penalties are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7), the Court concludes that the treble damages are more appropriately found to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) in connection with the fraud claim in Count I. Therefore, Count I of the City's motion will be granted as to actual damages in the amount of $4,454,836, as discussed above, and as to treble damages in the amount of $8,909,672; Count II of the City's motion will be granted as to the civil penalties in the amount of $190,000.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits out-of-pocket damages for a fraudulently induced extension of credit.

Wernes v. Kroesen · filed 2020-05-01(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that the “out-of-pocket” rule is the most appropriate method to calculate Ms. Wernes’ damages. ... The court therefore finds and concludes that Ms. Wernes has met her burden of proving that $17,703.62 is nondischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a civil penalty arising from money obtained by fraud from discharge even when the government creditor was not a victim of the fraud.

In Re: Fusion Connect, Inc. · filed 2021-09-02(a)(2)(A)

The FCC Penalty here similarly falls within the scope of the § 523(a)(2)(A) exemption, given the breadth of the Supreme Court’s construction and description of the exemption in Cohen. Although the United States—the creditor as to the FCC Penalty——was not among the victims of Birch’s fraud, and although that penalty is on top of the sums needed to make the victims (consumers) whole, those features of the penalty do not prevent the exemption from applying.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraud damages from discharge when their connection to the fraud is established in the prior judgment, including in a hypothetical bankruptcy case used to determine community property discharge.

Saucedo v. San Vicente · filed 2023-01-25(a)(2)(A)

Those damages, $95,000 total for each Plaintiff, are not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), for the reasons explained above.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts non-economic damages arising from fraud from discharge just as it does economic damages.

Potts-Schlimme v. Zamani-Zadeh · filed 2023-06-30(a)(2)(A)

Like the above cases, the Court holds that non-economic damages awarded because of Defendant’s fraud are just as nondischargeable as the economic damages awarded.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts anticipated profits from discharge when they arise from money the debtor obtained by fraud.

Wiley v. Olson · filed 2024-05-10(a)(2)(A)

The Cohen court’s holding that §523(a)(2)(A)’s exception to discharge extends to any debt arising from money or property obtained by fraud, although decided in the context of a dispute about punitive damages included in a judgment, applies with equal force to anticipated profits from an investment a defrauded party makes with the debtor.

A claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of damages; recoupment for unpaid work in the same transaction can eliminate those damages.

Hale · filed 2026-03-12(a)(2)(A)

In conclusion, Plaintiffs’ claim for relief under § 523(a)(2)(A) is denied based on Plaintiffs’ failure to prove damages.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an inadvertently omitted debt from discharge when the creditor can still file a claim and participate fully in a Chapter 7 distribution.

Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Horlacher (In Re Horlacher) · filed 2008-03-07(a)(3)(A)

Section 726(a)(2)(C) clearly authorizes the Credit Union to file a claim, even now, and fully participate in any distribution that may occur in this case. Since the Code allows this claim to still be filed by the Credit Union, it is still timely and is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when creditors had no deadline to file proofs of claim and the debt does not fall under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Bearden v. Jackson (In Re Bearden) · filed 2008-02-29(a)(3)(A)

Because Defendants’ claim does not fall under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) Section 523(a)(3)(A) is applicable. Since this is a no-asset chapter 7 case and no proofs of claim were filed by any creditor and no distribution was made to unsecured creditors Defendants were not prejudiced by Debtor failing to list them on her schedules as creditors. Based on § 523(a)(3)(A) and applicable case law Debtor’s potential liability to Defendants was discharged by the September 5, 2006 order.

For debts covered by § 523(a)(3)(B), the debtor bears the burden of proving an omitted creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Regents of the University of California v. Paylan (In Re Paylan) · filed 2008-02-08(a)(3)(B)

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Debtor did not satisfy her burden of proving that the Plaintiff had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely complaint to determine the dischargeability of the debt owed to it.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debt qualifies under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Loud v. Richie (In Re Richie) · filed 2007-12-17(a)(3)(B)

The Plaintiffs did not establish that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The debt owed by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs is not excepted from the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(3) permits a state court to decide whether a creditor’s lack of notice or actual knowledge of a bankruptcy proceeding left a claim undischarged.

Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Associates, Inc. · filed 2008-01-22(a)(3)

When a court adjudicates whether a creditor’s claim has been discharged by deciding whether the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), it is a proceeding related to the bankruptcy case, and therefore state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the issue.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts certain unscheduled debts from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to request a dischargeability determination.

Tidwell v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2007-12-07(a)(3)(B)

The totality of circumstances show that the actual notice was too late and unreasonable to satisfy due process rights of Plaintiffs. ... Count I in each Plaintiffs’ Adversary proceeding will be allowed to stand as objection to dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(3)(B), 523(a)(6), and 523(c)(1), and the discharge injunction will be amended to allow the state court cases to proceed to final judgment.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a debt for willful and malicious injury undischarged when the creditor lacked adequate notice or timely actual knowledge to seek a dischargeability determination.

Gold v. Gold (In Re Gold) · filed 2007-09-28(a)(3)(B)

Accordingly, the court has enough to determine that Ryan and Quinn’s claims are of a kind specified in section 523(a)(6) such that, pursuant to section 523(a)(3)(B), they should be deemed not dischargeable and not discharged in the Chapter 7 Case.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge merely because the debtor failed to list it in a no-asset bankruptcy case.

Daniels v. Owens · filed 2000-12-21(a)(3)(A)

In essence because Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was a “no-asset” case, he is not legally responsible for the medical bills in question as they were discharged in spite of his failure to list them.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when no deadline for filing proofs of claim is set.

In Re Venegas · filed 2001-01-03(a)(3)(A)

When no bar date is set for proofs of claim, Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not operate to except an omitted debt from discharge because there is never a time when it can be too late to file a timely proof of claim.