11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when an unscheduled creditor learns of the bankruptcy in time to file a dischargeability complaint or request an extension, even if fewer than 30 days remain.

Herman v. Bateman (In Re Bateman) · filed 2000-10-12(a)(3)(B)

This court finds that the Bankruptcy Rules do not superimpose upon § 523(a)(3)(B) a requirement that a creditor must have no less than thirty days’ notice of the time for filing a complaint to determine dischargeability pursuant to § 523(c). Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not exclude a debt from discharge where a creditor, such as the DOL, had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a complaint to determine dischargeability of the debt or to file a simple request for an extension of time to file a dischargeability complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(3), a process that should take no more than fifteen minutes.

Section 523(a)(3) preserves an unnotified creditor’s rights against the debtor at the time of the bankruptcy filing; it does not create a later claim.

Southampton Development Corp. v. Palmer Realty Group, Inc. · filed 2000-10-04(a)(3)

However, at best, the failure to give notice only allows Palmer to enforce whatever rights it had against Southampton at the time of filing the bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) (2000).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case, not knowledge of the filing deadline, for the dischargeability complaint deadline to apply.

Rowe v. Steinberg · filed 2000-09-26(a)(3)(B)

Because the statute at bar, § 523(a)(3)(B), demands “actual knowledge of the case,” not of the claim-bar deadline, those cases are of little application to this case.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge unless the omission deprived the creditor of a timely opportunity to file a proof of claim.

In Re O'Shaughnessy · filed 2000-08-22(a)(3)(A)

Clearly, from the language of this statute, the mere failure to schedule a claim is not enough to bring that claim within the purview of § 523(a)(3)(A). The failure to schedule the claim must result in denying the creditor the opportunity to timely file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge unless the omission prevents the creditor from filing a timely proof of claim.

Doherty v. Klimek (In Re Doherty) · filed 1994-12-13(a)(3)(A)

It is clear from this language that the mere failure to schedule a claim is not enough to bring that claim within the purview of § 523(a)(3)(A). The failure to schedule the subject claim must result in denying the creditor the opportunity to timely file a proof of claim. This subsection protects only the creditor’s right to file a proof of claim, nothing else.

Section 523(a)(3) treats timely notice of a bankruptcy filing to an attorney pursuing the creditor’s claim against the debtor as notice to the creditor.

Hetch v. Hatch (In Re Hatch) · filed 1994-12-08(a)(3)

In view of the applicable case law set forth above, the Court finds and rules that the Plaintiffs received sufficient notice and timely notice of the Chapter 7 filing for the purposes of § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3) does not treat notice to an attorney as notice to a creditor when the attorney no longer represents the creditor.

Cheriogotis v. White (In Re Cheriogotis) · filed 1994-12-28(a)(3)

Therefore, this Court holds service of notice of the filing of Cheriogotis’ bankruptcy petition on Mr. Nomberg is not service on Mrs. White or the Estate of Smith and does not bind them to the order of discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats formal notice and actual knowledge alike when determining whether a creditor had time to seek a dischargeability ruling.

Shaheen v. Penrose (In Re Shaheen) · filed 1994-11-30(a)(3)(B)

Although Mr. Penrose received formal notice under Rule 2002 as opposed to actual knowledge possessed by the plaintiff in In re Dewalt, section 523(a)(3)(B) treats both types of notice identically.

Section 523(a)(3) does not authorize damages in an action to determine whether an omitted debt was discharged.

Costa v. Welch (In Re Costa) · filed 1994-09-14(a)(3)

The likely reason the debtors eschewed a dischargeability action is that damages are not available under section 523(a)(3). No statutory language supports such an award.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor who lacked notice of the bankruptcy to prove the merits of an underlying nondischargeability claim.

Waugh v. Eldridge (In Re Waugh) · filed 1994-09-09(a)(3)(B)

This Court believes that the better view is to require the creditor to also demonstrate the merits of the paragraph (2), (4), (6) nondischargeability action.

Section 523(a) excludes unscheduled debts from a chapter 7 discharge.

In Re Weintraub · filed 1994-08-30(a)

Strict adherence to that provision of the Code is not merely good form; the discharge available under § 727 of the Code to an otherwise qualified chapter 7 debtor does not extend to unscheduled debts.

Section 523(a)(3) requires a debtor to list a proper deliverable address for a creditor; a debt is not discharged when the creditor lacks timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

Beverly Lumber Co. v. Nicholson (In Re Nicholson) · filed 1994-07-29(a)(3)

This Court believes that although the words are not specifically included in the statute, that when the statute talks about the listing or scheduling of the creditor it requires the proper deliverable address where the creditor is destined to receive appropriate notice.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an assigned debt from discharge for failure to schedule the assignee when the debtor lacked actual knowledge of the assignment and scheduled the original creditor.

Brantley v. Weeks (In Re Brantley) · filed 1990-05-04(a)(3)

A debtor may schedule a debt in the name of the original creditor of an assigned debt unless the debtor has actual knowledge of the assignment, and the as-signee of a debt has the burden to show debtor had actual knowledge of an assignment in order to except the debt from discharge where the assignee was not scheduled.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time for a creditor to protect its rights; notice of the bar date itself is unnecessary.

In the Matter of Henry Charles Sam and Gloria H. Sam, Debtors. Sidney Louis Grossie v. Sam · filed 1990-02-22(a)(3)(B)

Such notice is all that is required by section 523(a)(3)(B), and because that notice apprised him of the pendency of the action and was timely enough to afford him an opportunity to present his objections, it satisfies constitutional procedural due process requirements.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) leaves an unscheduled debt undischarged when the government agency responsible for the claim lacks notice or actual knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy.

United States of America, Small Business Administration v. Loris C. Bridges · filed 1990-01-30(a)(3)(A)

The Biloxi office of the SBA had no reason to suspect that Bridges was personally indebted to the SBA, and the record indicates that the Jackson office did not have notice or actual knowledge of Bridges’ bankruptcy. Thus, the branch of the SBA with knowledge of Bridges’ bankruptcy case was not the branch for whom the information would have had any meaning. Under these circumstances, we can only conclude that the SBA did not receive the type of notice or actual knowledge of Bridges’ bankruptcy that would excuse her failure to schedule her two sizeable debts to this government agency.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

In Re Glow · filed 1990-02-27(a)(3)(A)

Having decided that the Bank had sufficient actual notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy to file a timely claim the objection to the late claim must be sustained, and the exception to discharge as set out in § 523(a)(3)(A) is not applicable.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits an inadvertently omitted debt in a no-asset case to be discharged after late scheduling, even when the claims deadline has passed, if the creditor has lost no meaningful right.

In Re Michael C. Soult, D.M.D., Debtor, Michael C. Soult, D.M.D., Debtor-Appellee v. William C. Maddox, D.D.S., Creditor · filed 1990-01-23(a)(3)(A)

We do not see how we could follow Laczko without repudiating Rosinski, a case that did not turn on the absence of a bar date. ... Dr. Maddox has not lost any meaningful right that he would have enjoyed if he had been properly listed in the first place.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor with actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to act to seek a timely dischargeability determination, even if the debt was improperly scheduled and the creditor received no formal notice of the deadline.

Compton v. Compton · filed 1990-01-16(a)(3)(B)

As the provision stands, it protects creditors against whom fraud has been perpetrated and who lack awareness of bankruptcy proceedings. However, it explicitly places a burden on creditors with knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings to act to protect their rights.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor who learns of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability determination to act promptly, even if the creditor was improperly scheduled and received no formal notice of the deadline.

Ramos v. Compton (In re Compton) · filed 1990-01-16(a)(3)(B)

However, it explicitly places a burden on creditors with knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings to act to protect their rights.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not excuse a late dischargeability complaint about an unscheduled debt when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case before the filing deadline.

Dole v. Grant (In Re Summit Corp.) · filed 1990-01-02(a)(3)(B)

In this case, the Secretary is not excused under section 523(a)(3)(B) for her late filing of the dischargeability complaint. Although the debt at issue in the complaint was not listed or scheduled, the Secretary clearly had knowledge of the bankruptcy prior to the deadline.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats actual notice to an unscheduled creditor as timely when the creditor has enough time to seek an extension of the dischargeability complaint deadline.

Manufacturers Hanover v. Dewalt (In Re Dewalt) · filed 1989-12-15(a)(3)(B)

Finance One had seven calendar and five court days in which to bring a motion seeking an extension of the deadline for filing a dischargeability complaint. While it is questionable whether a complaint could have been filed in the time remaining after Finance One received notice of Dewalt's bankruptcy, there was ample opportunity to seek an extension of time to file a § 523(c) complaint under Rule 4007(c).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an omitted creditor’s debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge to seek a dischargeability determination.

In Re Dye · filed 1989-11-29(a)(3)(B)

Therefore, based on the Findings of Fact contained in this Memorandum Opinion, this Court concludes that the outcome of any such adversary proceeding would clearly be that the indebtedness of the Veterans’ Administration falls within the exception to discharge contained in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B). Accordingly, this Court concludes that the claim of the Veterans’ Administration in the Chapter 13 Case was not discharged in the Chapter 7 Case.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor to pursue nondischargeability for debts described in paragraphs (2), (4), or (6) if the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a complaint.

Chapins v. Peloso (In Re Peloso) · filed 1989-11-14(a)(3)(B)

Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) which does not discharge an individual debtor from debts specified in paragraphs (2), (4) or (6) of § 523(a) unless the creditors had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a complaint to determine the dischargeability of their debts.

Section 523(a)(3)’s proof-of-claim condition is not satisfied when an omitted creditor can still file a proof of claim in a no-asset case.

In Re David · filed 1989-10-17(a)(3)

If, after the case is reopened, the creditor is not precluded from filing a proof of claim because the time for filing proofs of claim has not expired, e.g., when the case is, like this one, a no-asset case, see Bankruptcy Rule 2002(e), the first predicate of § 523(a)(3) is not satisfied.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor receives the same distribution as a timely claimant and suffers no prejudice.

Butt v. Hartford Insurance (In Re Butt) · filed 1987-01-26(a)(3)(A)

Under Section 523(a)(3)(A) the prejudice is limited to failure to participate in the dividend. ... As the DEFENDANT is sharing in the distribution, it has not been prejudiced by the initial failure of the PLAINTIFFS to list it as a creditor.

Section 523(a)(3) does not bar discharge of a debt mistakenly scheduled with an incorrect creditor address in a no-asset case absent fraud or genuine harm to the creditor.

In Re Beshensky · filed 1987-01-06(a)(3)

Section 523(a) should not be mechanically applied to deprive a debtor of a discharge in a no asset case where there is no showing of fraud or genuine harm to the creditors.

An unlisted creditor who learns of the bankruptcy in time to file a dischargeability complaint is bound by the filing deadline.

Roberts v. Dotson (In re Dotson) · filed 1986-12-12(a)(3)

This Court concludes that if a creditor has actual knowledge of a bankruptcy filing prior to the deadline for the filing for determination of dischargeability, then that creditor is bound by the deadline and his only potential avenue of attack is to show that the knowledge was procured so late that he could not reasonably file his complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) lets an unscheduled creditor who lacked timely notice seek a dischargeability determination without first proving the claim, but the debt is excepted from discharge only to the extent the creditor establishes the underlying grounds.

Carlton Forge Works v. Senall (In Re Senall) · filed 1986-08-25(a)(3)(B)

The sole purpose of § 523(a)(3)(B) is to allow creditors who have not been noticed of the pendency of a bankruptcy petition in time to file a claim or to request a determination of dischargeability to escape the time limits imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c). Nothing in § 523(a)(3)(B) suggests that a creditor must prove his claim before he is entitled to fall within its provisions. It is important to point out that the merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims are not established by a finding that § 523(a)(3)(B) applies. The Plaintiffs claims are not excepted from discharge on their face, but rather are excepted from discharge to the extent that the Plaintiffs can establish in the California lawsuit that their claim arose from the Debtor’s fraudulent conduct.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not permit a creditor with timely notice of the bankruptcy case to file a late dischargeability complaint merely because the debtor’s schedules omitted the nature of the debt.

Caffal Bros. Forest Products, Inc. v. Braun (In Re Braun) · filed 1986-08-07(a)(3)(B)

On its face, § 523(a)(3)(B) precludes creditors, such as plaintiff, who receive notice or have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a non-dischargeability complaint, from filing an untimely § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) complaint, notwithstanding the fact that the nature of their debt fails to appear on the debtor’s schedules.

Section 523(a)(3) does not allow a debtor to cure a deliberate omission of a creditor through a late amendment to the schedules.

Landers v. Johnson (In Re Johnson) · filed 1986-07-07(a)(3)

No case has been found where amendment to permit late scheduling of an omitted debt has been allowed where the circumstances demonstrate deliberate omission or other dishonesty. The circumstances of the omission in the instant case show a deliberate failure to schedule the movant as a creditor. ... The motion to amend is denied.

Section 523(a)(3) does not prevent discharge when the debtor lists a known creditor but omits the amount of the debt.

Richards v. Merrill (In re Merrill) · filed 1981-07-10(a)(3)

Section 523(a)(3) excepts from discharge a debt not listed under 11 U.S.C. 521(1). The latter section requires the debtor to file a “list of creditors”. The former section excepts a debt from discharge if the debtor has not listed a debt with the name of the creditor, if known. A discrepancy in omitting the amount of the debt or an amount not in fact due will not prevent a discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an omitted debt dischargeable merely because the debtor adds the creditor to the schedules after the claims filing deadline.

In Re McNeil · filed 1981-08-21(a)(3)(A)

Since the time for filing proofs of claim has passed [there is no allegation that this debt is otherwise nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6)], reopening the case to amend the schedules to now add the Bank as a creditor will not affect the dischargeability of the debt since such amendment would not relate back to a time prior to the claims filing bar date for purposes of § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) allows discharge of a duly scheduled debt even if the creditor does not actually receive mailed notice of the bankruptcy.

In Re Vega · filed 1981-11-05(a)(3)(A)

Creditor Deaconess Hospital was “duly scheduled” within the meaning of bankruptcy law requirements and its debt as such is discharged even absent actual receipt of mailed notice from the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an unscheduled or incorrectly scheduled debt when the creditor had timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Klein v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 1982-04-15(a)(3)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) a discharge of a particular debt may be granted where the creditor has timely “notice or actual knowledge of the case”, even though the debt is unlisted or incorrectly scheduled.

An unscheduled debt can be discharged under § 523(a)(3)(A) when the creditor knew of the bankruptcy petition.

Hamilton v. Roanoke Electric Steel Federal Credit Union (In Re Hamilton) · filed 1982-05-18(a)(3)(A)

From the foregoing facts and all other evidence submitted, the Court finds that the Defendant had knowledge of the petition herein and the debt is discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to request a dischargeability determination.

Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Vasquez (In re Vasquez) · filed 1982-06-24(a)(3)(B)

VEPCO had actual knowledge ... and in time to act.

Section 523(a)(3) does not permit a debtor to discharge an omitted debt by reopening a closed case to add the creditor to the schedules.

Matter of Swain · filed 1982-07-09(a)(3)

I find nothing in this review of the legislative history to indicate that the changes in language between § 17(a)(3) and § 523(a)(3) were meant to overrule the holding of Milando as to closed cases.

Under § 523(a)(3)(A), a debtor who omitted a creditor from the bankruptcy schedules bears the burden of proving that the creditor had timely notice or knowledge of the case.

In Re Rediker · filed 1982-09-29(a)(3)(A)

It is undisputed that the debtor in this case failed to list the creditors in question in his bankruptcy schedules. Once this is established, the burden is on the debtor to prove that the creditor had timely notice or knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy petition and thus comes within the exception set forth in § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when an authorized representative of the creditor had timely notice of the bankruptcy case.

In re Flamini · filed 1982-10-07(a)(3)

Notice to the Friend of the Court was the equivalent of notice to the Department of Social Services. The debtor’s debt to the Department of Social Services is discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an omitted debt from discharge only if the creditor lacked timely notice to file a proof of claim and, for certain debts, to request a dischargeability determination.

In Re Barrett · filed 1982-10-29(a)(3)

A debt will only be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3) if the objecting creditor failed to receive actual or constructive knowledge in time to permit a timely filing of a proof of claim and, if the debt at issue is of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), timely request for a determination of discharge-ability of such a debt.

Section 523(a)(3) does not automatically bar discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no-asset case when the omission was unintentional and caused no genuine harm to creditors.

Stark v. St. Mary's Hospital (In Re Stark) · filed 1982-11-17(a)(3)

Section 523(a) should not be mechanically applied to deprive a debtor of a discharge in a no asset case where there is no showing of fraud or genuine harm to the creditors.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor was not properly scheduled and lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

A.H.L. Properties 1 v. Central National Bank of Houston · filed 1982-12-30(a)(3)

In the absence of evidence that notice was properly mailed to the correct representative of the creditor or that the Bank had actual knowledge of the proceedings, the federal court decree would not discharge the debt owed by Hoff to Central National Bank.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) preserves an omitted creditor’s opportunity to seek a dischargeability determination after the ordinary deadline if the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

In Re Ratliff · filed 1983-02-09(a)(3)(B)

The record of this proceeding reflects that said ninety day period has expired, however, § 523(c) excludes from that time limitation any exception to dischargeability provided by § 523(a)(3)(B). If Sonja Lezoche or Lisa Lezoche had no notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case and have causes of action arising under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) the savings provisions of § 523(a)(3)(B) and 523(c) are available to them even though a timely scheduled creditor would now be barred from filing a complaint under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) requires an unlisted creditor’s timely actual knowledge of the bankruptcy to be generally equivalent to legal notice; an unverified rumor does not suffice.

Stratton v. Hagan (In Re Stratton) · filed 1983-02-22(a)(3)(A)

Actual knowledge as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) is information generally equivalent to legal notice.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge if the creditor has notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Devers v. Frankina (In Re Frankina) · filed 1983-05-31(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3)(B) provides that a discharge granted in a chapter 7 case does not discharge a debt which is not scheduled in time to permit the creditor to file a timely request for a determination of the dischargeability of the debt “unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time” to file such complaint. ... The Devers concede that they acquired actual knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing in early August of 1982. They, therefore, had notice in ample time to file a complaint.

Section 523(a)(3) protects an omitted creditor’s right to file a timely proof of claim, including when assets are later found in a no-asset bankruptcy.

Stark v. St. Mary's Hospital (In re Stark) · filed 1983-06-28(a)(3)

We conclude that the Bankruptcy Code makes clear that the right of the creditor that is protected by section 523(a)(3) is the right to timely file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and seek a dischargeability determination.

Young v. Martin (In Re Young) · filed 1983-07-22(a)(3)

Under this provision a creditor, who, has actual knowledge of his debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding and has had sufficient time within which to file a proof of claim and complaint for a determination of discharge-ability, has the obligation to protect his claim by filing the required papers. If he fails to act the debt he is owed will be discharged, even though he had not received formal notice and was not scheduled.

Section 523(a)(3) protects an omitted creditor’s opportunity to file a timely proof of claim.

In the Matter of Terry Stephen Stark and Debra Jean Stark · filed 1983-09-21(a)(3)

We conclude that the Bankruptcy Code makes clear that the right of the creditor that is protected by section 523(a)(3) is the right to timely file a proof of claim. In the instant case should subsequent assets be found, the Hospital will have the opportunity to file a claim pursuant to Rule 302(e)(4).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not bar discharge of an omitted debt in a no-asset case when the time to file claims has not passed and the creditor is added to the schedules.

La Bate & Conti, Inc. v. Davidson (In Re Davidson) · filed 1983-11-14(a)(3)(A)

The Milando rule does not apply here for two reasons. First, the six-month rule of former Rule 302(e) does not apply to this case. The creditors were notified pursuant to former Rule 203(b) that they need not file claims because no non-exempt assets were available, and that they would be permitted to file claims if and when additional assets were discovered. The Seventh Circuit recently held that in this circumstance, “the time for filing the claim had not passed,” so that even the literal terms of section 523(a)(3)(A) do not bar this debt from being discharged if it is now added to the schedules.

Section 523(a)(3) does not displace the rule allowing a debtor to amend schedules after the claims deadline only in exceptional circumstances.

In re Zibro · filed 1983-12-09(a)(3)

Further, the court concludes that the adoption of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) does not change the applicability of Robinson, which was decided under the Bankruptcy Act, although the legislative history is not entirely clear on this point. Under Robinson, a debtor may be permitted to amend his schedules beyond the date for filing claims, but such an amendment will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances in the equitable discretion of the court.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) addresses the scope of a bankruptcy discharge and does not bar an extension of time to file a proof of claim before plan confirmation.

In Re Moskowitz · filed 1983-12-15(a)(3)(A)

That case law, and a common sense reading of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), indicates moreover that that section does not bar extension of the period granted a creditor of a bankrupt to file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor had timely actual notice of the bankruptcy and failed to act.

Matter of Coogan · filed 1984-01-04(a)(3)(A)

Debtor has met his burden of establishing that the creditor had actual and timely notice of the filing of the bankruptcy petition and failed to act on such notice. The debt to be listed in accordance with No. 3 above is therefore dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor has grounds under paragraphs (2), (4), or (6) and the omission deprived the creditor of a timely opportunity to assert them.

Matter of Zablocki · filed 1984-01-26(a)(3)(B)

Instead, to establish the § 523(a)(3)(B) exception, a creditor must show that he actually had grounds under § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) and that the debtor’s failure to schedule him deprived him of the opportunity to assert these grounds at the proper time.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim.

In re Zibro · filed 1984-01-31(a)(3)(A)

Under this section, the debtor’s indebtedness to Dunne is not discharged because Dunne had no actual knowledge or notice of the case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) is not triggered in a no-asset case when no claims filing deadline was ever set.

Laczko v. Gentran, Inc. (In Re Laczko) · filed 1984-03-28(a)(3)

Because the date to file claims were never set, § 523(a)(3) was never triggered.

Section 523(a)(3) preserves a claim from discharge when it was not scheduled in time for the creditor to protect it, unless the creditor had timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Gomez v. Adams · filed 1984-04-17(a)(3)

Under § 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor’s claim will survive the bankruptcy and will not be discharged if the debtor did not list or schedule the claim in time to permit the creditor to file a timely proof of claim, and, in the case of a claim arising under paragraphs (2), (4), or (6), in time to file a complaint to determine the dischargeability of the debt, unless the creditor had “notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request.”

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an omitted debt when the creditor lacks notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

Olon Andrews, Inc. v. Gilbert (In Re Gilbert) · filed 1984-05-03(a)(3)

This omission results in the satisfaction of the first element of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). ... Therefore, it must be concluded that all the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) have been fulfilled.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) protects an omitted creditor’s opportunity to file a timely proof of claim for debts outside paragraphs (2), (4), and (6).

In Re Adams · filed 1984-08-01(a)(3)(A)

With respect to “non-2,4,6” debts, only the creditor’s rights with respect to filing a proof of claim are intended to be protected.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not bar discharge of an omitted debt in a no-asset case when the creditor can still file a claim if assets become available.

In Re SCISM · filed 1984-08-15(a)(3)(A)

Accordingly when, as in the instant case, a no-asset notice has been sent to creditors and no subsequent dividend notice has been sent, a creditor scheduled incident to a reopening has not lost his opportunity to file a proof of claim sufficient for him to share equally in a subsequent distribution with creditors who were initially scheduled. ... It follows then that § 523(a)(3)(A) would no longer act as a bar to the dischargeability of the debt at issue.

Section 523(a)(3) does not give an omitted creditor a nondischargeability windfall when the omission causes no prejudice in a no-asset case.

In Re Johnson · filed 1985-01-07(a)(3)

Milando and its reasoning has been considerably attenuated by subsequent statutes, procedural rules and case law, all of which follow or strongly suggest the principle that an unscheduled creditor should not have the benefit of a windfall where it appears that he will suffer no prejudice as a result of the omission.

Section 523(a)(3)(A)'s time to file a claim remains open when creditors in a no-asset case were told not to file claims.

In Re Grubbs · filed 1985-01-11(a)(3)(A)

Hence, the time within which claims may be filed as provided by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) remains open.

Under § 523(a)(3), a creditor’s actual notice of the bankruptcy defeats an objection based on lack of notice.

Neier v. Neier (In Re Neier) · filed 1985-01-17(a)(3)

The notice defense crumbled under the weight of testimony at trial by both the plaintiff and defendant which established she had actual notice of the bank ... ruptcy (which is sufficient according to § 523(a)(3)) because she collaborated with the debtor on his filing.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Gallagher v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (In Re Gallagher) · filed 1985-02-08(a)(3)(A)

If Christine had notice of Jerry’s bankruptcy sufficiently prior to that date to allow her to file a claim, her claim is not subject to exception from discharge under section 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) protects an omitted creditor’s opportunity to file a timely proof of claim; losing other participation rights does not alone make the debt nondischargeable.

Powers v. Crum (In Re Crum) · filed 1985-04-02(a)(3)(A)

Nevertheless, this Court is compelled to find that Section 523(a)(3) specifically designates only two creditor’s rights which are of such paramount importance that their loss mandates exception of a late scheduled debt from discharge. Those two rights are the right under Section 523(a)(3)(A) to timely file a proof of claim so as to allow participation if a dividend is issued (In re Stark); and the right under Section 523(a)(3)(B) to obtain a determination of dischargeability under Section 523(a)(2), (4), and (6).

Section 523(a)(3) generally leaves debts omitted from timely schedules undischarged, but it does not bar reopening a case to add a creditor when exceptional circumstances justify it.

In Re Mitchell · filed 1985-03-01(a)(3)

However, Bankruptcy Rule 5010 provides an express exception to § 523(a)(3) and thus should be harmonized with § 523(a)(3) to give both provisions full effect.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not discharge an unscheduled debt when notice sent to an attorney fails to identify the creditor for whom it is intended.

Maldonado v. Ramirez · filed 1985-03-06(a)(3)(A)

Notice sent to an authorized attorney or agent must at least signify the client for whom it is intended so that the attorney can know whom to advise to assert a claim in the bankruptcy. The notification to Christian of Ramirez’ bankruptcy on which the district court relied gave no indication that it was sent to him on behalf of Maldonado, and instead indicated it was intended as notice to Christian on behalf of Christian Building Supplies. Therefore Maldonado cannot be deemed to have received notice within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), and the district court erred in so holding.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Ottawa County Abstract & Title v. Barton (In Re Barton) · filed 1985-08-23(a)(3)(B)

Further, section 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code provides no basis for relief because appellant had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.

In a no-asset case where no proof-of-claim deadline has passed, an omitted creditor retains the right to file a timely claim, so § 523(a)(3)(A) does not except the debt from discharge.

Bluefield Community Hospital v. Smolarick (In Re Smolarick) · filed 1986-01-24(a)(3)(A)

Consequently, the Hospital, as an unlisted creditor, had not been denied the right under § 523(a)(3)(A) to timely file its proof of claim such that the debt should be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an omitted debt in a no-asset case when the omission was an honest mistake and the creditor suffered no prejudice.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,005 in the Matter of Barbara Ann Baitcher, Debtor. John Samuel v. Baitcher · filed 1986-02-10(a)(3)

We are of the opinion that both parties here are wrong as to the law, and that summary judgment on section 523(a)(3) grounds was not available to either party, as there were contested issues of fact. We accept, as the Seventh Circuit does, that under the new law the old prophylactic rule does not in a no-asset case any more deny a discharge to one who has failed to schedule for reasons of honest mistake, not “fraud or intentional design.” This would be an inequitable result, in the absence of prejudice.

Section 523(a)(3) leaves an omitted debt undischarged when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to file a claim.

In Re Blossom · filed 1986-01-28(a)(3)

Under this section, any creditor that does not receive notice of the filing of a debtor’s petition within sufficient time to file a claim is not subject to the debtor’s discharge, provided actual knowledge of the filing wasn’t obtained in time to file a claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacks notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim. Knowing that the debtor is considering bankruptcy is insufficient.

In Re Gray · filed 1986-02-07(a)(3)(A)

However, the degree of knowledge required to satisfy the 11 U.S.C. § 523(3)(A) exception consists of more than being privy to statements that a debtor is contemplating seeking bankruptcy relief sometime in the future. It must include knowledge of facts sufficient to apprise the creditor that a case was actually filed, and where that proceeding is pending.

Section 523(a)(3) requires a debtor who knows a debt has been transferred to list it under the known present owner’s name.

Blecker v. Kofoed · filed 1986-02-24(a)(3)

The court erred in this regard, for a debtor who is aware that a debt has been transferred must list the debt under the name of the present owner, if known to the debtor.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unlisted or unscheduled debt from discharge when the debtor fails to identify a known creditor; omitting claim amounts from schedules does not itself prevent discharge.

In Re Connelly · filed 1986-03-27(a)(3)

Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(3) excepts from discharge any debt “neither listed nor scheduled under section 521 of this title ... with name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). ... Thus Connelly could technically be discharged of his debts without listing the amounts of his creditors’ claims or other information required by the schedules.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor received timely notice of the bankruptcy case, even if the debtor omitted that particular debt from the schedules.

Bryant v. Strong (In Re Strong) · filed 1986-05-14(a)(3)(B)

In these circumstances, timely notice from the court that the debtor has filed a case is sufficient to make the creditor’s debt dischargeable despite § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset case when no proof-of-claim deadline was set, absent fraud or intentional omission.

Robert S.C. Peterson, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 1987-04-17(a)(3)(A)

Courts have consistently viewed no-asset cases differently under § 523(a)(3) because, in many jurisdictions including Minnesota, proofs of claim are either unnecessary or not accepted for filing. Absent a showing of fraud or intentional omission, § 523(a)(3) does not act to deny a debtor’s discharge for not listing or scheduling a creditor in time to file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) determines whether an omitted debt was excepted from discharge; amending the schedules after discharge does not change that determination.

In Re Anderson · filed 1987-04-17(a)(3)(A)

The debt in question was either discharged or excepted from discharge based on an analysis of § 523. Subsequent actions by the debtor cannot affect whether or not the debt has already been discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the time to file claims has never begun to run.

West v. White (In Re White) · filed 1987-06-01(a)(3)(A)

Thus, the period in which to file claims never began running; hence it has not expired. In re Stark, 717 F.2d 322 (7th Cir.1983). Therefore, the complaint in this case fails to state a claim for nondischarge-ability under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(3)(A).

Under § 523(a)(3)(B), an omitted creditor must prove an underlying § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) claim unless it shows material prejudice.

Urbatek Systems, Inc. v. Lochrie (In Re Lochrie) · filed 1987-09-11(a)(3)(B)

In view of the policy in favor of discharge and a fresh start for the debtor, we hold that the creditor is required to make a showing of material prejudice to avoid proving its claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of a debt to an unscheduled creditor absent circumstances allowing discharge.

Mooney v. Van Vechten · filed 1988-01-19(a)(3)

There are no circumstances alleged which would discharge under normal circumstances an unscheduled creditor (11 USC § 523 [a] [3]).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats timely actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case as sufficient notice for an unlisted creditor to protect a claim that a debt is nondischargeable.

In Re William M. ALTON, Debtor, Bronson F. BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William A. ALTON, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1988-02-12(a)(3)(B)

A holding that the language of Rule 4007(c) about notice gives a creditor the right to such official notice before he is under a duty to make inquiries to protect his own rights would conflict with the language of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523, which makes actual notice sufficient to impose a duty-to-inquire on the creditor.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an omitted debt in a no-asset case when the creditor can still file a timely claim and the omission was neither fraudulent nor intentional.

Converse v. Sarapas (In Re Sarapas) · filed 1988-03-03(a)(3)(A)

Unless the creditor can show that the debtor omitted him fraudulently or as part of an intentional design, the debt is dischargeable in a no-asset case. ... We adopt the approach of these circuit courts.

Section 523(a)(3) allows a debt to be discharged when the creditor is identified in time to file a proof of claim or request a determination of dischargeability; the schedule need not describe the claim in detail.

LF Rothschild & Co., Inc. v. Angier · filed 1988-03-25(a)(3)

The statute requires only that debts be listed and scheduled “with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed” in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim, or a request for a determination of dischargeability. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). Angier’s schedule complied fully with the statute by listing Rothschild’s name and address, and stating that Rothschild was the holder of a disputed claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) leaves an omitted debt undischarged when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

In Re Smura · filed 1988-04-11(a)(3)(A)

It has not been alleged that Marietta “had notice or actual knowledge of the case” as would render the debt dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits an omitted debt to be included in a discharge in a no-asset case despite an expired claims bar date when the creditor was not prejudiced and the omission was not intentional, reckless, or fraudulent.

In Re Soult · filed 1988-05-20(a)(3)(A)

Although a bar date had never been set for filing proofs of claim in Rosinski, this Court finds that that fact is not determinative. So long as the creditor was not prejudiced, and the debtor is able to justify the reopening and demonstrate a lack of intentional, reckless or fraudulent cause for the omission, the previously omitted creditor cannot prevent the reopening and the inclusion of his obligation.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an omitted debt if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Ford · filed 1988-07-07(a)(3)(A)

If the debtor can establish that an omitted creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim, then that omitted debt will be discharged pursuant to section 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3) governs whether an omitted debt is excepted from discharge; adding the creditor to schedules after discharge does not change that determination.

In Re Karamitsos · filed 1988-07-19(a)(3)

Reopening a case to allow amendment of schedules is futile. The debt in question is either discharged or excepted from discharge based on a judicial analysis of 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve an unlisted creditor’s dischargeability claim when the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim and request a dischargeability determination.

Odle Cumberlin Auctioneers v. Rider (In Re Rider) · filed 1988-07-21(a)(3)(B)

This Court is persuaded that pursuant to Section 523(a)(3)(B), Odie, although neither listed nor scheduled, had sufficient notice and knowledge of the case in time to timely file a proof of claim and request a determination of dischargeability such that he is, now, barred from filing a request for a determination of dischargeability.

A creditor listed on the debtor’s schedules and notified of the bankruptcy cannot use § 523(a)(3)(B) to preserve a fraud claim merely because the debtor did not identify the claim as fraud.

Bowen v. Residential Financial Corp. (In Re Bowen) · filed 1988-08-17(a)(3)(B)

It was not incumbent on him to schedule the claim as such, merely as a hedge against any § 523(a)(3) nondischargeability complaint which might have been raised under the unusual circumstances presented here. ... Defendant simply is not an obligee under a debt “neither listed nor scheduled” within the meaning of § 523(a)(3); clearly, Defendant’s asserted fraud claim was not excepted from discharge by operation of that statute.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) can except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge, even in a no-asset case.

Key Capital Corp. v. Chapman (In Re Chapman) · filed 1988-08-18(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3)(B) cannot be circumvented solely because this is a no-asset case. The Section contemplates not only the filing of the proof of claim, but participation in the bankruptcy by said notice and scheduling.

Section 523(a)(3) makes a debtor’s ability to discharge an omitted debt depend in part on whether the creditor could file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Green · filed 1988-08-25(a)(3)

The ability of a debtor to discharge debts under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) is based in part on whether the creditor is able to file a timely proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an incorrectly scheduled debt from discharge when the creditor’s attorney has actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Walker v. Wilde (In Re Walker) · filed 1988-09-30(a)(3)

In the present case, even though the Higleys were not correctly listed on the schedules, and even though notice of the bankruptcy filing was not mailed to them, the court finds that the section 523(a)(3) exception is inapplicable because of the actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing by their attorney-agent, Wilde.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor receives notice of the bankruptcy through counsel in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Fine v. Fiveson (In re Fiveson) · filed 1988-10-04(a)(3)(B)

Accordingly, I find that plaintiffs were provided with notice of the bankruptcy on October 30, 1986. ... For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve an unscheduled creditor’s right to seek a dischargeability determination when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely request.

In Re Van Cloostere · filed 1988-12-09(a)(3)(B)

Under § 523(a)(3), however, debts not listed or scheduled will be excepted from discharge unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to allow for the timely filing of a claim or dischargeability complaint. ... Because the creditors had actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding in time to file their discharge and dischargeability complaints prior to the original bar date of April 12, 1988, they cannot rely on the Court’s order extending the time for filing such complaints until August 23, 1988.

Section 523(a)(3)’s exception for an unscheduled debt is not overcome by telling the creditor that the debtor is in bankruptcy before the petition is filed.

Willows Convalescent Centers, Inc. v. Durheim · filed 1989-01-24(a)(3)

Appellant states by affidavit that he advised respondent in July that “he was in bankruptcy.” The discharge order, however, indicates the bankruptcy petition was not filed until August 81, 1984. Appellant’s notice, therefore, is insufficient to overcome the exception to discharge set forth in section 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)'s scheduling and notice requirements can be satisfied by amending the debtor's schedule and extending the omitted creditor's time to file a proof of claim.

In Re Soult · filed 1989-03-16(a)(3)

If the schedule is amended, then that statutory requirement is satisfied, and if in the process of permitting amendment, the court extends the time for filing a proof of claim, then the notice requirements of the statute are also satisfied.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

In re Ellis · filed 1989-04-06(a)(3)

As a result of the listing of the correct address of Rainier on the schedules of the Debtor and the participation of Rainier in the proceedings with regard to the debt scheduled by the Debtor, the court concludes that Rainier had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when no deadline for filing a proof of claim has expired.

In Re Mendiola · filed 1989-04-21(a)(3)(A)

Therefore, Section 523(a)(3)(A) is not applicable in a no-asset case, because there can never be a time when it is too late “to permit timely filing of a proof of claim.”

An incorrect creditor address creates a rebuttable presumption that the debt was not duly scheduled; the debtor must show that the error was justified and did not result from a lack of reasonable diligence.

Stull v. Holt (In Re Holt) · filed 1989-05-09(a)(3)(B)

The proof which a debtor must adduce, once it has been shown that an address was incorrect, is that the inaccuracy was justified and was not the result of a lack of reasonable diligence. ... Accordingly, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Stull was not duly listed or scheduled within the meaning of § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled creditor’s debt when the creditor has actual notice in time to act, even without formal notice.

In Re Kevin Scott Green and Cheryl Lynn Green, Debtors. Yukon Self Storage Fund v. Green · filed 1989-06-05(a)(3)(A)

Indeed, because of the specific language of § 523(a)(3)(A) allowing discharge of the debt of a creditor with actual, timely notice, a Chapter 7 creditor holding an unsecured claim does not have the “right to assume” receipt of further notice.

Section 523(a)(3) makes the dischargeability of an omitted debt depend on a dischargeability determination, rather than an amendment to the debtor’s schedules.

In Re Crull · filed 1989-06-07(a)(3)

The outcome of the adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability, rather than the amendment of the debtor’s schedules, will determine the dischargeability of the omitted debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an omitted debt from discharge only if the creditor could not, as a practical matter, file a timely proof of claim.

D & L Repair, Inc. v. Sandoval (In Re Sandoval) · filed 1989-07-14(a)(3)(A)

It is my opinion that the statute requires' that in order for the debt to be determined to be non-dischargeable, the creditor must show that as a practical matter, a timely proof of claim could not have been filed.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of a debt when an unlisted creditor has timely actual knowledge of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Walker v. Wilde (In Re Walker) · filed 1989-06-08(a)(3)(A)

Under § 523(a)(3)(A), the debt of a creditor with actual, timely notice can be discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted creditor’s claim from discharge when no claims bar date was set and the creditor could still file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Hunter · filed 1990-07-13(a)(3)(A)

For a creditor’s claim to be excepted from the discharge by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), the failure to schedule the creditor must have deprived the creditor of the ability to file a timely proof of claim. No bar date having been set, Amoco was not deprived of that ability.

A creditor who actually knows of a bankruptcy in time to request a dischargeability determination cannot rely on deficient scheduling or lack of formal notice to file late.

In Re Hill · filed 1990-08-03(a)(3)(B)

This Court will hold with the first line of cases and find that if creditors have actual notice of the bankruptcy proceedings, they have a duty to search out the files of the bankruptcy case to determine the various bar dates. If creditors fail to do this, they will not be allowed to file a complaint objecting to the discharge or dischargeability of any debt subsequent to the bar date even though they did not receive formal notice of the date from, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an omitted debt nondischargeable when no claims bar date has been set and the creditor can still file a timely claim.

Advent Mold, Inc. v. Walendy (In Re Walendy) · filed 1990-08-17(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) provides that a debt is non-dis-chargeable when it is not scheduled in time to permit timely filing of a claim. In this case, the claim asserted by Advent is timely filed because no bar date was ever set. Therefore, under a plain reading of § 523(a)(3)(A) Advent’s debt is not non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(3) treats a creditor as duly scheduled when the listed address is sufficiently accurate for postal delivery.

Oxford Video, Inc. v. Walker (In Re Walker) · filed 1990-08-31(a)(3)

Based on the foregoing authorities, we conclude that a creditor has been duly scheduled and listed if the address provided by the debtor is sufficiently accurate to permit delivery by the United States Postal Service to the appropriate party.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an inadvertently omitted debt in a no-asset case when the omission involves no fraud or intentional delay and causes the creditor no prejudice, apart from costs incurred before learning of the bankruptcy.

Homestate Insurance Brokers of Alaska, Inc. v. Brosman (In Re Brosman) · filed 1990-09-12(a)(3)

I adopt the rationale of Judge Volinn and find that exceptional circumstances exist in this case for the discharge of the Homes-tate claim. The debt was not listed simply through mistake or inadvertence; there were no assets for distribution to creditors; there was no fraud or intentional laches. There was no prejudice to the creditor other than the incurring of costs and attorney’s fees in state court. The claim is nondischargeable to the extent of any attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the creditor in pursuing its state court remedies prior to July 31, 1987.

Section 523(a)(3) does not automatically except an omitted debt from discharge in a no asset case when the creditor can still file a timely claim and receive a reasonable opportunity to seek a dischargeability determination.

In Re Candelaria · filed 1990-11-15(a)(3)

This court finds the reasoning of these cases persuasive and, therefore, holds that the bankruptcy court in this case erred in concluding that the debt to Bank of America was no longer dischargeable as a matter of law under § 523(a)(3)(A) and (B) for failure to give the creditor the opportunity to file timely notice.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) makes an omitted debt nondischargeable only when the omission prevents the creditor from filing a timely claim.

Gordon v. Bulbin (In Re Bulbin) · filed 1990-12-26(a)(3)(A)

No time to file claims has ever been set in this no-asset case such that the plaintiff can still timely file a claim. Thus, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) the failure timely to schedule the plaintiff affords no ground for nondischargeability: Section 523(a)(3)(A) limits nondischargeability relief to those cases in which the creditor was unable timely to file a claim and there is no suggestion that § 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim, even if the omission was inadvertent.

Spilka v. Bosse (In Re Bosse) · filed 1990-12-28(a)(3)(A)

To that end, this court is powerless to ignore the plain language of § 523(a)(3)(A) in order to reach a result more in line with equitable ideas. ... Judgment shall be entered determining Spilka’s claim to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3) makes an omitted debt’s dischargeability depend on whether the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely claim.

In Re Corgiat · filed 1991-01-25(a)(3)

Where however, as under the present facts, a claims bar date has been set and has expired without a claim having been filed by the omitted creditor, the only remaining issue under either subsection (A) or (B) of § 523(a)(3) is whether the omitted creditor (TCFC) had sufficient notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor fails to schedule the creditor with reasonable diligence, including by using an address two years out of date.

Meek v. Sharp (In Re Meek) · filed 1991-02-20(a)(3)

Use of an address that is two years old does not constitute reasonable diligence for purposes of the statute excepting from discharge a debt not listed or scheduled.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor with actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case in time to seek a dischargeability determination to act before the deadline, even without formal notice.

In Re Ralph L. WALKER, Debtor. Ralph L. WALKER, Appellee, v. Robert WILDE, Monty Higley and Jonnie Higley, Appellants · filed 1991-03-13(a)(3)(B)

Thus, the Higleys’ actual knowledge of Walker’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, in ample time for them to prepare and timely file the necessary request for determination of dischargeability, bars them from challenging the dischargeability of their claim some fifteen months after the bar date for such complaints.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) makes an omitted debt nondischargeable to the extent the lack of timely notice deprived the creditor of a share of the estate distribution.

Ladnier v. Ladnier (In re Ladnier) · filed 1991-04-08(a)(3)(A)

This Court finds the debt to be in the nature of a property settlement; however, the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(3)(A) of the Code to the extent of a pro rata share of the total amount distributed to the unsecured creditors in the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3) makes an omitted debt nondischargeable when the creditor lacked notice in time to file a timely claim, even if the available distribution was small.

Duerkop v. Jongquist (In Re Jongquist) · filed 1991-04-09(a)(3)

It is clear that § 523(a)(3) produces a harsh result in this case. Had Duerkop’s claim been properly scheduled or had he been timely notified of the case, the most he would have received was a distribution of a few dollars along with the other unsecured creditors. As a result of Jongquist’s failure to schedule his claim or give Duerkop notice, Duerkop’s debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

In Re John A. Graham, Nancy Graham, Debtor. John A. Graham and Nancy Graham v. Davidson · filed 1991-04-11(a)(3)(A)

11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(3)(A) permits the general discharge of an unscheduled debt if the creditor had "notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for" the filing of a timely proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to protect its rights.

Brown v. Barley (In Re Barley) · filed 1991-07-05(a)(3)

Because plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to take action to protect their interests, the debt cannot be declared nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3) allows an unscheduled debt to be discharged when the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to protect its rights.

In Re Piesner · filed 1991-07-19(a)(3)

The Code provides that a debt is discharged if the creditor had notice, or actual knowledge, of the case in time to take protective action regardless how he secured such notice.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an omitted debt when the creditor can still file a claim in time to share equally in distributions, even after the ordinary claims deadline.

Southern Pacific Land Co. v. Kuhr (In Re Kuhr) · filed 1991-07-19(a)(3)

“Timely” under section 523(a)(3) can only mean filed in time to receive on an equal footing distribution of any dividends paid pursuant to section 726(a).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an omitted creditor to show a viable or colorable claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), without proving that claim on the merits.

Haga v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Haga) · filed 1991-07-24(a)(3)(B)

This Court concludes that the phrase “of a kind” contained in § 523(a)(3)(B) should be interpreted as requiring a creditor only to show that it has a viable or colorable claim that its debt is non-dischargeable under subsections (a)(2), (4), or (6) of § 523 and not to prove its claim on the merits.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) can prevent discharge when a creditor omitted from bankruptcy notices reasonably relies on an assurance that notice will arrive.

Donald E. Murray, Personal Representative of the Estate of Elaine M. Murray, Deceased v. Hite · filed 1991-08-30(a)(3)(B)

We agree that these unique facts compel a finding of no discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) (1988). The reliance by Murray's attorney upon a colleague, whom he knew and apparently trusted, was not unreasonable in light of the close relationship between the bankruptcy and the wrongful death suit.

Section 523(a)(3)(B)'s actual knowledge requirement is satisfied when an unscheduled creditor learns of the bankruptcy and the date of the creditors’ meeting through a phone call.

Blackshear v. Layman (In Re Layman) · filed 1991-09-06(a)(3)(B)

The actual knowledge was not acquired as the result of a casual remark at a chance meeting, but through a phone call during which Appellant was informed of the date of the proceeding. This type of notice satisfies the “actual knowledge” requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) to allow discharge of the debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not treat an unconfirmed secondhand report of a bankruptcy as notice or actual knowledge sufficient to bar an omitted creditor’s dischargeability complaint.

Gulf Electroquip, Inc. v. Rodriguez · filed 1991-09-25(a)(3)(B)

Mr. Book-man’s unconfirmed report of what he had heard at a hearing in another matter is not sufficient to constitute the notice or actual knowledge of appellees’ bankruptcy proceedings that is required by section 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts certain omitted debts from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice to file a claim or request a dischargeability determination; adding the creditor after the deadline does not change dischargeability.

In Re Thibodeau · filed 1992-01-06(a)(3)(B)

Under subpart (B), which has two prongs, a debt of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) is excepted from discharge if it was neither listed nor scheduled in time to permit both timely filing of a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of the debt’s dischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires timely knowledge of a case’s conversion to Chapter 7 before an unlisted creditor can lose the opportunity to seek a dischargeability ruling.

Doucette v. Pannell (In Re Pannell) · filed 1992-02-05(a)(3)(B)

Rather, the creditor must have knowledge of the conversion in order to be able to protect its rights.

Section 523(a)(3) does not preserve an unscheduled debt when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to protect its claim.

Heuring v. Riewaldt (In Re Cash) · filed 1992-02-21(a)(3)

Since the Defendant took no such action to prevent the discharge of the legal fees, and since she had actual knowledge of the Bankruptcy, she is precluded from collecting on the pre-petition debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor had actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

Girard v. Allis Chalmers Corp., Inc. · filed 1992-02-21(a)(3)(A)

Allis Chalmers’ failure to schedule plaintiff’s contingent unsecured claim does not affect this result, because plaintiff had actual notice of the bankruptcy case in time to file a claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor is added to the schedules while the time to file a proof of claim remains open.

Garza v. Veterans Administration (In Re Garza) · filed 1992-03-18(a)(3)(A)

This bankruptcy case was initially noticed to the creditors as a no asset case in which no proof of claim needed to be filed until noticed otherwise. Consequently, the time for filing a claim was technically still open when plaintiff amended his schedules and added defendant as a creditor. Accordingly, defendant was scheduled as a creditor in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim and § 523(a)(3)(A) does not work to except this debt from plaintiff’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor to receive actual notice of the bankruptcy case in time to file a dischargeability complaint before the debt can be discharged.

In Re Hobbs · filed 1992-03-26(a)(3)(B)

However, in order for a debt to be discharged the creditor must receive actual notice of the bankruptcy case in time to file a dis-chargeability complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor learns of a no-asset bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim, even if the debt is never scheduled.

Peacock v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (In Re Peacock) · filed 1992-04-08(a)(3)(A)

If a creditor, like State Farm, has actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case in time to permit the filing of a timely proof of claim, then § 523(a)(3)(A) is rendered inapplicable regardless of whether the debt in question has been, or could be, added to the debtor’s schedules.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when the time to file a claim has not expired.

Keever v. Tyler (In Re Tyler) · filed 1992-04-30(a)(3)(A)

Thus, § 523(a)(3)(A) did not prevent discharge of the debts even if not listed or scheduled. ... The rationale behind Padilla and its progeny is sound and I approve it.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unscheduled creditor’s claim from discharge when the creditor lacks timely notice of the objection deadline.

SHOCKLEY BY AND THROUGH SHOCKLEY v. Brown · filed 1992-05-12(a)(3)

Appellants were entitled to formal notice from the Bankruptcy Court which specified the objection bar date. The failure to so notify them, denied Appellants of due process. Accordingly, we hereby determine the Appellants' claim for compensatory and punitive damages was excepted from Appellee's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not protect a creditor who learns of the bankruptcy case in time to discover the bar date and file a dischargeability complaint.

Anderson v. Harvey (In Re Harvey) · filed 1992-06-05(a)(3)(B)

When a creditor learns of a bankruptcy case and could have discovered the bar date notice upon examining the bankruptcy court’s file in time to file a dischargeability complaint, § 523(a)(3)(B) is unavailable to assist the creditor even when the debtor acted in bad faith.

An unscheduled debt may be discharged if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Somma v. United States (In re Somma) · filed 1992-07-22(a)(3)(A)

Pursuant to Title 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), a debt is discharged unless it was not listed or scheduled and the creditor has had no notice or actual knowledge of the case in order to file a timely proof of claim. Debtor failed to include these ten alleged loans in his schedules; however, it cannot be said that the IRS had no notice of the bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) allows an omitted debt to be discharged when the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

In re Barnes · filed 1992-07-31(a)(3)(A)

A discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge any debt not listed in the debtor's schedule of debts unless the creditor "had notice or actual knowledge" of the bankruptcy proceeding in time to make a timely filing in that proceeding. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unlisted debt when the creditor had timely notice of the bankruptcy proceeding, even if the debtor promised to repay it.

In re Barnes · filed 1992-07-31(a)(3)(A)

But a creditor who has notice of the bankruptcy proceeding cannot be permitted by facile invocation of fraud or estoppel to bypass the proceeding by suing to collect the original debt and thus undermine the statute’s purpose.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor who lacked timely notice to seek a ruling that a debt of the kind described in paragraphs (2), (4), or (6) is excepted from discharge.

In Re Szczepanik · filed 1992-08-07(a)(3)(B)

Because of the failure to give White and Graham proper notice of the debtors’ intention to add them as creditors and because of the failure to send them notice of the order signed by the Court and the failure to comply with the terms of that Order, that Order could not take the debt to Graham and White outside of Section 523(a)(3)(B). Neither was listed or scheduled in time to permit a timely request for a determination of dischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no-asset case with no claims bar date if the creditor receives notice in time to file a claim and the omission involved no misconduct or prejudice.

American Credit Services, Inc. v. Tucker (In Re Tucker) · filed 1992-08-12(a)(3)(A)

The plain language of Section 523(a)(3)(A) and the holding of this Court in this case indicate that if there is a closed no-asset case where a No-Asset Notice has been utilized, so that no bar date has been set and the time to file proofs of claim has not expired, all that is required for the claim of an unscheduled creditor to be discharged is that: (1) the creditor receive notice or actual knowledge of the case so that it can timely file a proof of claim; and (2) there has been no intentional or reckless failure to schedule the creditor, fraudulent scheme, intentional laches or prejudice to the creditor.

Section 523(a)(3) does not preserve an unscheduled attorney-fee claim when the attorney has no direct claim against the debtor and is not a creditor entitled to notice.

In re Tardo · filed 1992-09-11(a)(3)

However, under the facts and the law applicable to this case, the Court finds that Bernstein was not a creditor of the estate and therefore was not entitled to notice under the Act.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to request a dischargeability determination.

Walters v. Hunt (In Re Hunt) · filed 1992-09-14(a)(3)

Section 523(a)(3) of the Code provides that an individual debtor in bankruptcy does not receive a discharge from debts that were neither listed nor scheduled in time to permit a timely request for a determination of dischargeability, unless the creditor had “notice or actual knowledge of the case” in time to make a timely request.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) protects a creditor’s opportunity to seek a dischargeability determination when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy; the debtor bears the burden of proving that notice or knowledge.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Main (In Re Main) · filed 1992-09-16(a)(3)(B)

Indeed, the burden of proof rests with the debtor to demonstrate that creditors had “notice or actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy filing under § 523. ... The bankruptcy judge found that Main-failed to carry the burden of proof on this point and this court finds no basis for upsetting this factual conclusion.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats a creditor’s actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a nondischargeability complaint as sufficient notice, even without mailed notice of the filing deadline.

Dollinger v. Poskanzer (In Re Poskanzer) · filed 1992-10-13(a)(3)(B)

Dollinger’s knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings and, especially, his presence at the creditors’ meeting gave him sufficient notice of the pendency of an action. Such notice is all that section 523(a)(3)(B) requires.

Section 523(a)(3) does not discharge an unlisted equitable-distribution claim when notice of the bankruptcy fails to alert the creditor that her marital rights are being contested.

Hoffman v. Hoffman · filed 1992-10-13(a)(3)

The Bankruptcy court, for the reasons discussed below, correctly held that the Debtor cannot, without notifying Appellee that her rights are being contested, maintain that the controversy has been settled by the discharge in the Chapter 11 proceeding.

Denial of a motion to extend Rule 4007 deadlines does not affect a creditor’s right to seek an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(3)(B).

American Standard Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Bakehorn · filed 1992-10-22(a)(3)(B)

Similarly, denial of a motion to extend deadlines under Rule 4007 has no legal effect as to a creditor’s right to obtain an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt of the kind described in subsection (a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge to file a claim and seek a dischargeability determination.

In Re Banks-Davis · filed 1992-10-22(a)(3)(B)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) a debt which is of the kind specified in subsection (a)(2), (4), or (6) will be determined nondis-chargeable if the creditor was neither listed nor scheduled in time for the creditor to file a timely proof of claim and to timely request a determination of dischargeability of the debt. An additional element of dis-chargeability under subsection (a)(3)(B) requires that the creditor must not have had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to permit the timely filing of a proof of claim and a timely request for determination of dischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when a creditor without timely notice loses the chance to seek a dischargeability determination for a debt covered by paragraphs (2), (4), or (6).

In Re Stecklow · filed 1992-11-06(a)(3)(B)

However, where the creditor holds a claim barred by the passage of the bar date contained in Rule 4007(c), the court may not extend the time for filing a complaint under § 523(c). This limitation on enlargement of time to file is imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b). Therefore, that claim is not discharged by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve a nondischargeability claim based on lack of notice when notice mailed to the creditor’s correct P.O. Box is presumed received and the creditor offers only general denials of receipt.

Dependable Insurance Co. v. Horton (In Re Horton) · filed 1992-12-18(a)(3)(B)

However, for a debt to be discharged, the creditor must receive actual notice of the bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B). ... Accordingly, Dependable received the Notice in enough time to file a complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge and dischargeability prior to the bar date of December 30, 1991.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor with an unscheduled debt of a kind described in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to seek a dischargeability determination if the creditor lacked notice in time to file.

In Re Walker · filed 1992-12-29(a)(3)(B)

Thus, § 523(a)(3)(B) comes into play to remove Firestone’s action from the purview of § 523(c), and since § 523(c) does not apply, the time limit imposed by Rule 4007(c) cannot be applied to Firestone.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits an unscheduled debt to be discharged when the creditor has actual notice of the bankruptcy case.

Briley v. Hidalgo · filed 1993-01-19(a)(3)(B)

Under Section 523(a)(3)(B), even unscheduled debts are discharged provided that the creditor has actual notice of the case.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

In re Luna · filed 1993-03-08(a)(3)(A)

Both dates of service of the Trustee’s notice are within the period during which a proof of claim might have been filed. The Court finds that all of the tenants had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings within the claim filing period and hence are subject to the § 524(a) injunction.