11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when the creditor can still file a timely proof of claim and the debt is not of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Stucker v. Cardinal Building Materials, Inc. (In Re Stucker) · filed 1993-04-08(a)(3)

Although the Creditor did not have any notice or actual knowledge of the case until after the Debtor's discharge issued, as of yet, the bankruptcy estate has no assets from which a dividend could have been paid, and the Creditor has not been precluded from timely filing a proof of claim. Thus, the Creditor’s claim is not excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(3)(A) or (B), but is discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 524(a) and 727(a) and (b).

Section 523(a)(3) permits a listed debt to be discharged in full even if the debtor understates its amount.

Shore v. Ultimate Hair & Skin Care · filed 1993-04-13(a)(3)

Moreover, discharge of the listed indebtedness discharged Employer’s entire debt to Shore, and even a discrepancy in the amount of the debt does not affect the debt’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an unlisted debt of the kind described in § 523(a)(4) to be discharged when the creditor had timely actual knowledge of the bankruptcy but did not seek a dischargeability determination.

McKinney v. Unger · filed 1993-05-10(a)(3)(B)

However, as is evident from § 523(a)(3)(B) above, a § 523(a)(4) debt can still be discharged if the creditor, the Estate here, obtained notice or actual knowledge of the filing of the debtor’s, Unger’s, bankruptcy petition in time to file a timely proof of claim. Having such knowledge, the creditor Estate was required under § 523(c)(1) to request the court to find that the § 523(a)(4) debt was to be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve a creditor’s dischargeability objection when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a complaint or seek an extension.

GAC Enterprises, Inc. v. Medaglia (In re Medaglia) · filed 1993-06-23(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3)(B) constitutes an insurmountable hurdle to the Creditors: they had actual notice of the Debtor’s case in time to file a dischargeability complaint or move for an extension of such time, but did neither.

Section 523(a)(3) limits discharge of debts owed to creditors who were not listed or scheduled; an incorrect address did not prevent discharge where the creditor knew of the bankruptcy.

Agristor Credit Corp. v. Boyd · filed 1993-06-30(a)(3)

The Court is satisfied that the Magistrate’s recommendation is correct and hereby accepts and adopts the Magistrate’s findings and recommendation. ... A Chapter 7 discharge is ineffective only against creditors not scheduled or listed. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3); ... Plaintiff knew about the bankruptcy proceeding and did not contest it.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) leaves a debt nondischargeable when a creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Benham · filed 1993-08-10(a)(3)(A)

Inasmuch as it has already been held that the Whortons did not receive actual or other notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy, the debt owed to the Whortons is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an unscheduled debt nondischargeable in a no-asset case when no deadline for filing claims has been set.

Miller v. Schuchardt (In Re Miller) · filed 1993-08-17(a)(3)(A)

Since a deadline for filing proofs of claim is never set in a no-asset case, an unscheduled creditor is not deprived of the opportunity to file a proof of. claim within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats a creditor’s knowledge of a Chapter 11 case as knowledge of the case after conversion to Chapter 7.

Connolly v. Haendiges (In Re Haendiges) · filed 1993-09-28(a)(3)(B)

Because § 348 does not effect the commencement or continuation of the case, knowledge of the case in chapter 11 is knowledge within the terms of § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) excludes from discharge claims of creditors who were not listed, scheduled, or notified in time to contest the bankruptcy.

Corsale v. Pantry Pride Supermarket, Inc. · filed 1993-10-25(a)(3)

Pursuant to 11 USC § 523 (a) (3), a discharge in bankruptcy does not apply to creditors who are *661not listed, scheduled, or notified of the proceeding in time to afford an opportunity to file opposition in the Bankruptcy Court (see, In re David, 106 BR 126; In re Bowen v Franks, 102 BR 752; In re Ford, 87 BR 641; Matter of Coppi, 75 BR 81; In re Iannacone, 21 BR 153).

Section 523(a)(3) makes an unlisted creditor’s claim nondischargeable when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

Jones v. Arross · filed 1993-10-29(a)(3)

Because she was not listed among Mr. Jones’ creditors, her claim is nondischargeable.

An omitted creditor who lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy may seek a determination of dischargeability for a debt under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) after the usual complaint deadline.

Glosser v. Parrish Real Estate (In Re Grant) · filed 1993-11-12(a)(3)(B)

Under the teachings of Beezley, and American Standard Ins. Co. v. Bakehorn, 147 B.R. 480, 483-4 (N.D.Ind.1992), a creditor is not barred from filing a complaint to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), if the creditor was not scheduled in time to do so before the bar date, or did not have notice or actual knowledge in time to do so.

Section 523(a)(3) does not discharge an unlisted debt when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy, even in a no-asset case.

Douglas v. Douglas · filed 1993-11-23(a)(3)

In a no-asset case such as this, he argues, the debt should nevertheless be discharged because there was nothing for wife to share even if she had received notice of the bankruptcy. Although this argument has some practical appeal, the bankruptcy code contains no such provision. In the absence of clear statutory authorization, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to consider this fact.

Section 523(a)(3) makes dischargeability of an omitted debt depend on the creditor’s opportunity to file a claim or seek a dischargeability determination; reopening the case to add the creditor does not change the result.

In Re Humar · filed 1993-12-22(a)(3)

Reopening the case and amending the schedules is of no consequence with respect to the application of § 727(b) and § 523(a)(3) and will not accomplish the nunc pro tunc discharge the Debtors are seeking.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not bar discharge of an inadvertently omitted debt when the creditor is scheduled in time to protect its rights.

Matter of Stone · filed 1994-01-03(a)(3)(A)

Because the Stones' failure to list the Caplans as creditors was solely due to mistake or inadvertence and because the Caplans were scheduled in time to protect their rights, section 523(a)(3)(A) is inapplicable here.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor whose debt was not scheduled in time, and who lacked timely notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy, to pursue certain dischargeability claims after the ordinary deadline.

Hiersche v. Brassard (In Re Brassard) · filed 1994-01-05(a)(3)(B)

However, a creditor whose claim was not scheduled in time to permit it to file a timely dischargeability complaint under Rule 4007(c) is not barred from pursuing its § 523(a)(2), (a)(4) or (a)(6) claim after the rule’s bar date, so long as it meets § 523(a)(3)(b)’s other criteria.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits discharge of an unlisted debt when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Penrod v. Arone (In Re Arone) · filed 1994-01-21(a)(3)(B)

Section 523 provides that a debt “neither listed nor scheduled” shall not be discharged “unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the ease in time” to permit timely filing of a proof of claim. ... Arone does not dispute that the McCullaghs had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy. ... Because the debts at issue were discharged in 1991 by operation of law, the motion to reopen will be denied as unnecessary.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) makes a creditor’s actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a dischargeability complaint, rather than scheduling of the debt, the criterion for discharge of a debt covered by § 523(a)(6).

In re Renfro · filed 1994-01-31(a)(3)(B)

Under § 523(a)(3)(B), the criterion for discharge of a debt nondisehargeable under § 523(a)(6) is the creditor’s actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a complaint to determine dischargeability... rather than scheduling.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an omitted debt nondischargeable in a no asset, no bar date case, even if the debtor intentionally omitted it.

Karras v. Hansen (In Re Karras) · filed 1994-03-09(a)(3)(A)

Today, we adopt this reasoning as well. In a no asset case, the failure to list a debt does not transform a dischargeable liability into a nondisehargeable one. ... Nothing in section 523(a)(3) refers to the debtor’s state of mind.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge solely because it was scheduled late when no deadline for filing proofs of claim has been set.

In Re McKinnon · filed 1994-03-24(a)(3)(A)

In a no-asset Chapter 7 case in which the Rule 2002(e) notice has issued, no time limit for filing proofs of claim is ever established. Thus, late scheduling of the debt does not prevent timely filing of a proof of claim and, accordingly, the debt is not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts certain unscheduled debts from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice or knowledge to file a claim and request a dischargeability determination.

In re Solkow · filed 1994-03-28(a)(3)(B)

Accordingly, the debt to Shearson falls within section 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, and Debtor’s discharge, dated May 5, 1992, did not constitute a discharge of the debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) governs whether an unscheduled debt is discharged when the creditor lacked timely notice to file a proof of claim.

In Re Cieslak · filed 1994-04-19(a)(3)(A)

First, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), the Credit Union is not barred from discharge since it was never notified of the impending bankruptcy.

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

Matter of Smith · filed 1994-05-27(a)(3)

Under § 523(a)(3), the debt owed to Omni, which had no timely actual or constructive notice of the Smiths' Chapter 11 case, was not discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats a creditor omitted from the mailing matrix as unscheduled, even if the creditor appears in the debtor’s schedules.

Krakowiak v. Lyman (In Re Lyman) · filed 1994-04-28(a)(3)(B)

In view of this rule and because the Court believes that the purpose of section 523(a)(3)(B) is to ensure proper notice to all creditors, the Court adopts the reasoning set forth in Adams and holds that when a creditor is omitted from the matrix, that creditor is not “scheduled” within the meaning of 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a debt nondischargeable when inadequate scheduling deprives the creditor of timely notice or actual knowledge needed to file a claim and seek a dischargeability determination.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Faden (In Re Faden) · filed 1994-05-16(a)(3)(B)

11 U.S.C. § 523 excepts from discharge those debts owed to creditors who were not noticed of the bankruptcy. ... The basis for the INA debt’s being non-dischargeable is the lack of proper notice. The debt, regardless of its character and who is responsible for its payment, is not dischargeable in this proceeding.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts a fraud class debt from discharge if it is scheduled after the deadline for filing a dischargeability complaint, even in a no-asset case.

In Re Thompson · filed 1995-01-30(a)(3)(B)

Once either the time for filing of dischargeability complaints or the time for filing proofs of claims has expired, section 523(a)(3)(B) is triggered and fraud debts scheduled thereafter are excepted from discharge.

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

Novark v. Schelsteder (In re Schelsteder) · filed 1995-02-15(a)(3)(B)

Since the time for timely filing a dischargeability case expired prior to No-vark’s actual knowledge of the case or notice of the case, the debt is not discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a creditor unbound by the dischargeability complaint deadline when an unscheduled debt and lack of timely notice prevent the creditor from filing a timely claim and request for a dischargeability determination.

Harper v. Burrier (In Re Burrier) · filed 1995-03-31(a)(3)(B)

Miller did not receive notice, either formal or inquiry, of the Debtor’s bankruptcy 30 days before the bar date for the filing of dischargeability complaints as required in Rule 4007(c). Thus, she is not bound by the September 19, 1994 bar date. Because her debt was not scheduled at least 30 days before the bar date, Miller has been denied the right to timely file a proof of claim and a request for a determination of nondischarge-ability.

Notice of a bankruptcy case on the filing deadline, coupled with a promise to send documentation that never arrives, is inadequate notice under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Mitchell Construction Co. v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1995-04-06(a)(3)(B)

Notice of the pendency of a bankruptcy case on the day that time expired, coupled with a promise to send written documentation which was never sent, is inadequate to constitute adequate notice under Mullane and § 523(a)(3)(B). Therefore, Mitchell did not receive actual notice of Debtor’s bankruptcy case in time for Mitchell to timely file a complaint or a request for extension of time. Mitchell’s complaint under § 523(a)(3) will be allowed and Debtor’s motion to dismiss DENIED.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor with timely, actual knowledge of a Chapter 7 case to act before the bar date even without formal notice of that deadline.

In Re Medaglia · filed 1995-04-14(a)(3)(B)

The statute itself, in Sec. 523(a)(3)(B), does contain a constructive notice clause that makes crystal clear that a creditor with timely, actual knowledge of the "case" does not have the "right to assume" that it will receive formal notice before its claims are barred.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when no claims bar date was set, but equitable estoppel can prevent a debtor from asserting discharge after concealing the bankruptcy while the creditor incurs litigation costs.

In Re Raanan · filed 1995-04-18(a)(3)(A)

Because no claims bar date was set, the § 523(a)(3)(A) exception to discharge was not triggered with respect to the claim at issue. ... Application of equitable estoppel is appropriate where a bankruptcy debtor’s intentional failure to provide the required notice results in the unsuspecting creditor proceeding with litigation at significant additional cost of time and money.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) leaves an unlisted debt undischarged unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to protect the claim.

Cato v. Cato · filed 1995-04-18(a)(3)(A)

Knowledge or notice must be acquired in time to protect your rights and the finding does not make clear whether plaintiff knew defendant had filed for bankruptcy in time to do so. If she did acquire such knowledge in sufficient time and did nothing to protect her rights, the debt would be discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge if the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and request a dischargeability determination.

Lucchesi v. Lucchesi (In Re Lucchesi) · filed 1995-05-16(a)(3)(B)

In like manner, § 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge, notwithstanding its untimely scheduling, if the “creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing [of a proof of claim] and request [for a determination of dischargeability].” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits discharge of an omitted debt when the omission was an honest mistake or the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

Raines v. Brooker (In Re Raines) · filed 1995-06-05(a)(3)(B)

Thus, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) prevents the discharge of debts fraudulently omitted from the schedules unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim.

In a no-asset case with no claim deadline, § 523(a)(3) does not except a debt from discharge solely because the debtor omitted it from the schedules, even intentionally; discharge depends on the kind of debt.

In Re Woolard · filed 1995-06-08(a)(3)

As discussed above, the debt is not excepted from the discharge previously entered solely on the ground it was not listed on the debtors’ schedules, even though the omission was intentional. Whether the debt has been discharged depends on whether it is of the kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a debt of the kind described in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) undischarged if the creditor was not properly scheduled and lacked notice or knowledge of the case.

Carpet Services, Inc. v. Hutchison (In Re Hutchison) · filed 1995-09-20(a)(3)(B)

Since Carpet Services, Inc. was not properly scheduled and had no actual notice or knowledge of the case, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) provides that the debt is not discharged if it is of a kind specified in section 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor who lacked notice of an unscheduled debt to prove that the debt falls within a specified exception to discharge.

Pulley v. Langfitt (In Re Pulley) · filed 1995-12-05(a)(3)(B)

Accordingly, in addition to the proof demonstrating that there was no notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case, Langfitt must prove his cause of action under section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(3) allows an unscheduled debt in a no-asset Chapter 7 case to be discharged if it is not of a kind specified in paragraphs (2), (4), or (6); the creditor bears the burden of proving that an exception applies.

In Re Jones · filed 1996-01-29(a)(3)

In summary, in a no asset Chapter 7 ease where a notice pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2002(e) issued and where the claim is not of a kind specified in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), (6), an unscheduled debt is discharged. That fact is not altered by reopening the case and scheduling the omitted debt. If the debt is of a kind found in subsections (2), (4), or (6), it may be excepted from discharge. The creditor bears the burden of proving the same either in an adversary or state court proceeding. This issue is also not decided in a motion to reopen.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy before discharge.

Gagan v. American Cablevision, Inc. · filed 1996-02-27(a)(3)(B)

Since Gagan had no notice of Theurer’s bankruptcy until after the April 13, 1992, discharge order, that order did not discharge Theurer’s debt in this case. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

An omitted creditor with a prepetition claim must have an opportunity to seek a determination of nondischargeability under § 523(a).

In Re Russell · filed 1996-02-28(a)

Because the Shannons’ claim is a prepetition claim, and because the Shannons are entitled to an opportunity to have a determination made about whether their claim is nondischargeable, debtors’ motion to reopen is granted, subject to the payment of any necessary fees. ... The Shannons shall have sixty (60) days from the date of service upon them of the amendment adding them as creditors within which to file any complaint objecting to the dischargeability of the debt owed to them, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case with no deadline to file proofs of claim.

In Re Gardner · filed 1996-03-06(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3) excepts from discharge a debt if it was not scheduled in time to permit the timely filing of a proof of claim, however, because there is no bar date to file proofs of claims, there will never be a deadline for the timely filing of a proof of claim in this case and § 523(a)(3)(A) will never come into play.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case with no deadline for filing claims.

Judd v. Wolfe · filed 1996-03-11(a)(3)(A)

Because this is a "no-asset" Chapter 7 case, the time for filing a claim has not, and never will, expire unless some exempt assets are discovered; thus, section 523(a)(3)(A) cannot be applied in Judd's circumstances.

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

North River Insurance v. Baskowitz (In Re Baskowitz) · filed 1996-03-28(a)(3)(A)

In a case where no assets are available, and there has been no deadline set for creditors to file proofs of claim, Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not render the unscheduled debt non-dischargeable because there is not yet a time when it is too late to permit a ' timely filing of a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an improperly scheduled debt to be discharged if the creditor receives actual notice in time to seek a determination of dischargeability; ten or eleven days before the bar date was sufficient here.

Employers Workers' Compensation Ass'n v. Kelley (In Re Kelley) · filed 1996-04-01(a)(3)(B)

Under these provisions of the Code and the Bankruptcy Rules, a debt subject to a § 523(a)(6) objection is not discharged unless it was properly scheduled. If it was not properly scheduled, then in order for the debt to be discharged, the creditor must receive actual notice of the bankruptcy filing in time to permit the filing of a complaint objecting to the dischargeability of its debt. ... Similarly, in the case presently before the Court, Plaintiff received actual notice of the bankruptcy and of the bar date ten or eleven days prior to its expiration. Ten or eleven days is more than sufficient time in which to prepare a complaint to determine discharge-ability or to request an extension of time within which to file such a complaint. Accordingly, the adversary proceeding is dismissed for failure to timely file the complaint for determination of dischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a debt undischarged when the creditor had no notice of the bankruptcy before the discharge order.

Gagan v. American Cablevision · filed 1996-04-01(a)(3)(B)

Since Gagan had no notice of Theurer's bankruptcy until after the April 13, 1992, discharge order, that order did not discharge Theurer's debt in this case. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)’s timely filing rule for unscheduled creditors is informed by Rule 4007(c)’s 30-day notice requirement.

Sophir Co. v. Heiney (In Re Heiney) · filed 1996-04-16(a)(3)

The section is silent as to what constitutes a “timely” filing. As the Ninth Circuit did in Dewalt, the logical approach is to look to Rule 4007(c), the Rule implementing § 523, for guidance. ... By reading the 30-day requirement out of Rule 4007(e) in this case, the bankruptcy court also foreclosed the possibility of a remedy under § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor has actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability determination but fails to do so.

In Re Marino · filed 1996-05-14(a)(3)(B)

However, as Thompson had actual notice of the bankruptcy and enough time to file a complaint, § 523(a)(3)(B) indicates that the debt owed him should be discharged if a complaint to decide dischargeability is not timely filed.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits an omitted creditor who lacked notice of the original deadline to seek a dischargeability determination after that deadline.

In Re Walker · filed 1996-04-26(a)(3)(B)

The Court determines that it has the power to provide new deadlines for the assertion of complaints objecting to the discharge of § 523(c)-type debts on the following bases. First, Section 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code can serve as an independent basis for raising these grounds for determination in the bankruptcy court, because where the creditors were not listed and given the deadline notice required by Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), the creditors may file a complaint for such determination “at any time” pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 4007(b).

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when no deadline for filing a proof of claim was set.

Maroney v. Bowman (In Re Maroney) · filed 1996-05-03(a)(3)

However, Section 523(a)(3) provides that the discharge does not extend to a debt which is “neither listed nor scheduled” in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim. In this case, no bar date was ever set for the filing of a proof of claim; therefore the exception under Section 523(a)(3) does not apply. Therefore, under the terms of the Bankruptcy Code, the debt owed to the Respondent has been discharged.

In a no-asset Chapter 7 case, an omitted creditor must show that its claim arises from fraud to except the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Matter of Johnson · filed 1996-05-22(a)(3)(B)

The end result is that when a “no-asset” debtor attempts to amend its petition to include a creditor, Section 523(a)(3)(B) governs the analysis. In other words, for a creditor of a “no-asset” Chapter 7 debtor to except a late claim from discharge, it must prove that the claim arises out of fraud.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) requires notice that adequately identifies a debtor’s attempt to discharge a spouse’s marital claim.

Justice v. Justice · filed 1996-09-17(a)(3)(A)

However, notice may be found to be insufficient where the debtor fails to schedule the non-debtor spouse as a creditor or where the notice fails to specify that the debtor is attempting to discharge marital interests. ... Under the facts of this case, we find that plaintiff received adequate notice that his marital interests were at issue but he did not object to the discharge of marital debts nor request relief from the stay to pursue an action for equitable distribution.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) requires a debtor to exercise reasonable diligence in listing a creditor's address; a telephone directory may not suffice when the debtor's own files contain the correct address.

Faden v. Ins Co of N America · filed 1996-10-09(a)(3)(A)

While reliance on a telephone directory may be reasonable in some circumstances, it did not suffice here because Appellants could have easily referenced their own files to find the requisite information.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) can leave a debt nondischargeable when debtors fail to use readily available address information to notify a creditor.

In the Matter of Alan J. Faden Harriet B. Faden, Debtors. Alan J. Faden Harriet B. Faden v. Insurance Company of North A · filed 1996-11-07(a)(3)(A)

Despite this readily available information, the Fadens made no attempt to provide any address to their counsel. The bankruptcy court was thus correct in holding that Appellants did not reasonably calculate their notice under the circumstances.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves a qualifying omitted debt undischarged when the creditor lacked notice in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Wilborn v. Gallagher (In Re Wilborn) · filed 1996-11-21(a)(3)(B)

However, there is an exception to the interplay of these rules if the debt falls under the § 523(a)(3)(B) exception where the creditor could not timely file a complaint because he was omitted from the schedules. In a closed, no asset case, if the debt is of a type covered by § 523(a)(3)(B), it has not been discharged, and is nondischargeable.

A debtor seeking discharge of an omitted creditor’s debt must present substantial evidence that the creditor received notice of the bankruptcy.

John Deere Co. v. Blevins · filed 1996-12-20(a)(3)

In the instant case, however, the Housers should have presented substantial evidence that John Deere received notice, by providing a copy of their bankruptcy petition or a copy of the mailing list of the creditors.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unlisted or unscheduled debt from discharge unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

State Ex Rel. Rough v. District Court of Eighth Judicial District · filed 1985-12-05(a)(3)

Section 523 (a) (3) provides that debts neither listed nor scheduled are excepted from discharge unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case to permit timeI-y filing of a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an omitted debt from discharge when lack of timely notice prevents the creditor from filing a proof of claim in an asset case or from objecting on specified grounds in a no-asset case.

In Re Guzman · filed 1991-07-24(a)(3)

That section, briefly, excludes from the debtor’s discharge claims held by creditors who, in an asset case, did not learn of the bankruptcy in time to timely file a proof of claim, or in a no-asset case, did not learn of the bankruptcy in time to timely file an objection to discharge based on subsection (2), (4), or (6) (and whose claim would in fact have been exempted from discharge under one of those subdivisions had a timely objection been filed).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply to properly listed creditors; it excepts debts owed to unlisted creditors from discharge unless they had timely notice or knowledge to file a dischargeability complaint.

In Re Barnes · filed 1990-05-31(a)(3)(B)

Because General Electric was properly listed by the debtors as a creditor, this case is not governed by § 523(a)(3)(B), which provides that debts of unlisted creditors will be excepted from discharge unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a dis-chargeability complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice in time to file a proof of claim.

In re Harper · filed 1997-03-14(a)(3)(A)

The test under the language of section 523(a)(3)(A) turns on whether the omitted creditor received notice sufficient to permit filing a timely proof of claim. No such notice was received by the creditor in this case.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge solely because the creditor lacked notice when no deadline for filing claims was set.

In re Kirk · filed 1997-03-20(a)(3)

Thus, if the court has not set a bar date for filing proofs of claim, then the debt is excepted from discharge, or can be excepted from discharge, only if it comes within one of the other exceptions in § 523(a); in that situation, § 523(a)(3) does not make lack of notice a sufficient ground to except the debt for discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge solely because the creditor lacked notice when no deadline for filing claims was set.

In Re Harrison · filed 1997-03-28(a)(3)(A)

Thus, if the court has not set a bar date for filing proofs of claim, then the debt is excepted from discharge, or can be excepted from discharge, only if it comes within one of the other exceptions in § 523(a); in that situation, § 523(a)(3) does not make lack of notice a sufficient ground to except the debt from discharge.

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 proof of claim.

Stewart v. Cogswell Motors, Inc. (In Re Stewart) · filed 1997-04-03(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) provides that a debt will not be discharged if the creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for the timely filing of a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor had no notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Woodward v. Tuller, No. Cv95-551901 (Apr. 14, 1997) · filed 1997-04-14(a)(3)

Inasmuch as this court has found that the plaintiff had no notice or actual knowledge, the court must find that the debt owed by the defendant to the plaintiff was not discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3) does not revive an expired dischargeability claim when the debt was listed and the creditor knew of the bankruptcy case.

In Re Cloninger · filed 1997-05-29(a)(3)

Moreover, the ability to proceed under any of these subsections cannot be resurrected pursuant to section 523(a)(3) because the debt was listed and Hamilton indisputably had knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings.

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

Dawson v. Unruh (In Re Dawson) · filed 1997-06-19(a)(3)(A)

The language of § 523(a)(3)(A) clearly denies discharge of a debt that is not scheduled in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing.

Section 523(a)(3) allows discharge of a debt to an unlisted creditor who had notice of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Hobby Horizens, Inc. v. Sapere · filed 1997-08-06(a)(3)

We also find that both courts correctly determined that the Saperes' debt to Hobby was discharged, despite the fact that the Saperes did not list Hobby as a creditor, because Hobby had notice of the filing. See 11 U.S.C. S 523(a)(3) (indicating that discharge is effective with respect to unlisted creditor who had notice or actual notice of the case in time to submit a timely proof of claim).

Section 523(a)(3) leaves a debt undischarged when a known creditor was not scheduled in time to file a proof of claim and lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Casmar, Inc. v. Correia · filed 1997-08-12(a)(3)

A discharge does not operate to bar the collection of a pre-existing debt if the creditor, whose name is known to the debtor, is not listed or scheduled in time to permit timely filing of a proof of claim unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a Chapter 7 no-asset case with no claims bar date when the debt is not of a kind covered by the listed exceptions.

McMahon v. Harmon (In Re Harmon) · filed 1997-09-25(a)(3)

They cannot except it under Section 523(a)(3). Because the debtors filed a Chapter 7 no-asset case in which no bar date was ever set, the movants were never deprived of an opportunity to file timely proof of their unlisted claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset case when the creditor can still file a timely proof of claim.

Kirkpatrick v. Kogan (In Re Kirkpatrick) · filed 1997-10-08(a)(3)(A)

Moreover, since the Defendants do not assert that the debt owed by the Debtor is of the kind within the exception §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), the debt under consideration is not within the exception of § 523(a)(3). In sum, regardless of what is fair, it appears from a literal reading of § 523(a)(3) that these debts have been discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) generally does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case unless the debt falls within the exceptions in Section 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

In re Cerrudo · filed 1997-10-27(a)(3)

In summary, in a no-asset chapter 7 case, unscheduled debts are not excepted from discharge by virtue of Section 523(a)(3) unless the debt would be non-dischargeable under one of the intentional tort exceptions contained in Section 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an unlisted creditor’s claim in an assets case unless the creditor received notice or had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file the appropriate papers.

Hester v. Brewster · filed 1997-12-30(a)(3)

We also note 11 U.S.C. secs. 523(a)(3)(A & B) provide that the claims of creditors not listed by the debtor are not discharged in an assets case unless the creditor was given notice or had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file the appropriate papers. The judgment of the bankruptcy court recites that all debts dischargeable under section 523 are discharged. Because it has not been established whether plaintiff had such knowledge, it is not possible on the record to determine whether the debt sued upon was in fact discharged by that judgment.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an omitted debt in a no-asset case when no deadline for filing claims was set.

Matter of McDaniel · filed 1998-01-30(a)(3)(A)

Furthermore, to the extent that an assetless liquidation case is involved, the lack of any claims bar date in these proceedings makes Code section 523(a)(3)(A) likewise inapplicable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires creditors with actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case to act in time to protect a claim that a debt is excepted from discharge.

McNair v. Rainsford · filed 1998-03-02(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3)(B) explicitly places a burden on creditors with knowledge of bankruptcy proceedings to act to protect their rights. The McNairs did not file an objection to the dischargeability of their claims. Consequently, any claims they may have had were discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unlisted prepetition debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case with no claims-bar date.

Clark v. Trumble · filed 1998-03-18(a)(3)(A)

Trumble argues that, in the absence of a claims-bar date, proofs of claim can be filed at any time and that, consequently, § 523(a)(3)(A) has no application in no-asset cases. We agree. Prefiling debts in a no-asset, no-claims-bar-date chapter 7 case are, with some exceptions, discharged without regard to their inclusion in the petition.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case once the creditor learns of the bankruptcy and can file a timely claim.

Zirnhelt v. Madaj · filed 1998-07-16(a)(3)(A)

For this reason, there is no deadline for filing a timely proof of claim in a no-asset ease. Technically speaking, therefore, no matter when the creditor learns of the bankruptcy, he is able to file a timely claim. Because § 523(a)(3)(A) excepts the unscheduled debt from discharge “unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing,” the moment the creditor receives notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy case, § 523(a)(3)(A) ceases to provide the basis for an exception from discharge. Consequently, the debt is at that point discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor did not know the unlisted creditor, even if that creditor missed the deadline to seek a dischargeability determination.

Attorneys Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. Lottes (In Re Lottes) · filed 1998-10-22(a)(3)(B)

For a debt to be nondisehargeable under Section 523(a)(3)(B), the record must establish that a creditor known to the debtor was not listed, and that the debt is of a kind specified in paragraph 523(a)(2), (4) or (6). The absence of any one of these requirements is dispositive of the inquiry. Therefore, having determined that this Plaintiff was not known to the Debtor, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the debt is of a kind specified in paragraph 523(a)(2), (4) or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a Chapter 7 no-asset case when no deadline for filing claims has been set and the debt is outside paragraphs (2), (4), and (6).

Herzig v. Park Avenue Leasing Corp. (In Re Herzig) · filed 1998-12-14(a)(3)(A)

That is, unless an unlisted creditor was precluded from fifing a timely proof of claim, it is irrelevant whether the creditor had notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding. ... Because Section 523(a)(3)(A) was inapplicable to the Park Avenue debt, and because Park Avenue concedes that the debt is not of a kind specified under Section 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), the Park Avenue debt was discharged under the Bankruptcy Court’s December 6, 1994 general discharge Order.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a no-asset case because no proof of claim need be filed.

Keenom v. All American Marketing (In Re Keenom) · filed 1999-02-01(a)(3)(A)

Because a proof of claim need not be filed in a no-asset case, section 523(a)(3)(A) does not apply in no-asset cases.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) generally excepts undisclosed debts from discharge, but undisclosed debts are discharged in a no-asset case because creditors suffer no prejudice.

Jacob v. Spurlin · filed 1999-02-09(a)(3)(A)

The general rule is that debts that are not disclosed in the bankruptcy proceedings are not discharged. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) (1995). ... However, the rule is otherwise in a no-asset case, such as this one. In a no-asset case, creditors are not prejudiced by any failure to disclose because there is nothing in the estate for them to split up in any event. See Judd v. Wolfe, 78 F.3d 110, 114-15 (3rd Cir.1996). Thus, even nondisclosed debts are discharged as a matter of law in no-asset cases.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve a nondischargeability claim for an unscheduled debt when the creditor’s attorney received notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a complaint.

Roberts v. Ginsburg (In Re Ginsburg) · filed 1999-03-18(a)(3)(B)

In this case, however, the Plaintiffs, cannot take advantage of § 523(a)(3)(B) as the Plaintiffs’ attorney received notice of the Defendant’s bankruptcy petition on July 21, 1997; this date being well before the August 4, 1997, deadline in which the Plaintiffs could have protected their rights by filing a dischargeability complaint under § 523(a)(4).

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

Hauge v. Skaar (In Re Hauge) · filed 1999-03-26(a)(3)(A)

In such a case, if the deadline for “timely filing of a proof of claim,” § 523(a)(3)(A), passes without the omitted creditor having received notice or actual knowledge of the case, the statute on its face requires that the debt be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3) does not make an omitted debt nondischargeable for lack of a timely claim opportunity in a no-asset case when the creditor can still file a claim if assets are discovered.

In Re Moyette · filed 1999-03-23(a)(3)

In view of these cases, to the extent that the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the debt to EAB 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, this Court disagrees. If the motion to amend were granted and EAB’s debt added to the others which were scheduled, EAB would have the same opportunity to file a timely notice of claim as any other creditor in the event any assets are discovered.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled fraud debt from Chapter 7 discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the Chapter 7 case in time to protect the claim.

Massa v. Addona (In re Massa) · filed 1999-08-10(a)(3)(B)

Because the Addonas had neither notice nor actual knowledge of the Chapter 7 proceeding, the debt was never discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) leaves an unscheduled fraud debt undischarged when the creditor lacks notice or actual knowledge of the Chapter 7 case in time to protect the claim.

In Re: Louis Paul Massa · filed 1999-08-10(a)(3)(B)

Examining the content of the letters, we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances the letters were insufficient to afford the Addonas actual knowledge of Massa's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. ... Because the Addonas had neither notice nor actual knowledge of the Chapter 7 proceeding, the debt was never discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) denies discharge of an unscheduled debt in an asset case when the creditor lacked notice in time to file a claim, even if unsecured creditors receive no distribution.

Geris v. MacKintosh (In Re Geris) · filed 1999-08-23(a)(3)

Accordingly, in asset cases 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) denies discharge notwithstanding the lack of distribution of a dividend to unsecured creditors.

Section 523(a)(3) requires a debtor seeking to discharge debts owed to omitted creditors to obtain a dischargeability determination in a separate adversary proceeding.

In re Excel Warren · filed 1999-09-23(a)(3)

In order to discharge the omitted creditors, the debtor must file a separate adversary proceeding requesting a determination of the dischargeability of the debt pursuant.to section 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3) excepts a creditor’s claim from discharge if the debtor fails to list it properly and the creditor lacks notice of the bankruptcy filing and deadlines.

Palmer Ex Rel. Estate of Palmer v. Hayden (In Re Hayden) · filed 1999-10-04(a)(3)

According to § 523(a)(3), a creditor’s claim is not discharged if the debtor does not properly list the claim in the schedules, and the creditor does not receive notice of the bankruptcy petition and filing dates.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits a dischargeability complaint after the bar date when the creditor lacked actual notice of the bankruptcy and the required notice was not served.

Finova Capital Corp. v. Li (In re Li) · filed 1999-12-13(a)(3)(B)

However, we think that the correct rule is that the actual notice necessary to give rise to the rather harsh principle that notice of the bankruptcy is notice of the bar date is real, as opposed to presumed, actual notice or notice in strict compliance with all applicable rules. The instant notice fails this test, since the requisite L.B.R. 1009-l(b)(l) notice was not dispatched by the Debtor.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an unlisted debt nondischargeable in a no-asset chapter 7 case when the creditor has not lost an opportunity to file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Toussaint · filed 2000-02-04(a)(3)(A)

Application of § 523(a)(3) is contingent upon the presence of assets in a chapter 7 case, “because in no-asset [c]hapter 7 cases no bar date is set, with the result that § 523(a)(3)(A) is never triggered in such cases.”

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when no proof-of-claim deadline applies and no separate ground for nondischargeability is asserted.

In Re Wells · filed 2000-03-24(a)(3)(A)

Where no nondischargeability is asserted under subsections (2), (4) or (6) of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), all debts are discharged unless the debtor fails to schedule the debts in time for the creditor to file a timely proof of claim. Where no proof of claim is required, there is no prejudice to the creditor in failing to list the debt in these circumstances.

A § 523(a)(3)(B) claim is not subject to the 60-day deadline for complaints under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Walker v. Hammons (In Re Hammons) · filed 2000-04-03(a)(3)(B)

Since a § 523(a)(3)(B) cause of action is not subject to the 60 day bar date, applicable to § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) causes of action, the court will not extend the present motion to dismiss to Walker’s § 523(a)(3)(B) cause of action.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor fails to schedule the creditor properly and the creditor lacks timely notice of the bankruptcy.

Stephenson v. LeBoeuf · filed 2000-05-25(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a debt is not discharged in bankruptcy if the creditor is neither properly listed nor scheduled. ... Here, LeBoeuf used an address that was several years old, demonstrating a lack of diligence.

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

In Re Cruz · filed 2000-06-21(a)(3)(A)

Therefore, § 523(a)(3)(A) does not apply, and “listing” the debt will not change the fact that a dischargeable debt was discharged pursuant to § 727(b).

Section 523(c)(1) discharges a previously unlisted debt of the kinds specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) unless the creditor requests and obtains a determination that the debt is excepted from discharge.

United States v. Westley · filed 2001-03-21(c)(1)

Section 523(c)(1) provides that even previously unlisted debts of the kind specified in paragraphs (2),(4) and (6) of section 523(a) will be discharged unless, on request of the creditor, the court determines that those debts are excepted from discharge.

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 claim.

In Re Feldman · filed 2001-04-10(a)(3)(A)

Here, since NAB was a “known” creditor of the Debtor entitled under the terms of the Supplemental Bar Order to actual notice of the Claims Bar Date and neither NAB nor its assignee Nepco received notice of the filing of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, the Nepco Claim may not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor to seek a dischargeability determination at any time for an unscheduled fraud debt when the creditor lacked timely notice of the claim.

Erie Insurance v. Romano (In Re Romano) · filed 2001-05-23(a)(3)(B)

What was not listed, however, was a tort claim for fraud and because plaintiff had no reason to know that this tort claim existed, it did not have the requisite notice to enable it to timely file a complaint pursuant to § 523(a)(2). Since an unscheduled tort debt is treated under § 523(a)(3)(B), a complaint to determine non-dischargeability may be brought at any time.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) makes actual notice of a bankruptcy sufficient to require a creditor to inquire about the deadline for a dischargeability complaint.

In Re Tucker · filed 2001-06-19(a)(3)(B)

While this may seem to be an unfairly strict interpretation of Rule 4007, as discussed in In re Alton, 837 F.2d 457 (11th Cir.1988), any interpretation that the language of Rule 4007(c) gives a creditor the right to such official notice before the creditor is under a duty to make inquiries to protect his own rights would conflict with the language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B), which makes actual notice sufficient to impose a duty-to-inquire on the creditor.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor to seek a dischargeability determination when notice of the bankruptcy case arrives too late to permit a timely complaint, even if notice through counsel is imputed to the creditor.

In Re Linzer · filed 2001-07-03(a)(3)(B)

The Court holds that under the circumstances of this case notice of a pending bankruptcy case nine days before the expiration of the deadline to file nondischarge-ability complaints is inadequate.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an omitted debt nondischargeable in a no asset Chapter 7 case with no claims bar date; equitable considerations do not change that result.

Watson v. Parker (In Re Parker) · filed 2001-07-13(a)(3)(A)

We conclude that equitable considerations do not impact the dischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(3)(A), and therefore, it was unnecessary to reopen the Debtor’s Chapter 7 case for the purpose of making that determination.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled non-fraud debt in a no-asset case because the creditor can still file a timely proof of claim.

In Re Garrett · filed 2001-08-03(a)(3)(A)

Therefore, an unscheduled creditor in a case with no assets is never prevented from “timely filing” proof of its claim, as contemplated by section 523(a)(3)(A). ... Accordingly, in a “no-asset” case, non-fraud claims are still discharged, even if they are never added to thq schedules.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor whose debt was not timely listed to bring a dischargeability complaint after the usual deadline if the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy; hearing that a debtor intends to file does not establish actual knowledge.

Today Homes, Inc. v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 2001-10-01(a)(3)(B)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), a debt is not discharged if it is not listed in time to allow the creditor to bring a timely complaint, unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case. ... However, “actual knowledge” does not exist where a creditor is only told of a debtor’s intention to file for bankruptcy at some time in the future.

Section 523(a)(3) determines whether an omitted debt is discharged; adding it to the schedules after the case closes does not change that result.

In Re Rollinson · filed 2002-02-19(a)(3)

The mere filing of amended schedules in a reopened ease, however, does not impact the dis-chargeability of any debt to an omitted creditor is determined solely by reference to the standards of Section 523(a)(3) — a determination which is unaffected by a debtor’s late scheduling of a debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unlisted § 523(a)(15) divorce debt from discharge.

Dixon v. Dixon (In Re Dixon) · filed 2002-04-29(a)(3)(B)

In this case, while the omission seems inadvertent, it does not lead to an absurd result, so the Court will not read § 523(a)(3)(B) to protect unlisted § 523(a)(15) debts from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires timely notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy case, not knowledge of the creditor’s claim.

In Re Parks · filed 2002-06-05(a)(3)(B)

Because Devon Title had notice of the case, the exception to discharge found in § 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply. Devon Title argues that it did not have knowledge of its claim prepetition. However, the language of § 523(a)(3)(B) refers to knowledge of the case, not knowledge of the claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an omitted debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice or knowledge to file a claim; state and bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide that issue.

Compañia Franco Panameña de Inversiones, SA v. EHG Enterprises., Inc. · filed 2002-06-13(a)(3)(A)

Este hecho, el de no haber incluido la deuda en el inventario correspondiente, ubica la determinación de la liberación en este caso bajo la Sección 523 (a) (3) sobre la cual ambos foros, el federal y estatal, tienen jurisdicción.

Adding an omitted creditor to a debtor’s schedules does not determine whether the debt is excepted from discharge under Section 523.

In Re Cheely · filed 2002-06-26

The parties have not pursued any of these options, and the question of dischargeability is not answered by Debtor merely adding the omitted creditor to his schedules.

Section 523(a)(3) does not automatically except an unlisted debt from discharge; a creditor claiming intentional wrongdoing must prove the underlying claim.

Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. · filed 2002-11-21(a)(3)

Furthermore, Webber’s failure to list the corporations as creditors did not automatically make their unscheduled claims nondischargeable; creditors must prove their causes of action pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) to prevail under § 523(a)(3).

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

Eisinger v. Zito (In Re Eisinger) · filed 2003-01-13(a)(3)(B)

The debt owed by the Debtor to the Zitos is nondisehargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(3)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debt was not listed by the Debtor on his chapter 7 schedules in time to permit the Zitos to file a claim or complaint to determine its dischargeability. Additionally, the debt was obtained by false pretenses or a false representation, and therefore is of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the debt satisfies all of the elements for nondischargeability set forth in § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when no claims deadline was set in a no-asset case and no basis for an objection under (a)(2), (4), or (6) is asserted.

In Re Presley · filed 2003-01-15(a)(3)

Neither of the two situations noted is applicable to this case because 1) no deadline was ever set to file a timely proof of claim because the case was originally noticed as a “no asset” case for which no proof of claim should be filed and this status never changed, and 2) there has been no assertion that Presley’s debt to Amos was subject to a valid objection to dischargeability under section 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits an omitted debt to be discharged when the omission was innocent and caused no administrative disruption or creditor prejudice.

Amer Chiropractic v. Rodriguez · filed 2003-02-10(a)(3)(A)

This circuit employs the three-prong test in Robinson v. Mann, 339 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1964), to determine whether a debtor’s failure to list a creditor prevents the discharge of the unlisted debt under § 523. ... Because the Robinson factors, in light of the facts in this case, favor discharge, the bankruptcy court’s discharge of Rodriguez’s debt to ACC was not error.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) allows discharge of an unscheduled Chapter 7 debt when the creditor learned of the case in time to file a tardy proof of claim and share in the distribution.

Kowalski v. Romano · filed 2003-03-03(a)(3)(A)

In Chapter 7 cases, however, creditors who file their proof of claim by the date specified in Rule 3002 share equally in the distribution with creditors who file by the date specified in § 726(a)(2)(C). Determining timeliness to include claims filed pursuant to § 726(a)(2)(C) is consistent with the policy in favor of discharge and a fresh start for the debtor.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a Chapter 7 no-asset case with no claims deadline, unless the debt falls under another exception to discharge.

Deutsch-Sokol v. Northside Savings Bank (In Re Deutsch-Sokol) · filed 2003-03-05(a)(3)(A)

Because section 523(a)(3)(A) was inapplicable to the NFB debt, and because there is no indication that that debt is of a kind specified under section 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), the NFB debt was discharged under the Bankruptcy Court’s January 22, 1996 general discharge Order.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not extend the time to seek a dischargeability determination when a creditor receives timely notice of the bankruptcy through an attorney acting as its agent.

Chanute Production Credit Ass'n v. Schicke (In Re Schicke) · filed 2003-03-17(a)(3)(B)

The attorney-agent's receipt of formal notice prior to the expiration of the Discharge Objection Deadline [20] is imputed to CPCA and, thus, precludes the application of § 523(a)(3)(B) because CPCA did not timely protect its rights under § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when no claims bar date prevents the creditor from filing a proof of claim.

Horizon Aviation of Virginia, Inc. v. Alexander · filed 2003-08-04(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not apply to this case because debtor’s bankruptcy is a Chapter 7 no-asset case. Because no bar date is set for claims, creditors cannot be deprived of the opportunity to file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an unscheduled creditor without timely notice to prove that its debt qualifies for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6); a colorable claim alone is insufficient.

Jones v. Warren Construction (In Re Jones) · filed 2003-08-07(a)(3)(B)

A plain reading of § 523(a)(3)(B) makes the existence of a claim that would be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) an element of the unscheduled creditor’s burden of proof for nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor who lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to seek a dischargeability determination for a qualifying debt.

Le Grand Ex Rel. Le Grand v. Harbaugh (In Re Harbaugh) · filed 2003-10-29(a)(3)(B)

However, the record from the trial court is unnecessary for purposes of this determination that the creditor’s § 523(a)(3) cause of action remains viable. The fact issue of whether Ms. Le Grand, in her capacity of next friend to Taryn Le Grand, had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for timely filing a dischargeability complaint is still open and may be the subject of an adversary proceeding based on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when no claims bar date has been set and a proof of claim can still be filed timely.

In Re Gullone · filed 2003-11-21(a)(3)

Under section 523(a)(3), a section 727 discharge does not discharge a debt that is “neither listed nor scheduled ... in time to permit ... timely filing of a proof of claim.” 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3). ... In a no-asset Chapter 7 case, the time to permit the timely filing of a proof of claim never expires, because no bar date is set and no proofs of claim are required to be filed.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an omitted creditor’s ordinary prepetition debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case.

Timberville Electronics v. Harper · filed 2003-12-12(a)(3)

However, the prevailing law in Virginia is that, in a no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the failure to list a creditor does not effect the discharge of the non-listed creditor’s claim. ... In this case, there is no suggestion that the bankrupt committed any fraud in incurring or not listing the debt to Timberville Electronics.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an unscheduled creditor without timely notice to prove the full elements of its underlying nondischargeability claim.

First National Insurance Co. of America v. Bartomeli (In Re Bartomeli) · filed 2004-01-05(a)(3)(B)

For the reasons discussed, the court concludes that the Surety is required to prove here that it would have prevailed on a timely-filed Fraud Objection.

Section 523(a)(3)’s lack-of-notice exception does not apply when a creditor received notice of the bankruptcy despite inaccuracies in how its claim was listed.

Williams v. United Technologies Carrier Corp. · filed 2004-03-25(a)(3)

Both American Express and Carrier were served with the notice of bankruptcy and notice of discharge. Carrier’s assertion that -it did not have notice or actual knowledge of Williams’ bankruptcy case is simply unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, the lack of “notice or actual knowledge” exception to discharge outlined in 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3) is not applicable under the facts of this case.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an omitted debt from discharge in a no-asset case with no claims bar date when the omission does not prejudice the creditor’s right to file a claim.

In Re Houston · filed 2004-05-27(a)(3)

As the case at bar was a “no asset” case, meaning that no distribution was made to creditors, a claims bar date was not set. ... Therefore, the failure to list the three creditors in question did not prejudice their right to file a claim in this case. The failure to schedule these three creditors did not affect the debtor’s discharge and did not result in these debts being excepted from the coverage of the general discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an omitted ordinary debt from discharge in a no-asset case with no claims deadline; adding the debt to the schedules does not change its dischargeability.

In Re Guseck · filed 2004-05-28(a)(3)(A)

Accordingly, under the plain language of § 523(a)(3)(A), in a no-asset, no-bar-date bankruptcy case, there is no reason for a debtor to move to reopen the case to amend the schedules to add omitted garden variety debts. These debts already were included in the discharge of § 727, and amending the schedules has absolutely no effect on the dis-chargeability of the debts.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make an omitted creditor’s otherwise dischargeable debt nondischargeable in a no-assets Chapter 7 case with no deadline to file claims.

In Re Randall Todd Nielsen in Re Jerri Lea Nielsen, Debtors, Sharon White v. Randall Todd Nielsen Jerri Lea Nielsen · filed 2004-09-07(a)(3)(A)

The clerk did not send a notice that non-exempt assets had been located, because there were none, so the date to file claims was never set, and section 523(a)(3)(A) was never triggered.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor had timely notice of the bankruptcy, even if the debtor failed to list the claim.

Casey v. Mohamed · filed 2005-02-03(a)(3)(B)

However, even if it were shown that Ab-delrahman faded to list Casey’s pending claim in his petition, Bierman’s letter was copied to counsel for Casey, presumptively putting Casey on timely notice of the bankruptcy. Casey’s claim, therefore, cannot be excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no-asset, no-bar-date Chapter 7 case when the debt is not an intentional tort debt.

Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development Corp. v. Van Brackle Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2005-02-25(a)(3)(A)

In these cases, all debts other than intentional tort debts are presumptively dischargeable and need not be scheduled in order for the debtor to receive the benefit of a bankruptcy discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not protect a creditor who was listed on the debtor’s schedules and had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Rey v. Laureda (In Re Rey) · filed 2005-04-27(a)(3)(B)

As Ms. Laureda was listed on the Debt- or’s schedules, and as she had actual knowledge of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case, she does not qualify as a creditor for whom § 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) may except an unscheduled intentional tort debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice to seek a dischargeability determination; whether the debt qualifies requires a judicial determination.

In Re Candidus · filed 2005-07-15(a)(3)(B)

Under this scenario, § 523(a)(3)(B) provides that unscheduled intentional tort debts are not discharged. The issue then is whether the particular debt is an intentional tort debt within the rubric of § 523(a)(3)(B). For sure, it cannot be assumed that a particular debt is excepted under § 523(a)(3)(B) from a general discharge entered under § 727(b). Accordingly, a judicial determination in the nature of a declaratory judgment determining the dischargeability of the debt is required.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor omitted from the debtor’s schedules to seek a fraud-debt discharge exception in state court.

Walter v. Placontrol, Inc. · filed 2005-12-16(a)(3)(B)

Although Bankruptcy Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) exceptions, when a creditor claiming such an exception is omitted from the debtor’s schedules, the creditor can claim an exception under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) in State court.

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

Manzanares v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (In Re Manzanares) · filed 2006-05-24(a)(3)

The threshold inquiry under § 523(a)(3) is therefore whether the creditor received notice or possessed “actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy case. ... State Farm clearly had “actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy, and the “unscheduled” Lopez claim was therefore discharged when the debtor received his discharge in May of 2004.

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 claims was set.

In re Hartley · filed 2006-06-27(a)(3)(A)

In this case, § 523(a)(3)(A) is not applicable because the Bankruptcy Clerk’s office notified creditors not to file claims, and the Debtors’ Chapter 7 trustee filed a report stating that no assets were available for distribution to creditors. Accordingly, no deadline was ever set for filing a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) imposes no bankruptcy deadline for filing a complaint to determine whether an unscheduled debt is excepted from discharge.

Everly v. 4745 Second Avenue, Ltd. (In Re Everly) · filed 2006-08-02(a)(3)

Second, there is no bankruptcy created time limitation on filing a complaint under § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled general unsecured debt in a no-asset case when no other exception to discharge applies.

Rodriguez v. Olympic Mortgage Corp. · filed 2006-08-14(a)(3)(A)

In a no asset case when an unscheduled general unsecured debt does not fit within an exception to discharge under Section 523, it is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor without timely notice of a bankruptcy to seek a determination that a qualifying unscheduled debt is nondischargeable after Rule 4007(c)'s deadline.

In Re Sieger · filed 2007-01-10(a)(3)(B)

In conclusion, the Court finds that, to the extent the Movant holds a claim in bankruptcy against the Debtor, she has the right to commence an action against the Debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B), notwithstanding the expiration of the 60-day time limit set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c).

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

Purcell v. Khan (In Re Purcell) · filed 2007-01-31(a)(3)(A)

This court agrees with the reasoning in Laczko that Section 523(a)(3) is never triggered when no bar date is set, but that in cases in which a bar date is set, the plain language of Section 523(a)(3) controls.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits an unlisted debt to be discharged based on why the debtor omitted it, the disruption caused by the omission, and prejudice to creditors.

Armstrong v. ATLAS-TELECOM SERVICES-USA, INC. · filed 2007-03-20(a)(3)(A)

In the Fifth Circuit, under section 523(a)(3)(A), whether an unlisted debt, which is not an “intentional tort debt,” is presumed to be discharged depends upon the court’s analysis of the following three factors: (1) the reasons the debtor failed to list the creditor; (2) the amount of disruption which would likely occur; and (3) any prejudice suffered by the listed creditors and the unlisted creditor in question. ... Applying the above law to the facts, the court finds that Armstrong’s debt was included in Feiner’s bankruptcy discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except an unscheduled debt from discharge to show that the debt falls within § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) and was not listed in time for a dischargeability complaint.

TD BankNorth, N.A. v. Ewing (In Re Ewing) · filed 2007-03-29(a)(3)(B)

The Court must deny the motion for summary judgment on the § 523(a)(3) count because BankNorth has submitted no evidence to show that its debt is of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an unscheduled creditor to lack timely notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy and to have a claim of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Loud v. Richie (In Re Richie) · filed 2007-03-30(a)(3)(B)

With regard to § 523(a)(3)(B), the unscheduled creditor must be without timely notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy case and the creditor must have a claim “of a kind specified” in § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not make a fraud debt dischargeable merely because the debtor adds the creditor to the schedules after the deadline for a dischargeability complaint.

Neal v. Oak Brook Management Corp. · filed 2007-04-27(a)(3)(B)

Section 523 and the bankruptcy rules make clear that a debtor’s late amendment to his or her schedules of creditors cannot by itself make the debts dischargeable if they are already nondischargeable under section 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) requires an omitted creditor to have notice of the bankruptcy before the claims bar date; a later opportunity to receive a distribution does not satisfy that requirement.

Schlueter v. State Farm Mutual Insurance (In Re Schlueter) · filed 2008-07-14(a)(3)(A)

There is no evidence in the record before us that State Farm had actual notice of the bankruptcy case prior to the expiration of the claims bar date. The Debtor produced no evidence that the literal application of § 523(a)(3)(A) is at odds with the literal application of § 726(a)(2)(C). One section governs the consequences for a debtor’s failure to schedule a claim of which she has knowledge; the other section governs distribution of assets. The bankruptcy court did not err in finding that State Farm lacked actual notice so as to permit the timely filing of a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) applies to individual debtors and permits discharge of an unlisted debt if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a timely claim.

Arch Wireless, Inc. v. Nationwide Paging, Inc. · filed 2008-07-23(a)(3)

This outcome is a result of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), which excepts unlisted debts from discharge "unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing," and applies only in cases involving individual ... debtors.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled claim from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case if the claim is not otherwise nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

Weeks v. Isabella Bank Corp. (In Re Weeks) · filed 2009-01-23(a)(3)

However, Section 523(a)(3) is inapplicable in instances like this where the Chapter 7 trustee filed a no-asset report and the claim would not have otherwise been declared non-dischargeable under Sections 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

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

In Re Brooks · filed 2009-01-27(a)(3)(A)

The debt to the firm will therefore not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve a late dischargeability claim for an omitted creditor that had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a complaint.

Klaas v. Donovan (In Re Donovan) · filed 2009-03-03(a)(3)(B)

Because Medium21 had notice and actual knowledge of the Defendant’s bankruptcy case in time to file a timely complaint, Movant and Medium21 cannot intervene to pursue their untimely § 523 claims under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an unlisted debt when the creditor lacks adequate notice that the debtor seeks to discharge it.

McCutcheon v. McCutcheon · filed 2009-04-15(a)(3)

Appellant, however, did not list the obligation as a debt he was seeking to discharge, nor did he identify her as a creditor. And most importantly, he signed a statement of intention to retain the Honda and make regular payments thereon. Together, these facts would have indicated to appellee that appellant was not seeking to discharge his obligations under the settlement agreement.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor had no reason to know of the creditor’s claim or the creditor received sufficient notice.

Mitchell v. Bigelow · filed 2009-03-30(a)(3)(B)

This Court finds that Debtor had no basis to believe Plaintiff was a potential claimant. As such, she had no duty to provide notice. Even if Plaintiff was a known creditor, Debtor has established that she provided sufficient notice by sending service of notice to Plaintiffs father. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his claim is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unlisted prepetition debt from discharge in a no-asset case when no deadline for filing a proof of claim runs.

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services and Law Offices of Juana Trejo (In re Eastman) · filed 2009-04-20(a)(3)(A)

The claim was subject to discharge simply because the claim arose prior to the bankruptcy filing, and the case was a no-asset case in which the trustee filed a report of no distribution.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) generally leaves an unlisted debt undischarged when the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy, even in a no asset case.

Colonial Surety Co. v. Uni-Con Floors, Inc. · filed 2009-05-06(a)(3)(A)

Nothing in the language or history of the 1978 revision of section 523(a)(3) indicates that Congress aimed to carve out no asset bankruptcies from what we perceive to be a general rule that listing the creditor is a condition of discharge.

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

Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Wilson Mills Foods, 91985 (4-30-2009) · filed 2009-04-30(a)(3)(A)

Nevertheless, pursuant to § 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debt is excepted from discharge if it was neither listed nor scheduled in the debtor's petition and the creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case so that the creditor could timely file a claim. ... Prior to that amendment, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates Catalano listed The Plain Dealer in his initial petition or that The Plain Dealer had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy action. ... Thus, there is nothing in the record before us to indicate this specific debt was discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor with an unscheduled, potentially nondischargeable debt to seek relief when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and request a nondischargeability determination.

Tidwell v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2009-09-23(a)(3)(B)

All that need be shown to establish a right to relief under section 523(a)(3)(B) is that the debt in question was unscheduled and the creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and a request for a determination that the debt was nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits an omitted creditor to seek a nondischargeability ruling if the creditor lacked notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and request that ruling.

Smith v. Sterling-Ahlla · filed 2009-09-23(a)(3)(B)

All that need be shown to establish a right to relief under section 523(a)(3)(B) is that the debt in question was unsched- uled and the creditor did not have notice or actual knowl- edge of the bankruptcy in time to file a claim and a request for a determination that the debt was nondis- chargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts a willful-and-malicious-injury debt from discharge when the debtor failed to list or schedule the creditor and the creditor lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Mitchell v. Bigelow (In Re Mitchell) · filed 2009-10-16(a)(3)(B)

In a situation where the debt is for a willful and malicious injury and the creditor was not listed or scheduled and did not have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time, that creditor’s claim is not discharged.