11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a debtor to list a known minor creditor; failure to list the creditor raises a dischargeability question despite the minor’s possible notice.

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

Section 523 helps enforce these requirements by conditioning dischargeability of a debt on proper scheduling or listing by the debtor. ... So the proper inquiry in this case is not one of notice, but one of listing. Admittedly, Kathryn did not list or schedule Benjamin at all even though she knew his name.

In deciding whether to reopen a no-asset case to address an omitted debt under § 523(a)(3)(A), the debtor’s intent in omitting the creditor is relevant.

Francis v. National Revenue Service, Inc. (In Re Francis) · filed 2010-02-24(a)(3)(A)

In the Eleventh Circuit, it is well established that a debtor’s intent is relevant with respect to determining whether to re-open a no-asset case in order to discharge an omitted debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a state court to find an unlisted debt was not discharged when the creditor lacked timely notice of the bankruptcy and has a colorable claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Harman v. McAfee · filed 2010-03-08(a)(3)(B)

Therefore, contrary to Harman’s contention, the state court has the authority to find that the debt was not discharged if the creditor has a “colorable claim” under section 523 (a) (2), (4) or (6).

Section 523(a)(3) does not except a debt from discharge when the debtor listed the creditor, even if the debtor did not schedule the creditor as an unsecured creditor.

Meadows v. Hagler (In Re Meadows) · filed 2010-04-08(a)(3)

Because the Debtor listed the Landlord, the § 523(a)(3) exception is plainly inapplicable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not itself make an unscheduled debt nondischargeable.

C & W Asset Acquisition, LLC v. Feagins (In Re Feagins) · filed 2010-10-22(a)(3)(B)

An unbroken line of authority holds that section 523(a)(3)(B) does not, in itself, make a debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats a creditor’s timely actual knowledge of a bankruptcy case as sufficient to require a timely request for a dischargeability determination.

P.R. Electric Power Authority v. Cintron (In Re Cintron) · filed 2011-01-28(a)(3)(B)

This court finds this holding is misplaced and inconsistent with Section 523(a)(3)(B) of the Code. ... In this case PREP A received actual notice of the filing of the petition and the date set for the 341 meeting of creditors. Thus, it had sufficient notice to determine the bar date to file complaints objecting to the dischargeability of a particular debt as required by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4007(c).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) treats a minor creditor as having notice of a bankruptcy case when the minor’s natural tutrix has notice and actual knowledge in time to protect the claim.

Salard v. Salard · filed 2011-03-10(a)(3)(B)

This very argument is fatal to L.A.S. and S.S.’s ... claims because this Court is compelled to find that L.A.S. and S.S. had notice of Greg Salard’s bankruptcy because Mary Salard, who is their natural tutrix, had notice and actual knowledge of Greg Salard’s bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3) protects creditors who lacked notice in time to file a proof of claim by excepting their unscheduled debts from Chapter 13 discharge.

In Re Sykes · filed 2011-04-06(a)(3)

This section, which was made applicable to all Chapter 13 cases by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, is designed to protect creditors who have been precluded from filing proofs of claim due to lack of notice.

Section 523(a)(3) allows an unscheduled ordinary debt to be discharged in a no-asset Chapter 7 case, while an unscheduled fraud debt remains excepted from discharge.

Patti v. Colanduoni (In Re Patti) · filed 2011-04-13(a)(3)

The obligations owing Gneitings, if any, were nonetheless discharged because of the fact that this was a no asset case under the principles espoused in Judd v. Wolfe. Notwithstanding that conclusion, should the Gneitings possess a claim that arose out of Patti’s alleged fraud, such a claim would not be discharged for the reasons enunciated in Judd.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an omitted creditor with a claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to have sufficient time to object to dischargeability; four days spanning a weekend was insufficient.

Penland v. Bryan (In Re Bryan) · filed 2011-05-04(a)(3)(B)

In the case at bar, Plaintiff first knew of Defendant’s bankruptcy four days prior to the bar date. Two of those days were a Saturday and a Sunday and two were business days just prior to Thanksgiving. Plaintiff has asserted nondischargeability claims under section 523(a)(2) and (6). Under these facts, the Court concludes that, pursuant to section 523(a)(3)(B), Plaintiff did not have sufficient time to file an objection to dischargeability prior to the bar date.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor who lacked timely notice to seek a determination that a qualifying debt is nondischargeable despite Rule 4007(c)'s 60-day deadline.

In Re Clark · filed 2011-07-29(a)(3)(B)

The Court has been unable to locate direct precedent in this Circuit on the subject, but agrees with the treatise analysis. In this case, therefore, Debtors are not protected by the Rule 4007(c) 60-day limitation period.

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; the entire debt is excepted even if the lost distribution would have been small.

Croix Oil Co. v. Mai Yer Moua (In Re Mai Yer Moua) · filed 2011-10-14(a)(3)(A)

It is uncontroverted that the Plaintiffs claim was not scheduled or listed by the Defendant, and that it did not have notice or actual knowledge of the Defendant’s bankruptcy filing in time for it to timely file a proof of claim. Because it lost the right to participate in the estate in the status of a creditor that had done so, the Defendant’s debt to it is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unlisted debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case.

Rodney v. Arias (In Re Arias) · filed 2012-03-16(a)(3)(A)

The First Circuit relied upon 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), which precludes discharge of an unlisted debt when the creditor did not receive notice or have actual knowledge of the filing of the bankruptcy case. ... But even if his omissions were innocent, the Court finds that the equities of this case compel the entry of an order vacating the Motion to Reopen. ... Accordingly, the debt to the Plaintiffs is not discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) concerns debts omitted from bankruptcy schedules; omitting income from Schedule I does not make a scheduled debt nondischargeable.

Bair v. Gilliam (In Re Gilliam) · filed 2012-04-02(a)(3)

Section 523(a)(3) excepts from discharge debts which were not listed or scheduled. Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Debtor failed to schedule the debt owed to Plaintiff. Rather, he alleges that Debtor failed to list all of his income in Schedule I. That is not a violation of § 523(a)(3) and a finding of nondischargeability on this basis is not warranted.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts a known creditor’s debt from discharge when the debtor fails to schedule the debt or give the creditor notice of the bankruptcy filing.

Hartley v. Esposito (In re Hartley) · filed 2012-09-26(a)(3)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § Section 523(a)(3), a debt is not discharged if it is not listed or scheduled in a debtor’s bankruptcy petition and notice is not given to the creditor, if known. Here, as discussed above, the Hartleys knew that they were jointly and severally liable to Ms. Esposito. However, they failed to schedule their liability to Ms. Esposito in their bankruptcy petition or to provide her with notice of their filing. Accordingly, the debt is not dischargeable on this basis as well.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not provide an alternative discharge exception when a creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to request a dischargeability determination.

In re: Miguel Leon Gregory Lee · filed 2012-12-14(a)(3)(B)

In short, because Grant had sufficient actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filings within the meaning of § 523(a)(3)(B)’s actual knowledge clause, Grant was not entitled to pursue a claim for relief under § 523(a)(3)(B).

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

In re Spencer Munion v. · filed 2013-01-11(a)(3)(B)

Burgraf’s argument that there is no deadline for filing an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) would only be true if, as is not the case here, the creditor did not receive notice of the bankruptcy case in time to either file a proof of claim or request a determination as to the dischargeability of the creditor’s debt.

A complaint that pleads facts supporting § 523(a)(3)(B) may proceed despite a debtor’s prior discharge.

Commercial Properties, LLC v. Aslansan (In re Aslansan) · filed 2013-04-10(a)(3)(B)

However, in the Complaint, the Plaintiff addresses the pri- or discharge issue head-on and has pleaded facts that support a nondischargeability determination under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) preserves a creditor’s ability to challenge dischargeability when the debtor fails to schedule the debt adequately and the creditor lacks timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

In Re: CERY BRADLEY PERLE · filed 2013-08-02(a)(3)

Because Russo no longer represented Fiero Brothers on the debt matter when Perle filed for bankruptcy, and learned of the bankruptcy filing only in the course of representing a different client, we are unwilling to impute the notice or actual knowledge of Perle’s bankruptcy filing that he had to Fiero Brothers.

Section 523(a)(3) does not impute a lawyer’s knowledge of a bankruptcy to a creditor when the lawyer learned of it while representing another client and no longer represented the creditor on the debt.

Perle v. Fiero · filed 2013-08-02(a)(3)

Because Russo no longer represented Fiero Brothers on the debt matter when Perle filed for bankruptcy, and learned of the bankruptcy filing only in the course of representing a different client, we are unwilling to impute the notice or actual knowledge of Perle’s bankruptcy filing that he had to Fiero Brothers. ... We affirm the BAP’s ruling that the arbitration debt was nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(3) and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a) excepts a creditor’s claims from discharge when the creditor did not receive notice of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Associates, Inc. · filed 2013-11-25(a)

Since it is undisputed the Van Sickles did not receive notice, as we said in Van Sickle I, under section 523(a), the Van Sickles’ contract claims for pre-confirmation royalties and their royalty interest under the four leases were not discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding, despite the fact that under the confirmed plan the leases were assumed and assigned to Missouri Breaks.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows notice to a creditor’s attorney to count as notice to the creditor when the attorney still represents the creditor on the claim against the debtor.

Miller v. Herman · filed 2013-11-26(a)(3)(B)

We conclude that timely notice was properly delivered to Stilp and that a sufficient nexus existed between Stilp and Miller at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed. There was a sufficient nexus between Miller and his attorney for the notice to Stilp to be imputed to Miller as constructive notice.

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

Eide v. Colltech, Inc. · filed 2013-12-11(a)(3)

But in a no-asset bankruptcy case, section 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.” ... Because Eide’s bankruptcy was a no asset case, the hospital debt was discharged by the bankruptcy court’s discharge order, (Bankr. No. 11-47265, Order Discharging Debtor, Feb. 1, 2012, Docket No. 26), even though Eide failed to properly list the Hospital’s address in his bankruptcy schedules.

For an unscheduled debt in a no-asset, no-bar-date Chapter 7 case, a debtor seeking contempt sanctions must initially show that the exceptions in § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) do not apply through § 523(a)(3)(B).

In re Azevedo · filed 2014-03-04(a)(3)(B)

This court holds a debtor’s prima facie case includes an initial showing, in addition to the other elements discussed, that the scope of the discharge extends to the debt that the creditor had taken an action to collect. In the case of an unscheduled creditor in a no-asset, no-bar-date Chapter 7, applying this standard results in placing the burden on the debtor to show that none of the exceptions to discharge under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) apply to the debt by operation of § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unknown creditor’s claim when publication gives sufficient notice in time to file a claim.

Jimmy Williams, Sr. v. Placid Oil Company · filed 2014-05-27(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a creditor’s claim may be discharged upon the bankruptcy plan’s confirmation if the “creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for . . . timely filing.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A); see also In re Kendavis Holding Co., 249 F.3d 383, 385–86 (5th Cir. 2001).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor without timely notice to seek a determination whether a debt covered by § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) is excepted from discharge.

In re Wilson · filed 2014-05-30(a)(3)(B)

Because Williams was omitted as a creditor in Dr. Wilson’s no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, and she did not have an opportunity to challenge the dischargeability of the debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B), Dr. Wilson’s motion is GRANTED. The case is REOPENED for the limited purpose of allowing Williams to file an adversary proceeding to address the dischargeability of the debt.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not cover a claim the debtor did not know about until after discharge.

Muir v. McWilliams · filed 2014-06-30(a)(3)(B)

In sum, § 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply to the McWilliams’ claim because it was not known to the Muirs until after they received their bankruptcy discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) preserves an improperly scheduled creditor’s opportunity to seek a dischargeability ruling on an alleged fraud debt, even in a no-asset case.

In re Johnson · filed 2014-10-28(a)(3)(B)

If the debt is alleged to be a debt under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), § 523(a)(3)(B) is the appropriate subsection. Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires not only that the creditor had the ability to timely file a proof of claim, but also the ability to timely request a determination of dischargeability of the alleged § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) debt, typically within 60 days of the date first set for the meeting of creditors. In the case before the Court, the parties stipulated to an administrative finding of fraud, potentially resulting in a claim under § 523(a)(2). Accordingly, § 523(a)(3)(B) is implicated.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits claims for fraud or willful and malicious injury to survive a discharge defense at the pleading stage when the creditor was unscheduled and alleges no notice or knowledge of the bankruptcy.

Lama v. Malik · filed 2014-11-03(a)(3)(B)

Since Plaintiff was not on the schedule of debts and she alleges that she had no actual notice or knowledge of the case, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims as dischargeable by the bankruptcy is denied.

Under § 523(a)(3)(B), notice given more than 30 days before the deadline to request a dischargeability determination is timely.

In re Greenberg · filed 2015-02-27(a)(3)(B)

Because the notice given to Germano and Altman was greater than the 30 day notice period established by Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), notice to Germano and Altman was timely for purposes of § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) preserves an unscheduled fraud debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Kelley v. Dahle-Fenske (In re Dahle-Fenske) · filed 2015-03-02(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(c) refers to § 523(a)(3)(B) which specifies that if a creditor’s claim is not listed or scheduled in the debtor’s bankruptcy in time to permit the creditor to file a timely request for a determination of dischargeability, the debt is not discharged, unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to file a complaint.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except a debt from discharge based on its omission from an earlier bankruptcy case that ended without a discharge.

Bosman v. Glod (In re Glod) · filed 2015-04-01(a)(3)

It is in this context that § 523(a)(3) is operative. Here, Defendant was not granted a discharge in his 2005 bankruptcy case because that case was dismissed. Therefore, any debt that Plaintiff would have sought to have excepted in that case was not discharged by statutory fiat under § 727. Accordingly, Plaintiffs § 523(a)(3) claim is without merit and must be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no asset Chapter 7 case when no claims deadline was set and the debt is not of a kind specified in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

In re Haemmerle · filed 2015-04-16(a)(3)(A)

Thus, in this no asset Chapter 7 case, because the court did not establish a deadline for creditors to timely file claims, and because Wells Fargo has not argued that the Loan is a debt specified in § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), Wells Fargo’s unscheduled Loan claim has been discharged by operation of law.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor who lacked timely notice to seek a determination that a qualifying debt survives discharge without the § 523(c) complaint deadline.

In re Wilcox · filed 2015-04-21(a)(3)(B)

If they lacked timely notice (as seems likely), their claims may be excepted from the Discharge under § 523(a)(3), which governs the claims of omitted creditors. There is no deadline to file a complaint under that section.

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

Goldstein v. Diamond · filed 2015-05-11(a)(3)(B)

We too, think that twenty-two days was a sufficient amount of time to initiate an adversary proceeding after learning of the bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor to plead a plausible claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) to state a claim that an unscheduled debt is excepted from discharge.

Stambaugh v. Stambaugh (In re Stambaugh) · filed 2015-05-14(a)(3)(B)

Based on the above, I conclude that the appropriate requirement here is that the Plaintiffs must plead a plausible claim for non-dis-chargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) as a predicate for the pleading of a plausible claim under § 523(a)(3)(B).

Section 523(a)(3) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no asset Chapter 7 case when no claim filing deadline has been set and the debt is not of a kind listed in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

In re Mohammed · filed 2015-09-04(a)(3)

Adopting a plain meaning analysis for § 523(a)(3), ... this Court determined that an unscheduled debt held by a creditor who had no knowledge of the bankruptcy case is discharged in a no asset chapter 7 case by operation of law under § 727(b), because § 523(a)(3) only excludes unscheduled debts from being automatically discharged if the unscheduled debt falls within § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) and the creditor did not have “notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to permit” timely filing of a claim. ... Having considered all of the facts and circumstances present in this closed bankruptcy case, the Court finds that Debtor’s case should not be reopened as Mr. Milton’s debt has been discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) applies to an unscheduled debt when the creditor lacked timely notice of the bankruptcy and can establish a claim under paragraph (2), (4), or (6).

Lakhany v. Khan (In Re Lakhany) · filed 2015-09-28(a)(3)(B)

Because this was a no asset case and no debt to Khan was scheduled, nor was he listed as a creditor, nor did he have notice of the bankruptcy in time to object to dischargeability, § 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) applies to an unscheduled debt when the creditor lacked timely notice to seek a dischargeability determination and the debt falls under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

In re: Sameer Lakhany · filed 2015-09-28(a)(3)(B)

Because this was a no asset case and no debt to Khan was scheduled, nor was he listed as a creditor, nor did he have notice of the bankruptcy in time to object to dischargeability, § 523(a)(3)(B) applies.

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

Feggins v. LVNV Funding LLC (In re Feggins) · filed 2015-11-20(a)(3)(A)

While the Court agrees that the prudent course for debtors would be to list time-barred debts in their schedules with a notation that they are time-barred, the Court rejects the Defendants’ suggestion that these debts would have escaped discharge because the Defendants had actual knowledge of the Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy cases, rendering 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) inapplicable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled embezzlement debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

Walker v. Federal Insurance (In re Walker) · filed 2015-12-23(a)(3)(B)

Thus, lacking the notice or actual knowledge required under § 523(a)(3)(B), to the extent FIC is owed a debt of a kind specified in § 523(a)(4), the debt would be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice and the debt falls under paragraph (2), (4), or (6).

Panther Petroleum, LLC v. Couch (In re Couch) · filed 2016-01-07(a)(3)(B)

Couch admits he did not provide notice or otherwise inform Plaintiffs or the state court about his bankruptcy. ... Therefore, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on Counts I (§§ 523(a)(3)/523(a)(2)(A)) and III (§§ 523(a)(3)/523(a)(6)) of their Complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the debtor did not know of the claim at filing; in a Chapter 7 case, a late claim filed in time to share in the estate’s distribution also permits discharge.

Leadbetter v. Snyder (In re Snyder) · filed 2016-01-14(a)(3)(A)

Because the Debtors had no knowledge about a potential claim held by the Lead-betters and therefore could not have scheduled any such claim at the time this case was filed, § 523(a)(3)(A) does not render the Leadbetters’ claim nondischargeable. ... Given that this is the purpose of § 523(a)(3), the Court adopts the “distribution approach” and concludes that the “determinative factor on timeliness must be whether the creditor filed a proof of claim in time to share in the distribution.”

Section 523(a)(3)(A) allows an unscheduled debt to be discharged if the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Corzin v. Digiammarino (In re Maglione) · filed 2016-10-14(a)(3)(A)

While the debt was not scheduled in that case, the Debt- or’s mother had actual knowledge of the case in time to have filed a proof of claim in that case, which is sufficient to find that that debt was discharged notwithstanding its unscheduled status. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) (providing that unscheduled claims are still discharged if the “creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case” in time to file a “timely proof of claim”).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor had timely knowledge of the bankruptcy and an opportunity to seek a dischargeability determination.

In re Hardej · filed 2017-02-15(a)(3)(B)

Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, the notice given to MDE was reasonable and satisfies due process. Accordingly, 'the Debtor has met his burden as to the second element of § 523(a)(3)(B), and the claims alleged in the State Court Action are not excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits notice of bankruptcy sent to a creditor’s attorney who is collecting the debt to be imputed to the creditor.

Carns v. McNally · filed 2018-06-13(a)(3)(B)

And where, as here, “an attorney is representing a creditor in order to collect a debt outside of the bankruptcy, notice of the bankruptcy petition sent to that attorney by the debtor can be imputed to the creditor.” Id. at 454. ... In short, the bankruptcy court’s factual findings concerning notice are not clearly erroneous, and its conclusion that Carns received adequate notice is sound.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor knew of the bankruptcy in time to protect its rights before the applicable deadline.

Renfrow v. Pettigrew · filed 2018-09-11(a)(3)

Debts of unscheduled creditors with actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing prior to the deadlines are not excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) provides a separate nondischargeability claim when lack of notice prevents a creditor from timely seeking a dischargeability determination; it does not extend Rule 4007(c)'s filing deadline.

Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Mazik (In re Mazik) · filed 2018-10-30(a)(3)(B)

However, the majority, and correct, view is that Rule 4007(c) and § 523(a)(3)(B) operate independently; the Code section does not serve as grounds for extending the deadline in the court rule.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows an omitted creditor to seek a dischargeability determination; adding the creditor to the schedules after discharge does not change its application.

Amanda Alyce Clark · filed 2019-06-06(a)(3)(B)

Debtor’s act of amending the schedules post-discharge has not altered application of § 523(a)(3)(B) to the debt at issue.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim; the reason for the omission does not change that result.

W. Valley Med. Partners, LLC v. Menaker (In re Menaker) · filed 2019-07-08(a)(3)(A)

The import of these authorities is that when applying Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(3), the reason why a debt was omitted from a debtor's schedules is not relevant to whether the debt is dischargeable. The appropriate inquiry is whether the debtor listed the debt and provided notice in time for the creditor to timely file a proof of claim or whether the creditor otherwise had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time for such a filing. Equitable considerations have no place in the analysis.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor who lacked timely notice of an unscheduled debt of the kind described in paragraphs (2), (4), or (6) to bring a dischargeability complaint at any time.

Shailesh Sushil Kothari · filed 2019-07-15(a)(3)(B)

DCCC’s remedy, however, is not an extension of the time to file a complaint under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6), but to “file an independent complaint under § 523(a)(3)(B) which can be brought at any time.”

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an unlisted claim when the omission deprives the creditor of the opportunity to file a timely proof of claim.

Teresa Anganett Ross Pumphrey · filed 2019-08-09(a)(3)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) prevents the discharge of an unlisted claim if the failure to schedule the claim results in that Creditor being deprived of the opportunity to timely file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt covered by subsection (a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

TD Auto Finance LLC v. Johnson · filed 2019-09-20(a)(3)(B)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the debt owed by the Debtor to the Plaintiff arising from the purchase of a 2017 Ford F250 is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) because the debt is of a kind specified in 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6) and the Plaintiff did not have notice or actual knowledge of the case in time to timely file a complaint.

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

Shionta Shanell Somerville · filed 2019-10-04(a)(3)

In this matter, the Movant may either file an untimely claim with Court approval or have its debt excepted from discharge because the debt will not be an allowed claim paid under the terms of the Debtor’s chapter 13 plan and it was not listed in the Debtor’s schedules as required by section 521(a) of the Code. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1328(a)(2), 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) applies to an unlisted debt only if the debtor knew about it.

Cooper v. Crestani · filed 2019-09-30(a)(3)(A)

Generally, a debtor must know about a debt for § 523(a)(3)(A) to apply.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows notice of a bankruptcy petition to a creditor’s attorney to be imputed to the creditor when the attorney represents the creditor in collecting the debtor’s debt.

Island City Snowmobile & ATV Club, Inc. v. Brown, Ryan · filed 2020-05-29(a)(3)(B)

As an initial matter, when an attorney is representing a creditor in order to collect a debt outside of a bankruptcy, notice of a bankruptcy petition sent to that attorney by the debtor can be imputed to the creditor.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve a fraud debt from discharge when the debt was timely scheduled, even if the creditor lacked actual notice of the bankruptcy.

Liel v. Kozuch · filed 2021-12-13(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3) requires only that a debt be “listed” or “scheduled” under § 521(a)(1) (emphasis added).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the omission was not shown to be intentional and caused no court disruption or creditor prejudice.

Young v. Harris · filed 2024-06-26(a)(3)(A)

After applying the Robinson factors, the Court finds that each factor weighs against a finding of nondischargeability as to the $6,000.00.

Section 523(a)(3) addresses the discharge of debts owed to creditors omitted from bankruptcy schedules; omitting a creditor does not prevent a debtor from seeking attorneys’ fees in a separate case.

Lopez-Duprey v. MGM National Harbor, LLC · filed 2025-04-09(a)(3)

The failure to list a creditor only affects the discharge of the debt owed, it has no bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to seek attorneys’ fees in this case.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) leaves a known creditor’s claim undischarged when the creditor lacks timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

In re Lois Business Development Corporation · filed 2026-04-01(a)(3)(A)

Because Mr. Otis was a known creditor who did not receive actual notice, Mr. Otis is not bound by the plan discharge or injunction.

Section 523(a) lists exceptions to discharge for individual debtors; it does not provide an exception for an AIR 21 claim against a corporate debtor.

Hafer v. United States Department of Labor Administrative Review Board · filed 2008-05-09(a)

Hafer’s claim does not fall under any of the statutory exceptions to discharge and we reject his request that we judicially create a separate and unique exception to cover AIR 21 claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (listing nineteen exceptions to discharge available for individual debtors); 1141(d)(6) (listing two exceptions to discharge that apply to corporate debtors, both relating to fraud); FCC v. NextWave Pers. Commc’n, Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302, 123 S.Ct. 832, 154 L.Ed.2d 863 (2003) (“[Wjhere Congress has intended to provide regulatory exceptions to provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, it has done so clearly and expressly....”).

Section 523 applies only to individual debtors.

Ford Business Forms, Inc. v. Sure Card, Inc. · filed 1994-09-06(a)

But Alton does not control the present case because section 523 applies only to individual debtors.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply to individual debtors, not corporate debtors in Chapter 11.

Delco Development Co. v. Kuempel Co. (In Re Kuempel Co.) · filed 1981-07-10(a)

We think that the inclusion in these provisions of the adjective “individual” to modify “debtor” clearly evidences the intent of Congress to exclude corporate debtors from the operation of section 523.

Section 523(a)(2) and (4) do not provide a nondischargeability determination for a corporate debtor.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airlift International, Inc. (In Re Airlift International, Inc.) · filed 1981-12-04

The three-count complaint in this action sought a determination of the non-dis-chargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4) of certain obligations of the Debtor, a judgment for the amount of these obligations, and relief from the automatic stay. The co-trustees moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 and 1141(d) render the concept of dis-chargeability inapplicable to corporate debtors and thus that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a judgment from damages or for relief from the automatic stay. The Court agrees with the co-trustees.

Section 523 does not except a corporate debtor’s tax liabilities from discharge.

In Re Burgess Wholesale Mfg. Opticians, Inc. · filed 1982-01-19

First, corporate tax liabilities under the Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523, are dischargeable.

Section 523’s exceptions for particular debts apply to individual debtors, so they do not provide a basis to determine whether a corporate Chapter 11 debtor’s particular debt is dischargeable.

Parthenon Metal Works, Inc. v. Modern Tables, Inc. (In Re Modern Tables, Inc.) · filed 1983-01-25(a)

Since those provisions refer only to an individual debtor, there can be no appropriate question raised as to the dischargeability of a particular debt of a corporate Chapter 11 debtor.

Section 523’s exceptions to discharge apply in Chapter 11 only when the debtor is an individual, so they do not permit a claim about the dischargeability of a particular partnership debt.

Farm Fresh Poultry, Inc. v. Hooton Co. (In Re Hooton Co.) · filed 1984-10-17

In that ease, it was pointed out that the exception of any debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523, in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, occurs only if the debtor is an “individual.” ... If the debtor is not an individual, no proper question can be raised in a Chapter 11 ease as to the discharge-ability of a particular debt.

Section 523 identifies debts excepted from discharge; it does not confer jurisdiction or apply to a Chapter 7 corporation that receives no discharge order.

Parting v. Nalco Chemical Co. · filed 1984-12-31

However, our review of section 523 discloses that it is not jurisdictional, but rather merely delineates the types of debts that are not discharged under an order of discharge. Because corporations that file voluntary petitions for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, as Specialist did, never receive an order of discharge (see 11 U.S.C. sec. 727(a)(1) (Supp. 1978); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy par. 727.01, at 727 (15th ed. 1983)), section 523 has no application to the facts before us.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge do not apply to corporate debtors.

Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. And Yamaha Parts Distributors, Incorporated v. Shadco, Inc., D/B/A Cycle Empire · filed 1985-05-20(a)

Accordingly, we hold that the exemptions embodied in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) do not apply to corporate debtors.

Section 523(a) applies only to individual debtors, not limited partnerships.

Savoy Records, Inc. v. Trafalgar Associates (In Re Trafalgar Associates) · filed 1985-09-30(a)

Alpha’s reliance on section 523 as support for nondis-chargeability is misplaced because that section on its face applies only to individual debtors, and not to limited partnerships such as Trafalgar.

Section 523’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, excluding corporations.

McNeal v. Harrington & Richardson, Inc. (In re Harrington & Richardson, Inc.) · filed 1985-12-06(a)

Because section 523 applies only to individual debtors, the Court will allow H & R’s motion to dismiss the McNeals’ Complaint.

Section 523 does not require a debt-specific dischargeability determination for a Chapter 7 corporation that cannot receive a discharge.

Braden v. Tri-R Builders, Inc. (In Re Tri-R Builders, Inc.) · filed 1986-04-22

It is clear, that Tri-R is not entitled to discharge under § 727. It follows, that the determination of dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S. C. § 523 is a meaningless task.

Section 523(a)(2) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor fraudulently obtains credit for a corporation rather than for himself.

European American Bank v. Gitelman (In Re Gitelman) · filed 1987-06-08(a)(2)

It should be noted that it is not necessary, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), that the property be actually procured for the debtor himself. Furthermore, an officer, director or shareholder of a corporation will not be shielded by the corporate form from liability for a tort, including fraud, in which he himself is involved.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, not Chapter 11 corporate debtors.

Krueger v. Push & Pull Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Push & Pull Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-17(a)

Based upon our discussion of §§ 101, 523, and 1141, we hold that the discharge-ability provisions of § 523 cannot apply to this corporate debtor.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge do not apply to corporate debtors.

Wisconsin Barge Lines, Inc. v. United States (In Re Wisconsin Barge Lines, Inc.) · filed 1988-09-08(a)

... this Court finds that the exceptions to discharge enumerated in Section 523(a) do not apply to corporate debtors.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Garrie v. James L. Gray, Inc., and Texaco Inc. · filed 1990-10-24(a)

Moreover, the “willful and malicious injury” exception to discharge, like all of the exceptions to discharge found in section 523(a), applies only to individual, not corporate, debtors.

Section 523 dischargeability actions do not apply to a corporate debtor reorganizing under Chapter 11.

In Re Al Copeland Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-10-11

Dischargeability actions under § 523 do not lay against a corporate debtor reorganizing under Chapter 11.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) applies only to individual debtors and does not except a corporate Chapter 11 debtor’s debt from discharge.

Snug Enterprises, Inc. v. Sage (In Re Snug Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1994-06-13(a)(3)(A)

At the outset, defendant’s reliance on § 523(a)(3)(A) has no merit since that section applies to “individual” debtors, and this debt- or is a corporate entity.

Section 523(a)(3)(A)'s actual-knowledge provision does not apply to corporate debtors.

Adam Glass Service, Inc. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. · filed 1994-10-26(a)(3)(A)

But § 523 only applies to individual debtors. ... Defendant is a corporate debtor. The creditor’s actual knowledge or burden of inquiry under § 523(a)(3)(A) is irrelevant here.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply to individual debtors, so they offered no remedy against the corporate debtor here.

In Re Dow Corning Corp. · filed 1996-02-15(a)

Omegas was a corporation and a corporation receives no chapter 7 discharge. ... Therefore, § 523, by its own terms, is inapplicable.

In Chapter 11, § 523(a)(3)(A)'s exception for unscheduled debts applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

In Re S.N.A. Nut Co. · filed 1996-07-22(a)(3)(A)

Section 1141(d)(2) makes clear that § 523(3) affects only individual debtors in Chapter 11, not corporate debtors, stating that ”[t]he confirmation of a plan does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt excepted from discharge under section 523 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(2).

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Daluz v. Automatic Plating of Bridgeport, Inc. (In Re Automatic Plating of Bridgeport, Inc.) · filed 1996-11-18(a)

In this circuit, it is well settled that § 523 does not apply to corporate debtors.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not apply to corporate debtors because it covers only individual debtors.

IHS of Brunswick, Inc. v. Michigan (In Re First American Health Care of Georgia, Inc.) · filed 1998-01-20(a)(3)(A)

This reliance is erroneous, however, because in this Circuit a corporate debtor is not an “individual debtor” for purposes of this Code section.

Section 523(a)(3) applies only to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Meyers v. fanning/howey Assoc., Unpublished Decision (11-9-2000) · filed 2000-11-09(a)(3)

The plain language of Section 523 indicates that it applies to individual debtors only.

Section 523(a)(3)(B)’s actual knowledge rule applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

1440 Richmond Realty Corp. v. Four Bridges Development Corp. · filed 2001-05-04(a)(3)(B)

In the instant matter, it is undisputed that the defendant Bern is a corporate debtor. As such, plaintiffs actual knowledge or burden of inquiry under section 523 (a) (3) (B) of the Bankruptcy Code is irrelevant.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply to a corporate Chapter 11 debtor or displace a creditor’s right to required notice of the claims bar date.

In Re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. I · filed 2005-02-17(a)(3)(B)

However, in a corporate chapter 11 case, § 523(a)(3)(B) does not apply to alter the ordinary rule of City of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 73 S.Ct. 299, 97 L.Ed. 333 (1953), that when notice of a bar date is required, creditors may assume that notice will be sent before they are required to act.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge provide no benefit to creditors of a corporate Chapter 7 debtor because the corporation cannot receive a Chapter 7 discharge.

In Re Charles Edwards Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2006-06-13(a)

Accordingly, Ms. Myers and Martinsburg Lumber will not receive any benefit by proving causes of action in State court that may characterize the debts owed to them as being excepted from the discharge of an individual debtor.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors.

Gary-Forrest v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (In Re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2010-02-02(a)

These claims also will be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), since the Bankruptcy Code sections cited do not apply to a chapter 11 case (see 11 U.S.C. § 103(b)), or apply only to cases involving individual debtors (see 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)).

Section 523(a) applies only to individual debtors.

In re: Darcomm Supply, Inc. · filed 2012-02-03(a)

That provision is only applicable in cases involving an “individual debtor” and thus inapplicable to the appellee.

Section 523(a) applies only to debts owed by individual debtors, so it cannot support a nondischargeability claim against a corporate debtor.

Austin v. BFW Liquidation, LLC (In Re BFW Liquidation, LLC) · filed 2012-03-26(a)

Since BFW is not an individual, the part of Count Five which seeks a determination of non-dischargeability pursuant to section 523 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and, therefore, must be dismissed and BFW’s motion to dismiss granted.

Section 523(c)(1) applies only to individual debtors; it does not impose its dischargeability procedure on creditors of corporate debtors.

United State ex rel. Minge v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.) · filed 2014-03-27(c)(1)

Thus, giving effect to Congress’s use of the word “the” rather than “a” or “any” compels the conclusion that “the debtor” in section 523(c)(1) refers to “an individual debtor” identified in section 523(a).

Section 523(a)(6) does not preserve claims against a corporate debtor when the claimant provides no basis for applying its discharge exception to corporations.

Mohammed v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · filed 2015-06-10(a)(6)

The District Court also correctly rejected Mohammed’s argument that his claims survive because A & P engaged in conduct exempted from discharge by Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Mohammed fails to establish why A & P, a corporate entity, is susceptible to the Section 523 discharge exemption.

Section 523(a)(2) makes fraud-based nondischargeability claims available only against individuals.

In re Johnson · filed 2016-04-28(a)(2)

After all, fraud-based nondischargeability claims are available only against individuals.

Section 523(a)(6)’s willful and malicious injury exception applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Boyle v. PMA Medical Specialists LLC · filed 2019-01-16(a)(6)

The exception does not apply. By its terms, this exception applies to “individual debtor[s].” Id. PMA, however, is a corporate debtor.

Section 523(a)'s debt-specific dischargeability provisions ordinarily do not apply to a corporate Chapter 11 debtor.

Holman v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2019-05-22(a)

Section 523's debt-specific dischargeability provisions ordinarily do not apply to a corporate debtor in chapter 11 anyways, ... meaning that the risk of a loss of a jury trial right due to that section is virtually non-existent in this context.

Section 523 does not apply to corporate debtors.

Ditech Holding Corporation · filed 2021-01-03

On that basis, section 523 is inapplicable herein because RMS is a corporate debtor, not an individual debtor.

Section 523(a)’s discharge exceptions apply only to individual Subchapter V debtors, including those receiving a discharge under Section 1192.

Gaske v. Satellite Restaurants Inc. Crabcake Factory USA · filed 2021-03-19(a)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that the discharge exceptions in Section 523(a) apply only to individual Subchapter V debtors.

Section 523(a) applies only to individual debtors, not entity debtors.

Krisjenn Ranch, LLC, Krisjenn Ranch, LLC, Series U v. DMA Properties, Inc. · filed 2021-03-24(a)

This counterclaim is not well founded because § 523 specifically applies to “individual debtor[s].” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). The only debtors in these bankruptcy cases are the KrisJenn entities. This counterclaim will be denied.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge apply to individual debtors in Subchapter V cases, but do not limit an entity debtor's discharge under section 1192.

Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC · filed 2021-06-29(a)

Section 523(a) itself does not purport to apply to entity debtors, such as the Defendant.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, including in nonconsensual Subchapter V cases.

Jennings v. Lapeer Aviation, Inc. · filed 2022-04-13(a)

Although neither Plaintiff nor Defendant addressed the statutory language, the first sentence of § 523(a) clearly limits the denial of discharge to “an individual debtor.” Because Defendant LAI is a corporation and not an individual debtor, actions under § 523(a) are not applicable to it.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts conversion claims from discharge only for individual debtors; a corporate debtor’s Chapter 11 discharge can encompass them.

Lilis Energy, Inc. and Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lilis · filed 2022-04-07(a)(6)

Notably, unlike a chapter 7 discharge, the discharge a corporate debtor receives in chapter 11 can encompass conversion claims.

Section 523(a)’s debt categories apply to corporate Subchapter V debtors through § 1192(2), despite its reference to individual debtors.

Cantwell-Cleary Co., Inc. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC · filed 2022-06-07(a)

In short, while § 523(a) does provide that discharges under various sections, including § 1192 discharges, do not “discharge an individual debtor from any debt” of the kind listed, § 1192(2)’s cross-reference to § 523(a) does not refer to any kind of debtor addressed by § 523(a) but rather to a kind of debt listed in § 523(a).

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge do not apply to corporate debtors proceeding under Subchapter V.

Avion Funding, LLC v. GFS Industries, LLC · filed 2022-11-10(a)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that corporate debtors electing to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 are not subject to complaints to determine dischargeability pursuant to § 523(a).

Section 523(a)’s discharge exceptions apply to individual debtors, not corporate debtors in ordinary Chapter 11 cases.

GIACOBBE v. Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-11-30(a)

The reference to an “individual” debtor, in context, plainly was a limitation on the reach of section 523. It is a reference to a debtor who is a human being, as opposed to a debtor who is a corporate entity.

Section 523(a) exceptions to discharge do not apply to corporate debtors receiving a Subchapter V discharge under § 1192.

Karen W. Hall and Spuddog Farm Properties LLC - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-04-13(a)

In summary, the Court joins the other bankruptcy courts that have unanimously concluded that the exceptions to discharge under § 523(a) do not apply to corporate debtors receiving a discharge under § 1192.

Section 523(a)(6)'s exception to discharge applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

IN RE PG&E Corporation · filed 2023-10-10(a)(6)

The Court next rejects Appellants’ argument that § 523(a)(6) prohibited the Bankruptcy Court from discharging punitive damages claims through the Channeling Injunction. ... It is undisputed that PG&E is a corporate debtor. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not exceed its authority because Appellants’ claims were appropriately discharged by the Plan and Confirmation Order and were not subject to § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, including when a subchapter V plan is confirmed by cramdown.

Primary Investments Group, Inc. v. RA Custom Design, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13(a)

Moreover, the Court does not read § 1192(2)’s reference to § 523(a) to eliminate the restriction inherent in § 523(a) that it only applies to individuals.

Section 523(a)(6)’s exception for willful and malicious injury applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Beury v. Hertz Corporation · filed 2024-02-22(a)(6)

The Hertz Defendants are corporate debtors, so section 523(a)(6) does not apply.

Section 523(a)'s discharge exceptions apply to corporate and individual debtors under a nonconsensual Subchapter V plan.

Avion Funding v. GFS Industries · filed 2024-04-17(a)

In sum, we agree with the Fourth Circuit that 11 U.S.C. § 1192(2) subjects both corporate and individual Subchapter V debtors to the categories of debt discharge exceptions listed in § 523(a).

Section 523(a)’s list of excepted debts applies to a corporate subchapter V debtor’s discharge under § 1192(2), even though § 523(a)’s preamble refers to individual debtors.

Ivanov v. Van's Aircraft, Inc. · filed 2024-06-11(a)

Thus, the plain meaning of 1192(2) is that the discharge under a subchapter V plan confirmed nonconsensually excepts the debts listed in the 523(a) debt-type list—even when the debtor is not an individual.

Section 523(a)'s listed discharge exceptions apply to both individual and corporate debtors receiving a Subchapter V discharge under § 1192.

Chicago & Vicinity Laborers' District Council Pension Plan v. R&W Clark Construction, Inc · filed 2024-11-14(a)

The provisions should be interpreted the same ... way, and the exceptions to discharge in § 523(a) apply to both individual and corporate debtors.

Section 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge apply only to individual Subchapter V debtors, not corporate debtors.

Spring v. Davidson · filed 2025-02-14(a)

Accordingly, this Court finds that the exceptions to discharge under §523(a) only apply to individuals in Subchapter V.

Section 523(a)(6) permits a corporate debtor’s intent to be established through the acts and intentions of its management and senior employees acting within the scope of their employment and in the company’s interest.

Marmic Fire & Safety Co., Inc. v. ETG Fire, LLC · filed 2025-03-17(a)(6)

Based on such principles, the Court concludes that, for purposes of Section 523(a)(6), a corporate entity’s intent may be determined by imputing to the entity the acts and intentions of the corporate entity’s management and senior employees, acting within the scope of such agents’ employment, in the entity’s interest.

Section 523(a)’s reference to individual debtors does not prevent § 1192 from excepting corporate debtors’ listed debts from discharge under a nonconsensual Subchapter V plan.

Benshot, LLC v. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC · filed 2025-07-09(a)

Second, § 523(a)’s preamble, read plainly, only states that an individual debtor cannot discharge the listed types of debt; it says nothing about what a corporate debtor can or cannot discharge.

Section 523(a)’s discharge exceptions do not apply to a corporate debtor discharged under § 1141.

Justen v. Wellpath · filed 2025-09-26(a)

Under § 1141’s discharge rules, as a corporate debtor, § 523’s exceptions do not apply to Wellpath.

Section 523(a)’s exception for debts obtained through actual fraud applies to individual debtors, not corporate debtors.

Purdue Pharma L.P. · filed 2025-11-20(a)

But as pointed out by the Debtors, Section 523 prohibits the discharge of certain debts obtained through actual fraud for “an individual debtor”—not, as is the case here, for corporate debtors.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) exceptions to discharge apply only to individual debtors, not limited liability companies.

Alers v. Windsor Terrace Healthcare · filed 2025-12-23(a)(2), (a)(6)

Because Windsor Terrace is not an individual debtor, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal Order as to Plaintiff’s first and second causes of action.

A private creditor cannot invoke Section 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(4) against a corporate debtor in a standard Chapter 11 reorganization.

Cota Yellow Brick Road, LLC v. 741 · filed 2026-04-29(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed because, under the Bankruptcy Code, a private creditor (like the Plaintiff) cannot invoke Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) against a corporate debtor (like the Debtor) in a standard Chapter 11 reorganization.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for money obtained by false pretenses or actual fraud from discharge when the debtor is liable for it, even if someone else committed the fraudulent acts.

Panjwani v. Khan · filed 2023-07-18(a)(2)(A)

If the debt is a debt for money to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, and if the debtor is liable for that debt under applicable law, then regardless of whether the debtor herself committed the fraudulent act, the debt is excepted from her discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) is not limited to a debtor’s own conduct, but another person’s wrongdoing must be attributable to the debtor under state law.

Industrial Development Authority of the Town of Fr v. Poe · filed 2023-07-05(a)(4)

Like Section 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4) does not refer to debts “of the bankrupt.” Thus, following the Supreme Court’s analysis of the statutory construction of 523(a)(2)(A) leads this Court to conclude that the fraud exception under 523(a)(4) is not limited to debts obtained by a debtor's conduct.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt obtained by fraud even when the debtor did not personally commit the fraud.

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley · filed 2023-02-22(a)(2)(A)

All of this said, innocent people are sometimes held liable for fraud they did not personally commit, and, if they declare bankruptcy, § 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of that debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires the debtor to have caused the deceptive written statement to be made or published, so one debtor’s fraud cannot be imputed to another under this provision.

Gbaz, Inc. v. Conte · filed 2022-12-27(a)(2)(B)

The plain language of § 523(a)(2)(B) requires a statement that “the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Therefore, this Court cannot impute Mrs. Conte’s fraud on Mr. Conte.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not permit one spouse’s fraud to be imputed to the other based on marriage alone; imputation requires a partnership or other agency relationship.

Tsurukawa v. Nikon Precision, Inc. (In Re Tsurukawa) · filed 2001-01-22(a)(2)(A)

Based on the discussion above, we hold that a marital union alone, without a finding of a partnership or other agency relationship between spouses, cannot serve as a basis for imputing fraud from one spouse to the other.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor’s spouse committed fraud and community property law makes the debtor liable for the debt.

Wilson v. Bursh (In Re Bursh) · filed 1981-10-09(a)(4)

Plaintiff’s assertion that the marital community benefited from defendant’s husband’s acts and therefore that the defendant should be barred from discharging the resulting debt amounts to fraud implied by law and it is the opinion of the court that such a result is not within the purview or contemplation of section 523(a). This court will not impute the fraud of the husband to the bankrupt wife on the sole argument that the state’s community property law permits the assessment of punitive damages against the community property if the tort of the husband is committed in the interest of the community.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) holds a debtor responsible for an agent’s misrepresentations when determining whether a debt is dischargeable.

Giesinger v. Beleau (In Re Beleau) · filed 1983-11-30(a)(2)(A)

For purposes of nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a debtor is held to be responsible for the misrepresentations of his agent.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not permit one spouse’s fraud to be imputed to the other solely under Arizona community property law.

Valley National Bank of Arizona v. LeSueur (In Re LeSueur) · filed 1985-10-04(a)(2)(B)

Fraud for purposes of a bankruptcy dischargeability complaint cannot be imputed to a spouse based on a theory of Arizona community property law.

Section 523(a)(2) makes a debt arising from an agent's fraud nondischargeable when the debtor was recklessly indifferent to the agent's acts.

Cory v. Futscher (In Re Futscher) · filed 1985-12-26(a)(2)

We are compelled to conclude that when defendant, the owner of the business, thereafter permitted Hague to continue to operate it, she was being “recklessly indifferent” to the acts of Hague, her agent. Defendant thereby conducted herself in a manner which, within the guidelines of Walker, requires a holding of non-dis-chargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits an agent’s fraud within the scope of the agency to be imputed to the debtor-principal when determining whether a debt is dischargeable.

Fluehr v. Paolino (In Re Paolino) · filed 1987-07-10(a)(2)(A)

However, under the principles of statutory construction enunciated by the Supreme Court in Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986), I am constrained to hold that Dr. Paolino’s conduct, if he is found to be acting as agent for his wife, may be imputed to her under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a spouse’s debt from discharge based solely on the other spouse’s fraud when she had no knowledge of or involvement in it.

Leone v. Shane (In Re Shane) · filed 1988-01-08(a)(2)(A)

This Court is unwilling to impute fraud between spouses without further specific actions by a debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a principal’s debt from discharge when an agent commits fraud within the scope of the agency.

Fluehr v. Paolino (In Re Paolino) · filed 1988-08-05(a)(2)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a debt incurred by the fraud of an agent can be rendered non-dischargeable as to the principal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows an agent’s fraud to be imputed to a debtor-principal when deciding whether a particular debt is dischargeable.

Love v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1989-02-23(a)(2)(A)

The complaint in this case seeks a determination of nondischargeability of a particular debt, and, therefore, the case law supports imputing the fraud committed by Pamela K. Smith’s agents to her as the principal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a partner’s debt nondischargeable when another partner commits fraud in the ordinary course of partnership business and the debtor partner shares its benefits.

First Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Luce (In Re Luce) · filed 1989-06-15(a)(2)(A)

The actions of JML with respect to FELC were done as part of the ordinary course of business of LLIE and LLI, a partnership between JML and BML. The knowledge and actions of JML should be and are imputed to BML. ... Because BML was a partner with JML in LLI, then for the reasons stated on page 9 hereof, the Court finds and holds that the debt of Defendants to WCC in the amount of $136,-886.70, plus interest, is a result of actual fraud and is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) as to her also.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debtor’s debt nondischargeable for a corporate agent’s fraud when the debtor and corporation are not alter egos.

Marine Midland Automotive Financial Corp. v. Denton (In Re Denton) · filed 1990-07-20(a)(2)(A)

Since Joe R. Denton, Jr. and the corporation are not alter egos, the wrongful acts of Rice as agent for the corporation are not such as to result in the $96,297.00 being nondischargeable as to Joe R. Denton, Jr. personally pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a partner’s fraud to make another partner’s debt nondischargeable even if that partner did not know of the fraud.

BancBoston Mortgage Corp. v. Ledford (In Re Ledford) · filed 1991-04-26(a)(2)(A)

Again, this court agrees with Walker II that the better reasoned case law supports imputation of fraud without knowledge.

Section 523 does not make a guarantor's debt nondischargeable solely because another person committed misconduct when the guarantor did not participate and that person was not her agent.

Matter of Jarrell · filed 1991-07-24

Plaintiffs also argue certain debts of the debtors should be determined nondischargeable pursuant to sections 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4), 523(a)(5), and 523(a)(6). ... Mr. Jarrell was not her agent. Mrs. Jarrell is liable on these claims only because of her personal guaranty. Plaintiffs' have not provided the court with any reasons why then her debts in connection with these transactions should be non-dischargeable. The law is clear that, under these circumstances, her debts are dischargeable.

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a partner’s fraud may be imputed to a debtor when partnership law makes the debtor responsible for it.

Eppard v. Sestito (In Re Sestito) · filed 1992-01-30(a)(2)(A)

To ultimately resolve the issue of the preclusive effect of the state court judgment, this Court must decide, for purposes of section 523(a)(2)(A), whether Sevland’s fraud may be imputed to his partner Sestito. ... This Court rules that the Sevland’s fraud may be imputed to Sestito.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraudulently obtained partnership debt nondischargeable for a partner who lacked knowledge of the fraud when another partner committed it in the ordinary course of partnership business and the first partner shared its monetary benefits.

In Re Thomas E. Ledford and J. Gregg Sikes, Debtors. Bancboston Mortgage Corporation v. Thomas E. Ledford (91-5649) J. G · filed 1992-09-17(a)(2)(A)

This argument raises a question of first impression in our circuit: whether, for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), the fraud of one partner can be imputed to another partner who had no actual knowledge of it. ... The Fifth Circuit’s analysis, which we find persuasive, is directly applicable here. Like Mr. Luce, Mr. Ledford perpetrated his fraud while acting on behalf of the partnership in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. Like Mrs. Luce, Dr. Sikes shared in the monetary benefits of the fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) imputes an agent’s fraud to the debtor when the agent acts within the scope of employment or apparent authority, even if the debtor did not know of the fraud.

W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Guse (In Re Guse) · filed 1993-02-19(a)(2)(A)

This Court adopts the holding of Walker II, 53 B.R. 174 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1985) that for purposes of a determination of dischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the fraud of an agent acting within the scope of his or her employment or apparent authority is imputed to the debtor/principal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits an agent’s fraud within the scope of the agent’s authority to be imputed to the debtor when determining whether a debt is dischargeable.

W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Croft (In Re Croft) · filed 1993-02-19(a)(2)(A)

This Court adopts the holding of Walker II, 53 B.R. 174 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1985), that for purposes of a determination of dis-chargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the fraud of an agent acting within the scope of his or her employment or apparent authority is imputed to the debtor/principal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not permit a partner’s fraud conviction to be imputed to a debtor when the conviction does not establish fraud involving the debtor’s loans.

Bay Loan & Investment Bank v. Graul (In Re Graul) · filed 1993-03-30(a)(2)(A)

In the absence of specific allegations covering the loans made by Bay Loan to Graul in either the conspiracy or the fraud counts of the Indictment, we must conclude as a matter of law that Brandon’s fraud conviction may not be imputed to Graul herein, for § 523(a)(2)(A) purposes.

Section 523(a)(6) makes a conversion debt nondischargeable for a partner when another partner committed the willful and malicious conversion in the ordinary course of business.

Oetker v. Bullington (In Re Bullington) · filed 1994-04-15(a)(6)

In a dischargeability proceeding for conversion, the willful and malicious acts of one partner, committed in the ordinary course of business, are imputed to other partners such that any debt is non-discharge-able as to them as well.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a partner’s fraud is imputed to the debtor, even if the debtor did not personally commit the fraud.

Moore v. Gill (In Re Gill) · filed 1995-04-14(a)(2)(A)

For purposes of section 523(a)(2)(A), this Court does not find it necessary to make a distinction between active fraud and fraud imputed by the acts of a partner. The imputed fraud of the one partner is sufficient to create a debt that is excepted from discharge in another partner’s bankruptcy.