11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from fraud from discharge when the debtor benefits from the fraud, even if the debtor does not personally receive the money.

HSSM 7 Ltd. Partnership v. Bilzerian · filed 1996-12-03(a)(2)(A)

In light of persuasive circuit authority, we conclude in this case that the district court properly applied the "receipt of benefits" theory in concluding that Bilzerian's debt to HSSM was subject to the § 523(a)(2)(A) exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through an authorized agent’s fraud nondischargeable when the debtor was recklessly indifferent to the agent’s conduct.

Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Beasley (In Re Beasley) · filed 1996-12-05(a)(2)(A)

At the very least, Shirley Beasley was recklessly indifferent toward Wade’s activities under her authority and therefore, her debt to Green Tree which was obtained through Wade Beasley’s fraud, is nondis-ehargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits an agent’s fraud to be imputed to a debtor who knew or should have known of it, even if the debtor made no personal misrepresentation.

Owens v. Miller · filed 1999-10-25(a)(2)(A)

In other words, by finding that § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act imposes an agency-like relationship between Bohling and Miller and McGavern, this Court need not find that Miller and McGavern committed fraud themselves under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... For the foregoing reasons, the debtors’ debts to Plaintiffs Ronald Owens, Margaret Owens, Nicola Angelicola, Pasqualina Angelicola, and Ernest Waterman are declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) due to the fraud of their agent.

Under § 523(a), a spouse’s benefit from or knowledge of fraud alone does not make a debt nondischargeable as to that spouse, but an unrebutted presumption of agency can bind the spouse.

Michener v. Brady (In Re Brady) · filed 2000-01-13(a)

As a general rule, fraudulent intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) or under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) cannot be imputed from the mere fact that a wife derived benefit from her husband’s conduct, or even that she had knowledge of his misconduct. ... We thus cannot find that the Bankruptcy Court erred in either its findings of fact or its legal conclusions that the $15,000 “swing loan” from the Quinn Estate was non-dischargeable as to Mrs. Brady.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a partner’s fraud debt nondischargeable when state partnership law makes the debtor liable, regardless of monetary benefit or whether the fraud occurred in the ordinary course of business.

Deodati v. M.M. Winkler & Associates (In Re M.M. Winkler & Associates) · filed 2001-02-07(a)(2)(A)

We conclude that if a debt arises from fraud and the debtor is liable for that debt under state partnership law, the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). Receipt of benefits and the ordinary course of business are irrelevant to this inquiry as matters of federal law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor has controlling person liability under securities law for another person's fraud.

Donald A. Hoffend, Sr. v. Villa · filed 2001-08-15(a)(2)(A)

There being no issue of liability pursuant to respondeat superior in this appeal, we hold that Villa's potential § 20(a) liability is not in itself sufficient to render the debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because securities law imposes control-person liability for another person’s fraud.

Owens v. Miller · filed 2002-01-10(a)(2)(A)

Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code addresses actual, traditional fraud, and we are not persuaded that it should be read in such a way as to encompass the nontraditional liability imposed under § 20(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits one spouse’s fraud to be imputed to the other under agency principles when they are business partners.

Tsurukawa v. Nikon Precision, Inc. (In Re Tsurukawa) · filed 2002-12-12(a)(2)(A)

In a § 523(a)(2)(A) action, one spouse’s fraud may be imputed to the other spouse under agency principles when, as in this case, they are also business partners.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not impute a spouse’s intent to deceive to a debtor solely because they are married or the debtor helps with the spouse’s business.

Agribank, FCB v. Gordon (In Re Gordon) · filed 2003-06-05(a)(2)(B)

The Court is not persuaded that intent to defraud may be imputed to Defendant under agency principles either in the context of a business relationship or a spousal relationship. The Court is not persuaded that Defendant and her husband operated the farm as a business partnership.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive; one spouse’s intent cannot be imputed to the other solely because they are married.

Boyd v. Loignon (In Re Loignon) · filed 2004-01-30(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive and this intent cannot be imputed from Mr. Loignon to Mrs. Loignon.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from a partner’s or agent’s fraud nondischargeable even if the debtor did not know of the fraud, provided the debtor is liable for the debt under applicable law.

Tummel & Carroll v. Quinlivan · filed 2005-12-20(a)(2)(A)

Even if the partner is innocent of wrongdoing and had no knowledge or reason to know of the fraud, the debt is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for services nondischargeable when the debtor’s agent obtains those services through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Tummel & Carroll v. Quinlivan (In Re Quinlivan) · filed 2006-08-09(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that Texas state agency law should apply to this case, that Donald Totten did act as Robert Quinlivan’s agent in securing the contract with Tummel & Carroll, and that Totten’s actions in negotiating that contract amounted to conduct that makes Quinlivan’s debt to Tummel & Carrol, as set forth in the judgment rendered by the Texas state court and recognized by the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Case No. 94-3215, nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from a co-conspirator’s fraud from discharge when the debtor knowingly and actively participates in the fraudulent scheme.

Blackmon v. Evans (In Re Evans) · filed 2009-05-28(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, any fraudulent acts and representations made by co-conspirators are attributed to the defendant and any debts arising from such acts and representations are excepted from the defendant’s discharge pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Gauthier · filed 2009-10-21(a)(2)

In In re Allison, we established that, in the case of husband-and-wife debtors, the marital relationship alone is not enough to impute one spouse’s fraud to the other for nondischargeability purposes.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents an innocent partner from discharging a debt for money obtained through another partner’s actual fraud.

Casablanca Lofts LLC v. Abrham · filed 2010-08-30(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, based on the plain language of Section 523(a)(2)(A), the history of the fraud exception and Congress’ policies underlying the exception, the Court holds that an innocent partner’s debt for money to the extent obtained by the actual fraud of one of his two other partners is not dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a partner’s fraud to be imputed to a debtor only if the debtor knew or should have known of the fraud.

Treadwell v. Glenstone Lodge, Inc. · filed 2011-03-09(a)(2)(A)

Under our precedent, imputation only is proper if the otherwise innocent debtor knew or should have known of his partner’s fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a business partner’s fraud liability to be imputed to a debtor who should have known of the fraud or was recklessly indifferent to it.

Treadwell v. Glenstone Lodge, Inc. (In Re Treadwell) · filed 2011-09-27(a)(2)(A)

In any event, due to his access to their joint records, he either should have known of their lack of funds, or acted with reckless indifference to that fact. I find, therefore, that if Larry had paid even minimal attention to the situation, he would have been alerted to the fact that they were not going to be able to pay the bill at the end of the event. Carole’s nondischargeable liability is, therefore, imputed to him.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable to the extent it arises from actual fraud imputed to the debtor through a civil conspiracy.

Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance v. Budnick (In Re Budnick) · filed 2012-04-09(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Denise’s fraud with respect to the Subsequent Embezzlements is imputed to the Debtor on a civil conspiracy theory and the Judgment Debt also is nondischargeable to that extent in this case on an “actual fraud” theory pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge based on an agent’s fraudulent representations when the debtor knew or should have known of them.

Lioce v. Heinz (In re Heinz) · filed 2013-11-13(a)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, under either standard the Court finds that the plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Heinz knew or should have known of Taylor’s fraudulent misrepresentations. ... Based on the forgoing, the Court finds that the debt to the Lioces is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an innocent spouse’s debt from discharge based on the other spouse’s fraud when they were not business partners or agents when the fraud occurred.

Haig v. Shart (In re Shart) · filed 2014-01-29(a)(2)(A)

The facts of this case highlight how inappropriate it is to impute the fraud of one person to another under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor fails to correct a false impression despite a duty to speak, or when a partner’s fraud is imputed to the debtor.

Donahoo v. Simone (In re Simone) · filed 2014-03-31(a)(2)(A)

Although she was silent, in accordance with the applicable law as cited above and in the circumstances, she is charged with a duty to speak and to disclose. She failed to do so. She is individually liable under section 523(a)(2)(A). ... Because Mr. and Mrs. Simone were partners, the fraud of Mr. Simone can be imputed to Mrs. Simone.

Section 523(a)(2) allows a derivative fraud claim even when the debtor defrauded a third party, if the creditor pleads that the fraud caused its liability to that party and that all elements of fraud are present.

Pizza Patron Inc. v. Saenz (In re Saenz) · filed 2014-08-08(a)(2)

Accordingly, the Court rejects the argument that the fraud debt is only excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2) if Saenz defrauded PPI. In order to sustain a derivative fraud claim under § 523(a)(2), the movant must (i) plead a theory of recovery showing that movant’s liability to the third party arises because of debtor’s fraud and (ii) that all of the elements of fraud are present between the debtor and third party.

Section 523(a)(2) permits a derivative fraud claim when the claimant pleads that its liability to a third party arose from the debtor’s fraud and that the elements of fraud are present between the debtor and the third party.

International Bank of Commerce v. Saenz (In re Saenz) · filed 2014-08-08(a)(2)

In order to sustain a derivative fraud claim under § 523(a)(2), the movant must (i) plead a theory of recovery showing that movant’s liability to the third party arises because of debtor’s fraud and (ii) that all of the elements of fraud are present between the debtor and third party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor’s actual or imputed complicity in fraud before a fraudulently obtained debt is excepted from discharge.

Sullivan v. Glenn · filed 2014-09-09(a)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, I am persuaded that these courts understand § 523(a)(2)(A) to require complicity in the fraud, whether actual or imputed, on the part of the debtor in question, and not simply on the part of anyone obligated on the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a legal basis to impute a spouse’s fraudulent misrepresentation to the debtor; marriage alone is insufficient.

Bench v. Wood (In re Wood) · filed 2015-05-12(a)(2)(A)

If a debtor did not have actual knowledge of a spouse’s misrepresentation, the knowledge cannot be imputed to her simply because of her marriage.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) do not permit one spouse’s liability to be imputed to the other solely because they are married.

Amerisafe, Inc. v. Ernst (In re Ernst) · filed 2017-05-17(a)(2), (a)(4)

The court now turns to Ameri-safe’s contention that its claim is non-dis-chargeable as to the debtor personally and his separate property under sections 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(4). Amerisafe’s allegations would be sufficient to state a non-dischargeability claim against Lisa Ernst. Her liability, however, cannot be imputed to the debtor solely based on the spousal relationship.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not impute an LLC employee’s fraud to the debtor solely because the debtor owns the LLC; the court required proof that the debtor managed its daily operations and actively participated in the wrongful acts.

Westlake Flooring Co. v. Staggs (In re Staggs) · filed 2017-09-22(a)(2)(A)

Likewise, in the case before this Court, the Court finds that neither the acts of the Defendant’s husband nor any other employee of Alabama Direct should be imputed to the Defendant as the sole owner of Alabama Direct for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A) without proof that the Defendant was responsible for the day-to-day operations of Alabama Direct and actively participated in the wrongful acts of the employees of the limited liability company.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge when the debtor benefited from the fraud, even if the debtor did not personally commit it.

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Lanier (In re Lanier) · filed 2017-10-04(a)(2)(A)

Debtor need not personally and directly engage in the subject fraudulent conduct, but must benefit from the fraudulent conduct.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor recklessly ignores an agent’s fraudulent loan application and profits from the fraud.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union v. Tineo · filed 2019-11-26(a)(2)(A)

The Debtor was recklessly indifferent to what Rich stated in the Application and paid no attention. ... He thereby profited from the fraud perpetrated by his agent. Accordingly, the Debt is not dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) permits a partner’s or agent’s fraudulent written financial statement to be imputed to the debtor when deciding whether a debt is dischargeable.

Veritex Community Bank v. Osborne · filed 2020-03-10(a)(2)(B)

We therefore hold that a fraudulent statement by a debtor’s partner or agent may be imputed to the debtor under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly participates in another person’s fraud that gives rise to the debt.

Madison Resource Funding Corp. v. Marsh · filed 2021-01-25(a)(2)(A)

Here, the admissions demonstrate that Robert Marsh knew of Jerry Marsh’s fraudulent intent and actively conspired with Jerry Marsh to damage Madison. Because Robert Marsh was a willing participant in Jerry Marsh’s fraudulent acts, his debt is non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a partner’s debt arising from partnership fraud nondischargeable even if that partner did not know of the fraud.

Buckley v. Bartenwerfer · filed 2021-08-12(a)(2)(A)

Mrs. Bartenwerfer’s debt is nondischargeable regardless of her knowledge of the fraud. By rejecting Strang and Cecchini, in favor of the “knew or should have known” standard, the bankruptcy court applied the incorrect legal standard for imputed liability in a partnership relationship.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when an authorized agent’s false representations are imputed to the debtor and cause the debtor to obtain and retain funds under false pretenses.

Apollo Medflight, LLC v. Lowry · filed 2021-10-05(a)(2)(A)

The actions of Ms. Lowry, fastened to the statements of Ms. Locklear, were deceitful and dishonest, leading to her receipt and retention of the funds under false pretenses. Therefore, the court finds the debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt arising from another person's fraud to be excepted from discharge when a partnership, agency relationship, or other basis for liability links that person to the debtor.

Breanna Dee Madrid · filed 2022-03-25(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Kim must allege facts supporting a partnership, agency relationship, or another basis for liability between Mendenhall and the Moores to impute § 523(a)(2)(A) nondischargeability upon Mendenhall.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge based on another person’s fraud only when applicable law makes the debtor liable for that fraud.

City of Zeigler v. Uhls · filed 2023-06-29(a)(2)(A)

The Court knows of no legal theory available under Illinois law which allows the City to impute the fraudulent acts of its own employee to a person under contract with the City. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of Defendant Uhls on Count I.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can bar discharge of a debt obtained by fraud even if the debtor did not personally commit the fraudulent act.

(BK) In Re: Gregory Schmidt · filed 2024-03-05(a)(2)(A)

However, this point is irrelevant as 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) applies to prevent discharge where a debt was “obtained by” false pretenses, false presentation, or fraud. It does not specify that the fraudulent act was committed by a specific person or party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on another person’s fraud unless the underlying law makes the debtor liable for that fraud.

Choi v. Tan · filed 2025-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Because state law does not recognize Tan’s liability for Ku’s misrepresentations, the applicability of § 523(a)(2)(A) cannot be predicated on those statements.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an honest debtor’s debt from discharge for another person’s fraud unless applicable law makes that debtor liable for the fraud.

Lavender v. Bortz · filed 2025-05-16(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Bartenwerfer does not extend liability under §523(a)(2)(A) to Mrs. Bortz. As such, the $140,000 of debt owed by Mrs. Bortz is not excepted from discharge for false representations or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an LLC owner’s debt from discharge based on the LLC’s alleged fraud when the corporate veil has not been pierced and the owner’s individual fraud has not been adequately alleged.

Raley v. Beaumier, Jr. · filed 2025-04-23(a)(2)(A)

In short, in this context where the corporate veil was not pierced, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendants committed fraud in their individual capacity to except her judgment from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not impute one spouse’s alleged fraud to the other based solely on marriage; an agency, partnership, or business relationship must be alleged.

Gonzalez v. Behrendt · filed 2025-09-26(a)(2)(A)

In addition, the reliance on Bartenwerfer to impute Behrendt’s alleged fraudulent conduct under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to Antonio, even in the absence of wrongdoing on her part, is misplaced. Gonzalez failed to allege Behrendt and Antonio formed an agency, partnership or business relationship beyond that of a marital relationship.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not impute one spouse’s alleged fraud to the other based solely on marriage; an agency, partnership, or business relationship must be alleged.

Sevilla v. Behrendt · filed 2025-09-26(a)(2)(A)

In addition, the reliance on Bartenwerfer to impute Behrendt’s alleged fraudulent conduct under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to Antonio, even in the absence of wrongdoing on her part, is misplaced. Sevilla failed to allege Behrendt and Antonio formed an agency, partnership or business relationship beyond that of a marital relationship.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from actual fraud from discharge even for a jointly liable debtor who was less involved in the fraud.

Meza · filed 2026-06-26(a)(2)(A)

While Ms. Meza may have been less involved in the fraud compared to Mr. Meza, § 523(a)(2)(A) focuses on how the debt arose, and does not distinguish between participants.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a creditor’s release of collection claims as an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit.

Howard & Sons, Inc. v. Schmidt (In Re Schmidt) · filed 1986-10-06(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the execution of the mutual release by Howard whereby it waived any and all rights to pursue the collection of the alleged indebtedness to it by Schmidt was not an extension, renewal or refinancing of credit within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) does not let a creditor revive an untried fraud claim exchanged for promissory notes in good-faith settlements to make the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Greenberg v. Schools (In Re Schools) · filed 1981-11-02(a)(4)

The Court finds that after two settlements and exchanges of promissory notes, the plaintiff is not entitled to resurrect the original unliquidated, untried claim for the purpose of now finding it non-dis-chargeable in bankruptcy.

A third-party agreement that liquidates a debt arising from larceny or willful and malicious conversion does not make it dischargeable under § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6) when the debtors remain liable.

McCall v. Poos (In re Poos) · filed 1984-08-07(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Court finds that debtors’ debt to plaintiff remains nondischargeable, notwithstanding the agreement between plaintiff and the third party.

Section 523(a)(6) does not make every settlement of a willful and malicious conversion claim nondischargeable; discharge depends on the circumstances of the settlement.

First National Bank of Red Bud v. Kimzey · filed 1985-05-06(a)(6)

We must therefore consider whether a debt owed as part of a settlement of a claim for willful and malicious conversion is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). ... Nevertheless, we hold that, on the particular facts of this case, the $5,230.00 debt was discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) makes the dischargeability of an omitted debt depend on its notice and timing requirements, not on whether the debtor later adds it to the schedules.

In Re Parmer · filed 1989-04-06(a)(3)

This Court agrees that the issue of the dischargeability of a debt is not governed by whether the Debtors are allowed to schedule a debt.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a court to examine the underlying nature of a debt despite a settlement agreement when deciding whether the debt is dischargeable.

Haynes v. Bobofchak (In Re Bobofchak) · filed 1989-05-30(a)(4)

The language of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) specifically excepts from discharge debts incurred through fraud, embezzlement and defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity and the Court should examine the underlying nature of the debtor’s original obligation notwithstanding the settlement agreement.

Section 523(a)(3) makes the dischargeability of an omitted debt depend on the creditor’s notice and the kind of debt; adding the creditor to the schedules alone does not decide it.

In Re Brian Sung Il Kim · filed 1989-07-19(a)(3)

Thus, the mere scheduling of Lines as a creditor has no effect on whether the debt owed to Lines, if any, is discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a settlement debt nondischargeable to the extent it resolves claims arising from the debtor’s fraud.

United States v. Spicer (In Re Spicer) · filed 1993-07-02(a)(2)(A)

To the extent the settlement debt was attributable to the debtor’s fraudulent conduct, it cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, but to the extent the settlement debt was intended to compromise other claims against the debtor, it can be discharged.

Under § 523(a)(4), an embezzlement debt’s nondischargeability does not carry over to a promissory note accepted in exchange for a release of the original debt.

In the Matter of Pamela A. West, Debtor-Appellee. Appeal of John R. Oltman · filed 1994-05-03(a)(4)

Accordingly, we reaffirm the two-fold holding of Maryland Casualty: first, a promissory note generally does not discharge the debt for which it is given; but second, if it is shown that the note was given and received as payment or waiver of the original debt and the parties agreed that the note was to substitute a new obligation for the old, the note fully discharges the original debt, and the nondischargeability of the original debt does not affect the dischargeability of the obligation under the note.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a court to look behind a settlement agreement to determine whether the underlying debt arose from fraud.

United States v. Turner (In Re Turner) · filed 1995-02-27(a)(2)(A)

This Court follows Arnold and adopts the reasoning of Green-berg in holding that the court may, and in fact must, look behind the settlement agreement to determine the nature of the underlying debt in deciding whether the debt is dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) keeps a debt arising from fraud nondischargeable even when a settlement agreement changes its legal form.

United States v. Spicer · filed 1995-06-30(a)(2)(A)

Although the subsequent settlement agreement alters the legal form of that obligation, it does not transmogrify its essential nature so as to immunize it from the command of § 523(a)(2)(A) that debt for money or property obtained by fraud is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make a prior debt nondischargeable after the creditor unconditionally releases that debt and substitutes a new obligation.

Kaplan v. First Options of Chicago, Inc. · filed 1995-11-06(a)(4)

We further conclude that the bankruptcy court correctly held that the release found in the work-out agreement between the Debtor and First Options served as a novation and thereby relieved the Debtor of liabilities which arose prior to the work-out agreement, including the $610,300 worth of transfers that First Options contends violated § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents a prepetition settlement with a general release from making a fraud debt dischargeable.

Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis (In Re Francis) · filed 1998-11-10(a)(2)(A)

The Panel holds that a general release as part of a settlement of a tort claim does not serve as a novation allowing a debt incurred by fraud to be discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3) does not make an omitted debt dischargeable merely because the debtor later adds it to the bankruptcy schedules.

Moretti v. Bergeron (In Re Moretti) · filed 2001-03-30(a)(3)

As we stated earlier, the late scheduling of a debt has no effect on its dischargeability; it does not bring an otherwise nondischargeable debt within the scope of the discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) permits a creditor to prove that a debt arose from fraud or fiduciary defalcation despite a settlement agreement and general release.

Giaimo v. Detrano (In Re Detrano) · filed 2001-07-10(a)(4)

Rather, guided by well-established precedent, the Court concludes that a discharge proceeding in bankruptcy court is fundamentally different from a tort action seeking damages, and therefore the Settlement Agreement in this case does not prevent an inquiry into whether Detrano in fact committed fraud or breached his fiduciary duties as alleged for the purposes of determining the dischargeability of his debt.

Section 523(a)(4) permits a court to look beyond a settlement agreement to determine whether the underlying debt arose from fraud or defalcation while the debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity.

In Re: Roger M. Detrano, Debtor. Joseph O. Giaimo, of the Estate of Elizabeth M. Chase Deceased v. Detrano · filed 2003-04-15(a)(4)

Both the § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(4) exceptions to discharge deal with fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, if the tort claims against De-Trano would have created a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(4), had those claims been litigated to judgment in Giai-mo’s favor, then it is no defense for De-Trano to state that he has replaced that possible liability with a dischargeable contractual obligation through the settlement agreement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a settlement debt from discharge when the creditor shows that the debt arose from fraud, even if the settlement released the underlying fraud claim.

Archer v. Warner · filed 2003-03-31(a)(2)(A)

We conclude that the Archers' settlement agreement and releases may have worked a kind of novation, but that fact does not bar the Archers from showing that the settlement debt arose out of "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud," and consequently is nondischargeable, 11 U. S. C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) can except a settlement debt from discharge when the underlying claim involves money obtained by fraud, larceny, or embezzlement.

Estate of Kramer v. Kramer (In Re Kramer) · filed 2004-11-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Therefore, and in light of the Court’s analysis set forth in part II. above, the Debt- or’s debt of $6,500 promised to the Estate in the stipulation that is embodied in the Consent Order, which consent order settled and conditionally released the Estate’s claim against the Debtor for the Funds, amounts to a nondischargeable debt for (a) money obtained by fraud within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A), and (b) either larceny or embezzlement within the meaning of § 523(a)(4).

A court reviewing a settlement of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim must exercise judgment before entering a nondischargeable consent judgment.

MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Panem (In Re Panem) · filed 2006-09-13(a)(2)(A)

Second, the case law supports this Court’s belief that the entry of an order approving a settlement and judgment in a section 523(a)(2)(A) adversary proceeding is not a mere “administrative” role, but an affirmative judicial act requiring discretion and good judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a court to look behind a settlement agreement or release to determine whether a debt arose from fraud and is nondischargeable.

OSB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Hathaway (In Re Hathaway) · filed 2007-03-06(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that it is obligated under Archer to look behind a settlement agreement reached by the parties to determine if such debt arose out of fraud. Regardless of any release which may have been executed by the creditor, or any potential novation, if the particular debt arose out of fraud, then this Court may find the debt to be nondischargeable, no matter its current form.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a settlement that modifies an existing debt and allows later payment as an extension of credit.

Ultra Litho, PYT, Ltd. v. Moore (In Re Moore) · filed 2007-03-30(a)(2)(A)

Applying these standards to the facts of this case, IGS obtained an “extension ... of credit” from Ultra Litho, as that phrase is used in Section 523(a)(2), under the Ultra Litho/IGS Settlement Agreement. That agreement settled and resolved IGS’s obligation to Ultra Litho under the IGS/Ultra Litho Sale Agreement, and reduced IGS’s obligation to an obligation to wire transfer $127,031.25.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to pursue a claim that a debt arose from fraud even after settling the underlying dispute.

Old Republic Title Co. Ex Rel. Greenberg v. Looney (In Re Looney) · filed 2011-06-29(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision that Old Republic is not barred from bringing an 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to show that a settlement debt arose from fraud, even when the debtor also gave a deed of trust as security.

In re: Russell Looney v. · filed 2011-06-29(a)(2)(A)

The only distinction, the debtor’s execution of a deed of trust, provides no support for the debtor’s argument. ... Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision that Old Republic is not barred from bringing an 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a settlement debt from discharge when it arises from fraud that induced the original contract, even if the settlement itself was not induced by fraud.

Cago, Inc. v. Slade (In Re Slade) · filed 2012-03-15(a)(2)(A)

Likewise, the debt owing by Mr. Slade to CAGO under the Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Judgment arose out of the fraudulent representations he made that induced CAGO to enter into the Contract. Thus, even though the Settlement Agreement itself was not induced by fraud, the debt represented by the Settlement Agreement constitutes the nondisehargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a court to examine the fraud underlying a settled debt when deciding whether the debt is dischargeable.

In re: Sanjesh Prasad Sharma and Aracely Colombina Sharma · filed 2013-05-14(a)(2)(A)

We first note that the novation worked by the Settlement Agreement is not a bar to inquiry about the underlying fraud claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when stipulated facts establish that the debtor obtained the money by fraud, even if the settlement agreement contains an unenforceable prepetition discharge waiver.

In re: Jun Ho Yang Ho Soon Hwang Yang · filed 2016-02-17(a)(2)(A)

Rather, the bankruptcy court correctly looked behind the Settlement Agreement to the specific facts to which Yang stipulated to determine whether the judgment debt was a debt for money obtained by fraud and therefore, nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) allows a creditor to pursue nondischargeability based on a false financial statement despite a settlement agreement’s merger clause.

Tybee v. Coker (In re Coker) · filed 2017-03-28(a)(2)(B)

Because the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement’s merger clause does not prohibit the Plaintiffs from bringing this dischargeability proceeding, summary judgment is not appropriate on such basis.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the full unpaid balance of a settlement debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains the settlement as an extension of credit through material misrepresentations or omissions on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Smith v. Johnson-Battle (In re Johnson-Battle) · filed 2019-05-08(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the entire debt of $ 11,289 of the Debtor to Plaintiff under the Stipulation, less payments of $ 3,200.77, or a balance of $ 8,088.23, represented an extension of credit and is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A) because Plaintiff entered into the Stipulation on the basis of Debtor's material misrepresentations and omissions as to her marital status and sources of income, on which Plaintiff justifiably relied to his detriment.

Section 523 permits a court to look behind a settlement judgment to determine whether the underlying debt is excepted from discharge.

DFWMM Holdings LLC v. Richmond · filed 2019-06-21

Nevertheless, the Court may look behind the judgment to determine whether the agreement giving rise to it settled any earlier claims for debts which may not be discharged in this proceeding.

A court-approved settlement resolving a § 523(a) dischargeability dispute can preclude relitigation even when the creditor did not file a separate adversary proceeding.

Storick v. CFG LLC · filed 2020-01-13(a)

The parties’ agreement to and presentation of the Amended Settlement to the bankruptcy court for approval in the 2009 Bankruptcy Case obviated the need for CFG to file an adversary proceeding seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits inquiry into alleged fraud underlying a debt despite a later settlement agreement.

Lieberman v. Mason · filed 2020-04-28(a)(2)(A)

The fact that the parties entered into a settlement agreement after the alleged fraud took place does not preclude the Court from reviewing the Complaint for stating a fraud claim and so it stands.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits inquiry into alleged fraud underlying a settlement debt, even when a consent order settles the parties’ claims.

Swiger v. Mansfield · filed 2020-07-24(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, for purposes of summary judgment the Debtor has failed to show that Archer is inapplicable. As such, inquiry into the Debtor’s allegedly fraudulent conduct in applying for the Student Loans forming the basis of the Mansfield Debt is permitted in this matter.

A debtor's entry into a settlement can constitute obtaining value within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Kippy Gordon Roberson · filed 2024-02-29(a)(2)(A)

The Court further finds that the Debtor’s entry into the Settlement constituted obtaining “money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit” within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A).

A bankruptcy trustee cannot settle creditors’ objections under § 523 over the objections of the creditors who brought them.

In Re: Orly Genger · filed 2025-04-24

As the Bankruptcy Court concluded, the Trustee cannot settle claims brought under §§ 523 and 727 over the objection of the creditors who brought those claims.

Section 523(a)(6) requires the court to examine the circumstances giving rise to a debt when deciding dischargeability, even if the underlying state court claims were dismissed.

Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC v. Bryant · filed 2025-11-21(a)(6)

As explained by the Supreme Court in Archer v. Warner, the remaining efficacy of the underlying state court claims does not affect the bankruptcy court’s obligation to assess the dischargeability of the debt by examining the nature of the circumstances giving rise to the debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an entire judgment arising from a debtor’s fraud from discharge, even when the judgment includes amounts beyond the money obtained by fraud.

Miller v. Lewis · filed 2008-03-24(a)(2)(A)

Under either mode of analysis, the entire debt embodied in the Arizona judgment falls squarely within the reach of Section 523(a) (2)(A) and is excepted from discharge.

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

Quadrangle Enterprise, Inc. v. Harper (In Re Harper) · filed 2007-11-06(a)(6)

The Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to the exception for discharge for willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6). ... For these reasons, the treble damages awarded Plaintiff in the State Court case are also nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require an award of punitive damages to except a debt for willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Snow v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 2000-12-08(a)(6)

An award of punitive damages, however, is not a prerequisite to a finding of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not except punitive damages awarded to a private creditor from discharge.

Gnidovec v. Alwan (In Re Alwan Bros.) · filed 1989-10-13(a)(4), (a)(6)

Thus, reading the language of Section 523(a)(7) along with that of Section 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6), evinces a congressional intent that punitive damages awarded to a private litigant are dischargeable.

For conversion of collateral under § 523(a)(6), the amount excepted from discharge is generally the value of the property converted, rather than the entire debt.

United States v. Dorman (In Re Dorman) · filed 1987-01-21(a)(6)

Generally, the measure of damages for conversion of collateral is the value of the property converted, not the entire debt.

Section 523(a)(6) makes the full debt nondischargeable when a debtor’s wilful and malicious sale of collateral destroys the creditor’s security and the collateral’s value cannot be determined.

Trust Co. Bank of Cobb County v. Ricketts (In Re Ricketts) · filed 1982-01-29(a)(6)

The debt created by Ricketts’ wilful and malicious injury here is that the bank is no longer secured in the amount of the value of this collateral. There is no way to value this loss of security, as debtor has placed it beyond the reach of the bank. Thus there is no way to show how much of the balance outstanding was secured. It could have been completely secured, or secured by a worthless hulk. Therefore we find that the entire balance of the debt owing to Trust Company is nondischargeable.

When a debtor willfully and maliciously converts secured collateral, § 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge only the amount the creditor would have realized by repossessing and selling it.

Wisconsin Finance Corp. v. Ries (In Re Ries) · filed 1982-08-06(a)(6)

Section 523(a)(6) provides that any debt for malicious and willful injury not be discharged. In the present case, the only part of the debt owed to WFC which is for a willful and malicious injury is the amount the debt would have been reduced by, had WFC been able to repossess and sell the piano. The remainder of the debt is not for willful and malicious injury but merely the result of a loan transaction.

Section 523 makes punitive damages and attorney fees nondischargeable when they arise from conduct that renders the underlying debt nondischargeable.

Goldstein v. Maxwell (In Re Maxwell) · filed 1983-02-17(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Punitive damages awarded pursuant to state law for actions which would render a debt nondischargeable, see 11 U.S. C.A. § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) (West 1979), are nondischargeable in bankruptcy. ... The same is true for attorney fees.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge the portion of a fiduciary defalcation debt directly attributable to diverted funds.

Joseph Lorenz, Inc. v. Thomas (In Re Thomas) · filed 1983-04-18(a)(4)

Here, Judge Shapiro correctly found that the non-dischargeable portion of the debt consisted only of that portion directly attributable to Paul Thomas’ diversion of funds.

When an indivisible judgment covers both a debt arising from fraud and a dischargeable debt, a payment on the judgment is allocated proportionately between them to determine the nondischargeable balance.

Jennen v. Hunter (In re Hunter) · filed 1984-09-04(a)(2)(A)

Because the debt is represented by a judgment indivisible on its face, and by reason of the fraud proven in the case, it is the opinion of the court that Plaintiff is entitled to a proportionate allocation of the payment received to each debt represented by the total mortgage.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts only newly extended credit from discharge when the debtor obtained it through a materially false written financial statement.

Norwest Card Services v. Barnacle (In Re Barnacle) · filed 1984-10-15(a)(2)(B)

All criteria have been met as to § 523(a)(2)(B) as to the Norwest Master Card balance above and beyond $2,017.06. Since the total debt at filing was $4,137.09, the nondischargeable portion is $2,120.03.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes only new funds advanced on renewal nondischargeable when the creditor neither forfeits remedies nor otherwise relies to its detriment on a false financial statement concerning the existing loan.

Norwest Financial New Mexico Inc. v. Ojeda (In Re Ojeda) · filed 1985-07-11(a)(2)(B)

Norwest presented no evidence that it forfeited any remedies or otherwise relied to its detriment on the false financial statement with respect to the existing loan. Therefore, this Court finds that only the sums advanced to the debtors as a result of the July 22 renewal should be held non-dis-chargeable.

When foreclosure proceeds cover consolidated dischargeable and fraud-based debts and the parties’ intended allocation is unknown, the proceeds may be apportioned in proportion to the debts.

Jennen v. Hunter · filed 1985-08-20(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's application of the proceeds between the two debts on a proportionate basis, leaving Hunter with a nondischargeable debt of $8,120.83.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes a renewed loan nondischargeable to the extent the creditor lost the opportunity to collect by relying on a false financial statement.

North Shore Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1988-07-08(a)(2)(B)

As a second lien holder, North Shore would have collected all but the $15,000 owed to the Barnett Bank, or $28,066. This, then, is the amount of the debt which is nondischargeable because this is the amount that North Shore could have collected at the time it renewed the original loan.

Section 523(a)(4) or (6) also excepts statutory attorney fees and costs from discharge when they arise from the conduct that made the underlying debt nondischargeable.

Doran Services, Inc. v. Valentine (In Re Valentine) · filed 1988-07-13(a)(4) and (6)

This Court concludes that if a creditor is statutorily entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred because of a debtor’s actions that render a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(4) or (6), the debt for those attorney fees and costs is also nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through a knowing false representation intended to deceive the creditor; interest and reasonable attorney’s fees ancillary to that debt are also recoverable.

Flora Bank & Trust v. Balch (In re Balch) · filed 1988-07-18(a)(2)(A)

The Court has already found that the creditor has proven the first three elements. That is, Balch knowingly did make a false representation with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor. ... Due to this false representation, the Bank sustained the alleged injury as the proximate result of the representations having been made. ... Attorney’s fees and interest are recoverable in a dischargeability complaint where the primary debt is held to be nondischargeable and the attorney’s fees and interest are considered to be ancillary obligations which attach to the primary debt in question, as in the present case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) includes reasonable contractual attorney fees incurred in collecting a debt obtained by fraud.

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Birkland · filed 1988-10-14(a)(2)(A)

That is, the creditor who has been defrauded is entitled to all of its rights under the contract, including reasonable attorney fees.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the entire loan nondischargeable when a debtor’s false representation about pledged collateral induced the lender to make the loan.

First Interstate Bank of Washington, D.C., N.A. v. Hecker (In Re Hecker) · filed 1989-01-06(a)(2)(A)

A debtor whose misrepresentations induced the lender to make the entire loan in the first place is not entitled to the benefit of the scenario that would have unfolded had the debtor been truthful. The statute does not limit the lender’s recovery to that part of the debt which could have been recovered after default (based upon the collateral’s unexpected decline in value after the loan was made) had the debtor’s representations been true.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts from discharge only debt extended in reasonable reliance on a false financial statement.

First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sanders (In Re Sanders) · filed 1989-05-25(a)(2)(B)

As a matter of theory, the appellant correctly asserts that only that amount of debt extended in reasonable reliance upon the false statement is nondischargeable. In this case, however, Mr. Pundsack testified in essence that no credit would have been extended if the truth about the appellant’s financial condition had been revealed. Given the serious nature of the appellant’s financial reversals, this court cannot say the bankruptcy court’s acceptance of this testimony was clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(6) permits punitive damages for willful and malicious injury to be included in a nondischargeability judgment when they are proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Diaz v. Diaz (In Re Diaz) · filed 1989-06-26(a)(6)

The very purpose of § 523(a)(6) is in fact to penalize the debtor for his misdeeds where he has acted willfully and maliciously versus another entity, and thus the allowance of punitive damages is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Code in such an instance.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts actual damages for a willful and malicious injury from discharge, but does not except punitive damages.

Johnson v. Miera (In Re Miera) · filed 1989-08-08(a)(6)

As such, an award of them does not fall within the ambit of debts nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) makes interest on a debt for fiduciary fraud or defalcation nondischargeable along with the underlying debt.

Klingman v. Levinson · filed 1989-08-25(a)(4)

We agree with the view of the bankruptcy judge and district court that Judge Ginsberg originally intended to declare the entire state court judgment debt non-dischargeable, along with interest thereon, both pre- and post-petition.

Section 523(a)(6) makes punitive as well as compensatory damages nondischargeable when they arise from a willful and malicious injury.

In Re Alberto Obed Miera, Jr. Neil K. Johnson v. Alberto Obed Miera, Jr. · filed 1991-02-22(a)(6)

Moreover, this section does not distinguish between debts which are compensatory in nature and those which are punitive. The language of section 523(a)(6) is directed at the nature of the conduct which gives rise to the debt, rather than the nature of the debt. We conclude that Miera should not be allowed to discharge the punitive portion of the judgment against him in bankruptcy in light of the fact that both the punitive damage award and the compensatory damage award stemmed from the same willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge the creditor’s loss from a debtor’s wrongful sale of collateral, measured by the collateral’s fair value when sold rather than the full contract debt.

In Re Larry Modicue and Wanda Nelson Modicue, Debtors. Friendly Finance Service Mid-City, Inc. v. Larry Modicue and Wand · filed 1991-03-15(a)(6)

Thus, the appropriate measure for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6) is an amount equal to the injury caused by the debtor rather than any other sum owed by the debtor on a contractual basis. ... The bankruptcy court and the district court correctly concluded that the appropriate measure of the non-dischargeable injury is the fair value at the time the property was sold.

Section 523(a)(2) includes a successful creditor’s attorney’s fees in the nondischargeable debt when an enforceable contract provides for them.

Transouth Financial Corporation of Florida v. Ralph Jennings Johnson, Vera Johnson · filed 1991-05-29(a)(2)

After examining the plain language of Section 523 and the policy of the Bankruptcy Code, in general, and Section 523, in particular, we hold that a creditor successful in a dischargeability proceeding may recover attorney's fees when such fees are provided for by an enforceable contract between the creditor and debtor.

A debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) remains collectible with prejudgment interest despite the bankruptcy filing and discharge.

Payne v. Brace (In Re Brace) · filed 1991-09-11(a)(2)(A)

The fact that the Defendants are in bankruptcy does not affect the ability to recover interest once a finding under § 523(a) has been made. ... Applying this decision to the case before me, I find that the Plaintiffs’ claim for both principal and prejudgment interest is warranted and survives, unimpeded, the filing of the petition and the issuance of any discharge.

Section 523(a)(6) can except punitive damages from discharge when they result from a willful and malicious injury.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,355 in Re Robert Britton, Debtor. Robert Britton v. Price · filed 1991-12-06(a)(6)

Britton raises several arguments against the BAP’s holding that, under Adams and Coen, section 523(a)(6) can except punitive damages from discharge. He suggests first that punitive damages “are not a debt for injury caused by a debtor’s willful and malicious acts.” As the quoted language of Coen indicates, the Ninth Circuit has not read the language of section 523 so narrowly.

Section 523(a)(4) can except properly assessed punitive damages from discharge for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Bryan v. Manley (In Re Manley) · filed 1992-01-03(a)(4)

The Court concludes that punitive damages, which are properly assessed against a malefactor, may be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). Accordingly, in this regard Manley has failed to show that he is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the entire debt obtained through fraudulent refinancing nondischargeable, rather than limiting the exception to the value of lost collateral.

Ameritrust Company v. Rudicil · filed 1992-12-18(a)(2)(A)

The reasoning of Birmingham is equally applicable here and requires that the entire amount of the debt be held nondischargeable.

For conversion of collateral under § 523(a)(6), the nondischargeable amount is the lesser of the collateral’s value and the debt owed.

First of America Bank v. Afonica (In Re Afonica) · filed 1994-09-26(a)(6)

This Court agrees that in this case the amount of the debt to be held nondis-chargeable for a conversion in violation of § 523(a)(6) is the lesser value of the converted property or the amount of the indebtedness.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except imputed fraud damages from discharge beyond the limit of a debtor’s contractual guaranty, if the fraud is properly imputed to the debtor.

Bancboston Mortgage Corp. v. Ledford (In Re Sikes) · filed 1995-07-14(a)(2)(A)

Sikes’s guaranty is not a limit on Banc-Boston’s recovery for imputed fraud.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from the same willful and malicious conduct as compensatory damages.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,586 in Re James B. McNallen Debtor. Patricia McNallen Hagan v. McNallen · filed 1995-08-10(a)(6)

As to punitive damages, we hold that they are not dischargeable here because the conduct underlying their award springs from the same conduct underlying the award of compensatory damages.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes an entire debt, plus interest, nondischargeable when a creditor renews credit in reliance on the debtor’s fraud.

Four Queens Enterprises, Inc. v. Forbes (In Re Forbes) · filed 1996-01-29(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, we conclude that the facts here are sufficiently similar to be covered by Goodrich, and hold that the renewal of credit is a sufficient detriment to render the entire debt, plus interest, nondischargeable, and it is so ORDERED.

Section 523(a)(6) makes punitive damages nondischargeable when they arise from the same willful and malicious injury as nondischargeable compensatory damages.

Ramsey v. Bernstein (In Re Bernstein) · filed 1996-05-28(a)(6)

However, when punitive damages spring from the same conduct giving rise to nondischargeable compensatory damages, such punitive damages are also not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A California punitive damages finding of oppression or malice satisfies § 523(a)(6), while a finding of fraud by a partner satisfies § 523(a)(4).

Krishnamurthy v. Nimmagadda (In Re Krishnamurthy) · filed 1997-04-03(a)(4), (a)(6)

That punitive damages were awarded under California law necessarily establishes that the jury found “oppression, fraud or malice.” Oppression or malice satisfy § 523(a)(6). Fraud, while acting as a fiduciary, satisfies § 523(a)(4).

A debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6) includes an enforceable contractual obligation to pay attorneys’ fees incurred in collecting it.

Martin v. Key Bank of New York, N.A. (In Re Martin) · filed 1997-05-22(a)(6)

In this case, Martin was found liable to Key Bank under § 523(a)(6). The meaning of “debt” within § 523(a) has been construed broadly. ... This Court agrees and finds that the contractual obligation to pay attorneys’ fees is included within the meaning of “debt.”

Section 523(a)(4) permits a discretionary award of prejudgment interest on a debt excepted from discharge for defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.

Lapin v. Glatstian (In Re Glatstian) · filed 1997-12-18(a)(4)

It follows that prejudgment interest is presumptively available in cases under Bankruptcy Code section 523. The award of such interest is, however, a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.

Section 523(a)(6) also excepts interest from discharge when the underlying judgment debt is nondischargeable.

In Re Arthur Lionel Scovis Jenny Scovis, Debtors, Arthur Lionel Scovis Jenny Scovis v. Christen Brun Henrichsen · filed 1998-04-24(a)(6)

Second, the Scovises' contention that the bankruptcy court erred by declaring the interest on the state court judgment to be nondischargeable lacks merit because ancillary obligations such as interest partake of the character of the underlying debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) includes attorney fees and costs that naturally and proximately result from a debtor’s fraud in the nondischargeable debt.

Bell v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 1998-11-03(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs are included in the damages excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) bars discharge of punitive damages based on the same willful and malicious conduct as nondischargeable compensatory damages.

Fischer v. Scarborough · filed 1999-03-31(a)(6)

We hold that where the compensatory and punitive damage awards are based on the same underlying conduct, and the judgment for compensatory damages is nondischargeable because it is based on willful and malicious injury to another, then the punitive damages award is likewise nondischargeable.

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

In Re Ian David Abbo, Debtor. Ian David Abbo v. Rossi, McCreery & Associates, Inc. Scott Rossi · filed 1999-04-12(a)(6)

The malicious prosecution judgment debt is thus nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). This is true for both the punitive and compensatory damages judgment.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts punitive damages from discharge when they arise from the same willful and malicious conduct as nondischargeable compensatory damages.

In Re: Elisabeth Scarborough, Debtor. Mark E. Fischer, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Elisabeth Scarborough, Appellant/cros · filed 1999-05-18(a)(6)

We hold that where the compensatory and punitive damage awards are based on the same underlying conduct, and the judgment for compensatory damages is nondis-chargeable because it is based on willful and malicious injury to another, then the punitive damages award is likewise nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts the full liability for fiduciary fraud from discharge, even when state law measures damages by the benefit of the bargain.

Roussos v. Michaelides (In Re Roussos) · filed 2000-07-07(a)(4)

We hold that, no matter how the state court determined the measure of damages for the debtors’ liability for fraud, that determination was the full extent of the debtors’ liability, which is the nondischargeable debt.