11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(6) permits nondischargeable damages for conversion of secured collateral measured by its fair market value at conversion, reduced by sale proceeds after repair costs.

Oakwood Acceptance Corp. v. Coltrane (In Re Coltrane) · filed 2001-05-11(a)(6)

In this case, the Court finds that the fair market value of the collateral at the time of the conversion is the appropriate award of nondischargeable damages. Based on the testimony offered by Mr. Parrish at the hearing, the Court finds that the fair market value of the collateral at the time of the conversion was $60,000.00. However, OAC has incurred $10,606.95 in repair costs to restore the collateral so that it could be offered for sale. In order to prevent OAC from receiving a windfall, the Court holds that the damage award in the amount of $60,000 should be reduced by any amount that OAC realizes from the sale of the mobile home, less the cost expended to restore it.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts an entire fraud judgment from discharge, including restitution, civil penalties, and investigation and prosecution costs.

Missouri Ex Rel. Nixon v. Audley (In Re Audley) · filed 2001-08-02(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court finds that Audley is collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of fraud. And the State of Missouri is entitled to summary judgment on its complaint requesting a determination that the judgment debt resulting from Audley’s fraud is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), including the $200,000 in restitution, the $20,000 in 10% restitution, the $5,000 in civil penalties, and the $10,400 in costs of investigation and prosecution.

A stipulated judgment can fix the total debt while the amount excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6) remains to be determined.

Rodriguez v. Valencia (In Re Valencia) · filed 2002-05-08(a)(6)

In this case, the parties’ stipulation clearly contemplated litigation of the question of the extent to which the debt which has been liquidated by the state court judgment is nondischargeable. Thus, the amount of the judgment serves as a cap on the amount of the claim which may be excepted from discharge; it may or may not be the floor, depending on the evidence presented in the trial of this matter.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a court to declare fraudulent transactions nondischargeable while discharging other transactions in the same series.

Heptacore, Inc. v. Luster · filed 2002-11-01(a)(2)(A)

We agree with the district court that § 523(a)(2)(A) does not present the all-or-nothing rule that Heptacore advocates.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except the medical expense portion of a debt from discharge when the creditor does not allege that those expenses were obtained by fraud or false representation.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. France (In Re France) · filed 2003-10-08(a)(2)(A)

As an initial matter, the Court holds — and at the summary judgment stage no less — that the $10,000 medical expenses portion of State Farm’s consent judgment claim cannot be excepted from the Debtor’s discharge via § 523(a)(2)(A) on the basis that such $10,000 was obtained by fraud or false representation because State Farm does not even allege that the Debtor fabricated the Accident or the medical expenses that he incurred as a result thereof.

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

Horton v. Horton · filed 2004-03-24(a)(6)

Punitive damages based on willful and malicious injury are non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show that the debtor’s non-financial misrepresentation proximately caused the debt claimed to be nondischargeable.

Giovanni v. Grayson, Kubli & Hoffman, P.C. (In Re Giovanni) · filed 2005-05-17(a)(2)(A)

In the Fourth Circuit and elsewhere, a creditor seeking a determination that a particular debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) must establish, inter alia, that the debtor’s non-financial misrepresentation was the proximate cause of the debt in issue.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) make the entire debt arising from larceny or willful and malicious injury nondischargeable, including statutory damages.

DirecTV, Inc. v. Karpinsky (In Re Karpinsky) · filed 2005-08-16(a)(4), (a)(6)

This Court finds that Defendant’s intentional misappropriation of DirecTV’s satellite signals constitutes larceny under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and a willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and, therefore, Defendant’s entire debt to Plaintiff — including the statutory damages awarded — is nondischargeable pursuant to those sections.

When a fraud award overlaps a foreclosure award, Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts only the remaining fraud damages from discharge after the foreclosure amount is accounted for.

Nevens v. Kye Soon Chung (In Re Kye Soon Chung) · filed 2005-11-22(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the $240,000 portion of the judgment plus the costs and attorneys’ fees are discharged. The court finds that Nevens is entitled to judgment that $50,000 of the state court judgment, plus interest accruing thereon at ten percent from the date of judgment to the date of the bankruptcy filing, is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) measures a nondischargeable injury by the harm the debtor caused, rather than the amount owed under a contract.

Magic Lamp, L.L.C. v. LeBlanc (In Re LeBlanc) · filed 2006-07-24(a)(6)

The proper measure of damages under Bankruptcy Code section 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.”

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for defalcation of construction trust funds from discharge, including fees incurred to establish nondischargeability when an applicable contract provides for them.

Owens v. Bolger (In Re Bolger) · filed 2006-08-28(a)(4)

Accordingly, the attorney fee provision of the Construction Contract is applicable to this litigation, and Owens is entitled to recover fees, expenses and court costs incurred in obtaining a declaration that the debt resulting from Bolger’s defalcation of trust funds is not dischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) measures a debt arising from fraud by the creditor’s loss proximately caused by the fraud, even if the debtor did not benefit.

Marks v. Hentges (In Re Hentges) · filed 2007-08-13(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, a non-dischargeable debt under Section 523(a)(2)(A) is not measured by the amount the debtor benefitted from the fraud, but by the loss to the creditor proximately caused by the fraud.

Section 523(a)(6) makes a debt nondischargeable only to the extent of the damage caused by the debtor’s willful and malicious conduct.

Bank of Iberia v. Jeffries (In Re Jeffries) · filed 2007-10-17(a)(6)

While Plaintiff has asked that this Court find the entire debt nondis-chargeable, the debt may be declared non-dischargeable only to the extent of the damage caused by Debtor’s wilful and malicious conduct.

Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except the unpaid amount obtained by fraud or embezzlement from discharge; interest, fees, and costs on a later note are excluded when the note was not fraudulent.

Guinn v. Anderson (In Re Anderson) · filed 2009-03-18(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

As applied to this case, both of these subsections limit the exception from discharge to the amount of the excess payment not already returned; the amount excepted from discharge is the amount owed obtained by fraud or the amount embezzled. There is no allegation that the promissory note, which was the subject of the judgment and which provided for interest, fees, and expenses, was colored by fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge only the portion of a debt created by the debtor’s actual fraud, not an entire preexisting debt.

Morganroth & Morganroth, PLLC v. Stollman (In Re Stollman) · filed 2009-04-10(a)(2)(A)

The Debtor’s fraudulent conduct prevented the Plaintiffs from enforcing their rights to the proceeds of the 401(k) and the Investment Accounts, but it did not create the entire amount of the debts owing by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are only entitled to a partial summary judgment representing that portion of the debt created by the actual fraud, with the amount of the partial summary judgment limited to the Plaintiffs’ respective 25% shares of the 401(k) proceeds and the Investment Accounts proceeds.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the full debt arising from fraud from discharge, including punitive damages, interest, attorney’s fees and costs.

Miller v. Grimsley (In Re Grimsley) · filed 2011-05-31(a)(2)(A)

The Court accordingly concludes that the full amount of the Judgment — including sums awarded Miller for punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees and other costs — is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge legal fees, interest, and costs awarded on a breach of contract claim when those liabilities arise from the debtor’s fraud.

Fire Safe Protection Services, LP v. Ayesh (In re Ayesh) · filed 2011-09-21(a)(2)(A)

The Court does find, based on the summary judgment record, that Mr. Ayesh committed fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). The issue is whether the state court award for legal fees, interest, and other costs (awarded in a breach of contract context) “arise from” Mr. Ayesh’s fraud. While a close call, the Court believes these liabilities do “arise from” the fraud Mr. Ayesh perpetrated. They are therefore also excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not prevent discharge of a contract judgment that is for neither larceny nor willful and malicious injury.

Florida Cardiology, P.A. v. Al-Suleiman (In re Al-Suleiman) · filed 2011-11-08(a)(4), (a)(6)

The $227,284.69 state court judgment is not “for” larceny (debts described in subsection (a)(4)) or “for” willful and malicious injury to plaintiff or plaintiffs property (debts described in subsection (a)(6)).

Section 523(a)(6) makes attorney fees and costs arising from a willful and malicious injury nondischargeable, even when awarded under a separate fee statute.

Nolan v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2012-03-25(a)(6)

Moreover, the attorney fees were a debt incurred as a result of the Smiths asserting a meritless defense relating to their underlying conduct which the Smiths now willingly admit is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6). As a result, the attorney fee award must be considered to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) makes a discretionary attorney disciplinary cost assessment nondischargeable when it is imposed as a penalty rather than compensation for actual loss.

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Feingold (In re Feingold) · filed 2012-05-17(a)(7)

This Court concludes that he cost assessment at issue was intended as a penalty and is therefore non-dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a) dischargeability proceedings include determining the debtor’s liability and the amount of the underlying debt.

Wen Jing Huang v. Juan Juan Chen (In re Wen Jing Huang) · filed 2014-01-07(a)

Accordingly, in the context of the dischargeability proceeding, the bankruptcy court is not only tasked with determining whether the circumstances for non-dischargeability enumerated in § 523(a) are established, but must also necessarily determine the scope of the debtor’s “liability on [the] claim” and the creditor’s “right to payment.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the loss directly and proximately caused by a debtor’s false representations.

Jones v. Dawson (In re Dawson) · filed 2014-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Subtracting the value of the property received that the Court finds went into the construction of the Hangar (i.e. $144,115.10) from the total amount received from Mr. Jones, which would have been the value he expected and paid for if the representations were true (i.e. $230,000), the Court finds that the amount of loss suffered by Mr. Jones is $85,884.90 as a direct and proximate result of the false representations by Mr. Dawson.

When a verdict covers multiple claims and the jury does not allocate damages, the entire judgment cannot be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) without a finding that the damages are attributable to fraud.

Spagnuolo v. Brooke-Petit · filed 2014-03-03(a)(2)(A)

That is, where a jury finds liability on multiple claims, but only some claims meet the standard of nondischargeability provided in § 523(a)(2)(A), but where the jury does not allocate damages between counts, the entirety of the judgment is not nondischargeable without some finding regarding same.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the amount of debt obtained by actual fraud nondischargeable.

Forsythe v. Yeley · filed 2014-03-20(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court agrees with For-sythe that the bankruptcy judge should have found any debt obtained by actual fraud pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) to be nondischargeable.

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

Yeley v. Forsythe · filed 2015-01-14(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, after making this finding, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding this amount to be ... non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) can make attorneys’ fees and costs awarded under a contract part of a nondischargeable debt.

Clear Sky Properties, LLC v. Roussel (In re Roussel) · filed 2015-03-27(a)(4), (a)(6)

Consequently, to give full effect to the state court award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Clear Sky, the Court determines that, as to Clear Sky, the entire attorneys’ fees award of $82,611.25 and costs of $4,912.00 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make the full amount of a proof of claim nondischargeable; the creditor must establish the amount in the adversary proceeding.

In re: Robert Norik Kitay and Tristina Coffin Kitay · filed 2015-12-10(a)(4)

The filing of the proof of claim in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding does not affect the adversary proceeding or require the court to determine that the entire amount of the claim is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a fraudulently induced debt to be divided among collateral properties when one property's value was critical to the decision to lend.

J.A.W. Land & Trading, LLC v. Kelly (In Re Kelly) · filed 2016-01-29(a)(2)(A)

In their post-argument supplemental brief, Appellants contend that the debt should be allocated among the properties, so that only a portion, that attributable to the Boulevard and Fourth Place properties, would be nondischargeable. This argument fails because the bankruptcy court found that the value of the Boulevard property was a critical factor in J.A.W.’s decision to lend the money in the first place. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); see also Cohen v. De La Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 218–19 (1998).

The amount excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1)(A) is zero when the tax debt has been fully satisfied.

Hoberg v. North Dakota ex rel. North Dakota Work Force Safety & Insurance (In re Hoberg) · filed 2016-02-17(a)(1)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Debtor’s debt to WSI is satisfied. The sum of Debtor’s debt to WSI excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(1)(A) is $0.00.

Prepetition interest on a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) is also nondischargeable.

Oregon v. Egbo (In re Egbo) · filed 2016-03-10(a)(2)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), there is no dispute that the $4,217 representing the amount of overpayment to Defendant-Debtor by Plaintiff was a nondischargeable debt. ... I agree with Plaintiff that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in failing to find' the interest on the debt owed to Plaintiff nondischargeable.

Under § 523(a)(4), embezzlement through unauthorized use of a line of credit presumptively causes damages equal to the unauthorized draws.

Patel v. Patel (In re Patel) · filed 2016-06-15(a)(4)

Defendants did not rebut the presumption that by misappropriating $29,000 from Usha’s line of credit, she was damaged to that extent. The Court will therefore not reconsider its conclusion that Usha is entitled to a nondischargeable judgment in the amount of $29,000 under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false representations from discharge, including related treble damages, attorney fees, and expenses.

Poole v. Batson (In re Batson) · filed 2017-02-28(a)(2)(A)

In summary, the Pooles are entitled to $22,553.51 (the Retainer) plus $9900 (the Impact Fee plus 10% Contractor Fee plus treble damages) for a total of $32,453.51, plus attorney fees and non-filing fee expenses related to the Impact Fee, all of which is non-dischargea-ble pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) also excepts treble damages from discharge when they arise from the conduct underlying a nondischargeable debt.

Hellenbrand Glass, LLC v. Pulvermacher (In re Pulvermacher) · filed 2017-03-31(a)(4)

Per the parties’ partial Stipulation and this Court’s Order approving the Stipulation, the Initial Debt of $15,457.03 is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). When a creditor demonstrates that treble damages arise from the same conduct warranting an award of attorney’s fees, such treble damages are also nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debt from a fraudulent transfer nondischargeable up to the amount the creditor could have recovered if the transfer had not occurred, even when that amount exceeds the collateralized debt.

DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaft Bank v. Meyer · filed 2017-08-24(a)(2)(A)

Although the bankruptcy court correctly found that the Meyers engaged in fraudulent transfers and, therefore, actual fraud, to DZ Bank’s detriment, the court limited relief to $123,200—the amount of the collateralized debt. This was error. The bankruptcy court should have granted relief for the full $385,000 that DZ Bank would have recovered if it had been able to execute against Louis Meyer’s ownership interest in MI.

Section 523(a)(4) can except from discharge liability arising from fiduciary defalcation beyond repayment of the trust funds.

McNally v. Stallman (In re Stallman) · filed 2017-10-25(a)(4)

The Supreme Court’s construction of the term “debt for” applies equally to § 523(a)(2) and (a)(4). So, in the present case, if the Plaintiffs can prove that Ms. Stallman qualifies as a fiduciary, and that some liability on account of the defalcation remains unpaid-—ie., something beyond the trust res for which she has already accounted—they may be able to establish the existence of a debt that is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2) excepts the full unpaid fraud loss from discharge when the debtor’s misrepresentations caused that loss.

Straight Line, LLC v. Madigan · filed 2020-08-28(a)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that Debtor is liable for Plaintiffs’ damages in the amount of $1,480,580.00. A separate judgment of nondischargeability shall issue in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the full amount of a debt from discharge when the debt was fraudulently obtained, even if liability for that debt arises under state contract or conspiracy law.

Madison Resource Funding Corp. v. Marsh · filed 2021-07-21(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not err when it stated that Madison proved it was owed a debt from Jerry in the amount of $1,676,162.20 for breach of contract (his guaranty) and that Robert was vicariously liable for the debt due to the Debtors’ conspiracy. It also appropriately excepted the full debt from discharge as damages fraudulently obtained.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge damages arising from a willful and malicious injury, including damages from injuries derivative of the intended injury.

Judge v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2021-07-20(a)(6)

Courts have long allowed an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(6) to cover not only the damages arising from a specifically intended injury but also damages derivative of the intended injury.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the portion of a debt attributable to fraud; a creditor must establish that portion when a judgment also covers other claims.

Silver Dollar Sales, Inc. v. Olson · filed 2023-12-20(a)(2)(A)

Silver Dollar must still establish the portion of its claim solely attributable to Olson’s fraud and fraudulent transfers which will be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) except damages traceable to actual fraud or willful and malicious injury from discharge, but do not except a purchase price the creditors would have paid regardless of that conduct.

Rael v. Gonzales · filed 2025-01-23(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Consistent with Cohen, the Court concludes that, except for the $15,000 awarded to compensate Plaintiffs for the purchase price of the Property, the total judgment amount arises from Defendant’s non-dischargeable conduct and fixes the amount of the non-dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes only the advances induced by a false financial statement nondischargeable when the lender used that statement to decide on new advances, rather than to renew an existing balance.

Fundamental Funding v. Goodman · filed 2025-03-31(a)(2)(B)

Notwithstanding Mr. Haddock’s opinion, the Court stands by its previous ruling on this matter and finds that the Plaintiff was relying on the Borrowing Base Certificates for the purpose of determining future advances under the Loan Agreement, not whether the existing loan should be renewed, extended, refinanced or reaffirmed. Thus, only advances made based on a false Borrowing Base Certificate can be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt incurred through fraud nondischargeable, including accrued pre-petition interest.

Sethna v. Brown · filed 2025-07-25(a)(2)(A)

Once a debt is deemed nondischargeable under § 523, all components of the debt—including pre-petition interest—are likewise nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge punitive damages and attorney fees arising from an attorney’s defalcation of client funds held in trust, along with compensatory damages.

Robertson v. Bunch · filed 2025-07-31(a)(4)

The result is no different for purposes of § 523(a)(4). As a result, the entire debt as encompassed in the State Court judgment for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge the portion of a loan obtained through a debtor’s false representation about how the proceeds would be used.

Ahmed · filed 2026-03-27(a)(2)(A)

Pathan used $52,887.43 of the loan proceeds from Ahmed for his convenience store business. The remaining $47,112.57 was not used for the business. Therefore, the Court will declare that $47,112.57 of the underlying debt is not dischargeable.

A debt found nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) for false pretenses bears prejudgment interest at the federal rate when the debt arises under federal law.

Keeton v. Flanagan (In Re Flanagan) · filed 2016-03-21(a)(2)(A)

Keeton did not plead in his adversary complaint that the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim for nondischargeability based on false pretenses arose under Alaska law, and the bankruptcy court did not find any state law violations. The bankruptcy court applied federal law in finding false pretenses. Therefore, the debt arose under federal law, and the BAP did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court’s award of prejudgment interest at the federal rate.

Section 523(b) concerns liabilities that were not discharged in a prior bankruptcy of the same debtor.

Easton v. United States (In Re Easton) · filed 1986-04-08(b)

Such a reference to § 523(b) is inappropriate, since that section is concerned only with the dischargeability of liabilities that were not discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceedings by the same debtor, and that factual situation is not involved in this case.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable in a later bankruptcy merely because the creditor was unlisted in an earlier case, when the creditor is properly listed in the later case.

In Re Tinneberg · filed 1986-03-25(a)(3)(A)

Second, even if the case was to be reopened, the court found that the debt would be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) because: (a) the debtors did not list Associates on their petition; (b) Associates knew nothing of the bankruptcy; and (c) the limited exception in equity to section 523 did not apply. The filing of debtors’ chapter 13 case solves the problems in debtors’ motion to reopen. ... In contrast, the facts proven for a finding of failure to list a creditor on a petition are irrelevant to a later case in which the creditor is properly listed.

Section 523(b) permits redetermination of dischargeability in a later bankruptcy case but does not bar redetermination under the original petition.

Sobh v. Empire of America (In Re Sobh) · filed 1986-06-11(b)

While § 523(b) allows for a redetermination of discharge in a subsequent petition for bankruptcy (so long as the discharge otherwise meets the requirements for discharge under § 523(a)), it does not foreclose rede-terminations under the same petition.

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts income tax debts from discharge when the three-year priority period has not expired after excluding time spent in a prior Chapter 13 case.

Florence v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Florence) · filed 1990-03-29(a)(1)(A)

It is uncontested that the returns for the tax obligations were due and filed more than three years prior to the filing of this Chapter 7 petition. Thus, it would appear that the tax obligations are dischargeable; however, for the entire three year period prior to filing the within Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtors’ assets were under the protection of the Bankruptcy Code as a result of the debtors’ prior Chapter 13 case. The debtor’s interpretation and application of § 523(a)(1) and § 507(a)(7) would, in a Chapter 7 case that follows a Chapter 13 case, create impenetrable refuge for delinquent taxpayers. Such a result is neither required by, nor consistent with, a holistic interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(10) excepts debts that were or could have been scheduled in a case dismissed with prejudice from a subsequent discharge.

Matter of Smith · filed 1991-10-23(a)(10)

Section 523(a)(10) then gives effect to this consequence by excepting from the scope of any subsequent discharge the debts that were or could have been scheduled in the prior case.

Section 523(a)(10) excepts a debt from discharge in a later bankruptcy when the debtor waived or was denied discharge in the earlier case.

McIntosh v. Webb (In Re Webb) · filed 1993-04-06(a)(10)

Section 523(a)(10) excepts from discharge debts that the debtor owed before a prior bankruptcy case in which the debtor waived or was denied a discharge other than on the basis of the six-year bar. ... In the case at bar, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant was granted a discharge in the previous bankruptcy case. Therefore, the statutory provision with respect to the denial of discharge is inapplicable. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendant waived discharge in accordance with the statutory provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(10).

Section 523(b) permits a debt excepted from discharge under subsection (a)(1) in an earlier bankruptcy case to be discharged in a later case.

In Re Little · filed 1997-10-23(b)

However, the Bankruptcy Code specifically recognizes that nondischargeable claims in one case may be discharged in a subsequent case. Congress’ intent to allow a debtor to discharge in a subsequent bankruptcy debts that were not dischargeable in a previous chapter 7 case is evident from the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(b), which provides that “a debt that was excepted from discharge under subsection (a)(1) ... in a prior case concerning the debtor under this title ... is dischargeable in a case under this title[.]”

Section 523(b) does not make a debt previously excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2) dischargeable in a later bankruptcy case.

Hatmaker v. Klasinski (In Re Klasinski) · filed 1997-11-12(b)

In this case, the nondischargeability claim of Mr. Hat-maker was based upon § 523(a)(2), and this subsection is not referred to in § 523(b). Accordingly, § 523(b) is not applicable, and the debt remains nondischargeable.

Section 523(b) makes a prior determination that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) binding in a later bankruptcy case.

Policemen's & Firefighters' Retirement Fund v. Tranter (In Re Tranter) · filed 2000-02-15(b)

In the Debtor’s previous bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled the subject debt nondisehargeable under Section 523(a)(4). This ruling is binding on the instant Court under Section 523(b).

Section 523(a)(10) applies only to debts the debtor owed before the prior bankruptcy case; listing a corporation’s debt does not make it the debtor’s debt.

Anglin v. Estes (In Re Estes) · filed 2009-03-24(a)(10)

Since the judgments rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in state court were not debts which the debtor could have listed or scheduled in her prior bankruptcy case, they are not nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(10).

Section 523(a)(10) does not bar discharge of a debt from a prior case when the prior discharge was revoked solely under § 727(d)(4)(B) for failure to cooperate with an audit.

In Re Hickman · filed 2011-04-21(a)(10)

Further, even if the revocation could be considered the equivalent of a denial, the denial was not based on any of the subsections of § 727(a) set forth in § 523(a)(10) and, therefore, § 523(a)(10) cannot be a bar to the Debtors’ ability to discharge debts in this case.

Section 523(a)(10) excepts a debt from discharge only if it was or could have been scheduled in a prior bankruptcy case in which the debtor waived discharge or was denied discharge.

Reid v. Erb (In re Erb) · filed 2012-10-01(a)(10)

Since there was no prior case, § 523(a)(10) is not relevant to this proceeding, and Erb’s motion for summary judgment is well taken as to this section.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a corporate officer embezzles company funds for personal expenses, despite the officer’s ownership stake or role in the company.

Orchestrate Hr, Inc. v. Harrison · filed 2023-02-07(a)(4)

An officer’s withdrawal of corporate funds for compensation and other personal expenses without proper approval is detrimental to the company despite that officer’s significant role or stake in the company. The conduct constitutes embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a corporate officer embezzles company funds by using them for personal expenses without proper approval, despite the officer’s ownership or control of the company.

Ebenconcepts, Inc. v. Harrison · filed 2023-02-07(a)(4)

An officer’s withdrawal of corporate funds for compensation and other personal expenses without proper approval is detrimental to the company despite that officer’s significant role or stake in the company. The conduct constitutes embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts an embezzlement debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently appropriates property entrusted to him or lawfully in his possession.

Daly v. Daly · filed 2023-03-06(a)(4)

Again, accepting the allegations as true for purposes of considering a motion to dismiss, the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that Daren fraudulently appropriated property of All Paving, Inc. to which he had been entrusted. So, on its face, the Amended Complaint states a claim in Count II on behalf of All Paving, Inc.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge the entire debt arising from a debtor’s embezzlement of entrusted funds.

Long Island Minimally Invasive Surgery, P.C. d/b/a v. Orslini · filed 2023-01-30(a)(4)

The Debtor’s failure to turn over the proceeds of these insurance checks under these circumstances constitutes embezzlement. Thus, the $54,128.60 judgment debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge for embezzlement when the alleged misappropriation involves loan proceeds that belong to the borrower rather than the lender.

Anzalone v. Dulgerian (In Re Dulgerian) · filed 2008-04-01(a)(4)

Because the money at issue did not belong to the Plaintiff, she cannot allege that the Debtor embezzled it from her.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat funds a debtor lawfully obtains under a contract as larceny.

Smith Mountain Building Supply, LCC v. Shreve (In Re Shreve) · filed 2008-03-31(a)(4)

No larceny can exist for the purposes of section 523(a)(4) where a debtor lawfully obtains funds pursuant to contract.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge.

Powers v. Powers (In Re Powers) · filed 2008-03-27(a)(4)

This Court therefore concludes that the $20,169 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Debtor is a debt for embezzlement, and such debts are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from embezzlement nondischargeable when a debtor lawfully obtains another’s property and then fraudulently appropriates it.

Powers v. Caremark Inc. (In Re Powers) · filed 2008-01-14(a)(4)

Embezzlement, however, is not limited to situations in which one person is entrusted with the property of another. It also applies where, as here, a person lawfully obtains property, but then fraudulently appropriates it for his or her own use.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from embezzlement from discharge even when the debtor was not acting as a fiduciary.

Herbstein v. Bruetman (In Re Bruetman) · filed 2001-03-08(a)(4)

In § 523(a)(4), the term “while acting in fiduciary capacity” does not qualify the words “embezzlement” or “larceny”. Therefore, the discharge exception applies even when the embezzlement was committed by someone not acting as a fiduciary.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from embezzlement nondischargeable.

Phoenix Bowling Corp. v. Mason (In Re Mason) · filed 1994-12-22(a)(4)

Based on the above discussion, Mason’s prepetition judgment debt in the amount of $30,000 owed to Phoenix Bowling Corporation is NONDISCHARGEABLE in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when the debtor appropriates entrusted property with fraudulent intent.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Johnson (In re Johnson) · filed 1989-11-24(a)(4)

The Court, therefore, concludes that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does preclude the litigation before this Court of the issue of whether the debtor committed embezzlement from the Bank within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). Summary judgment will be granted the FDIC on this ground.

Under § 523(a)(4), a creditor’s knowledgeable acquiescence is relevant to whether the debtor had fraudulent intent, but it does not determine that issue.

In the Matter of Donald Weber and Roxanne Weber, Debtors. Appeal of Michael C. Ablan, Creditor · filed 1989-12-21(a)(4)

Thus, evidence of the creditor’s knowledgeable acquiescence is relevant to whether the debtor had the requisite fraudulent intent, but neither dictates nor precludes a finding that the debtor had the necessary intent.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor lawfully receives property, uses it without consent, and conceals that use through deceit.

Peavey Electronics Corp. v. Sinchak (In Re Sinchak) · filed 1990-01-09(a)(4)

The facts as stipulated, together with the Motions submitted by the parties, leave the Court with no doubt that the Debtor’s conduct constitutes embezzlement for purposes of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement from a Chapter 7 discharge.

In Re Carver · filed 1990-01-24(a)(4)

Continental alleges that pursuant to § 523(a)(4), debts arising from embezzlement are clearly excepted from discharge. The Court agrees.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s embezzlement of entrusted property.

Matsuda v. Sasaki (In Re Sasaki) · filed 1987-03-13(a)(4)

The court finds that Debtor fraudulently appropriated money from Plaintiff, which had been entrusted in his care. There was embezzlement on the part of Debtor. Thus, the debts owing to Plaintiff ... by Debtor are non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt created through larceny nondischargeable without requiring the victim to have relied on the debtor’s conduct.

Facility Planning, Inc. v. King (In Re King) · filed 1986-12-01(a)(4)

Larceny involves criminal fraud. It is theft. Reliance, on the part of a victim, is not an element of larceny. A debt created through larceny is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) made a broker’s debt nondischargeable where unauthorized trades caused losses to his client and employer.

Shearson Lehman/American Express v. Reilly (In Re Reilly) · filed 1986-11-17(a)(4)

However, Debtor engaged in the above transactions without Stice’s prior authorization, with the intent to use the funds in Stice’s commodities account for his own purpose and without the means to reimburse Stice’s account. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the sum of $33,624.50 owed by Debtor to Plaintiff is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(4)’s larceny exception does not cover a contractor’s mere failure to complete work after receiving an advance that became the contractor’s property.

Stanshine v. Kalmar (In Re Kalmar) · filed 1982-03-16(a)(4)

The failure gives rise to a claim for breach of contract, however, it does not amount to theft by failure to make the required disposition of funds.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from the intentional appropriation of entrusted funds nondischargeable.

United States Life Title Insurance Co. of New York v. Dohm (In Re Dohm) · filed 1982-04-21(a)(4)

Dohm appropriated funds U.S. Life had entrusted to him for his own purposes and he did so willfully and intentionally. The Section 523(a)(4) non-dischargeability provision is therefore satisfied.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for embezzlement nondischargeable without requiring the debtor to have acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Gribble v. Carlton (In Re Carlton) · filed 1982-06-09(a)(4)

The language “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not qualify the word “embezzlement” and therefore the court need not find that the debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity in order to hold the debt non-dischargeable on the grounds of embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4)'s embezzlement and larceny exceptions require fraudulent intent.

Columbia County Farmers National Bank of Orangeville v. Gregorowicz (In re Gregorowicz) · filed 1982-08-05(a)(4)

Even if we concede that the other elements of embezzlement are present, the element of fraudulent conversion is not, since we found that the debtors lacked the requisite intent to defraud the Bank. ... We find no larceny present in this case since the debtors lacked the requisite fraudulent intent and since the debtors were in lawful possession of the motorcycles at the time of their sale.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge to the extent the debtor embezzled proceeds she was obligated to account for to the creditor.

First National Bank of Amarillo v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1982-07-13(a)(4)

She was entitled to receive those proceeds from Klines, but under the facts of this case she was under a duty to account to the bank for those total proceeds. She has embezzled those funds within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). I conclude that, to the extent of $21,062.19, the bank’s debt should be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge without requiring an express trust or fiduciary relationship.

Applegate v. Shuler (In Re Shuler) · filed 1982-07-14(a)(4)

As counsel herein, and the authors of 3 Collier’s on Bankruptcy at ¶ 523.14, 523.14[l][c], and 523.14[3] point out, the ground of embezzlement under subsection (a)(4) does not require that a fiduciary relationship or express trust exist.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts an embezzlement debt from discharge when a later promissory note merely evidences the original debt.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Poss (In Re Poss) · filed 1982-10-07(a)(4)

And as the result of that examination, the court must conclude that the debt- or’s obligation to Aetna resulted from her embezzlement and that the debt is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts from embezzlement from discharge even when the debtor was not acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Merrywell v. Barwick (In Re Barwick) · filed 1982-11-08(a)(4)

An embezzlement need not have occurred while the debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4); therefore, any debt resulting from embezzlement may be rendered nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from embezzlement nondischargeable when a debtor fraudulently converts another’s property already in the debtor’s lawful possession.

Kopelman & Shatz, Inc. v. Mastrangelo (In Re Mastrangelo) · filed 1983-05-13(a)(4)

The Court can only conclude under these facts that Mas-trangelo converted the diamonds to his own use and that a common law embezzlement did occur. Therefore, the debt is nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge even if the debtor was not acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Freeman (In Re Freeman) · filed 1983-06-14(a)(4)

It should be noted that acting in a fiduciary capacity is essential only to the allegation of fraud or defalcation. The fiduciary capacity is not essential to embezzlement or larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement from discharge.

Brooklyn Monument Co. v. Napoli (In Re Napoli) · filed 1983-09-13(a)(4)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) explicitly excepts from discharge a debt due to embezzlement. If the money which the debtor-defendant acknowledges owing Brooklyn Monument arose from her embezzlement, she was not entitled to have it discharged.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for larceny or embezzlement from discharge without requiring the debtor to have acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Toledo Blade Co. v. Shinew (In Re Shinew) · filed 1983-09-23(a)(4)

When larceny or embezzlement is asserted the Plaintiff need not allege nor prove that the offender was a fiduciary.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge debts arising from unauthorized control of stored grain when concealment of grain records enabled the resulting losses.

Boehringer v. Long (In Re Long) · filed 1983-12-27(a)(4)

By selling the grain or not returning/paying for it, Long exerted control over it without the consent of the owner and beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner. As such, Long's action fell within the scope of the Ohio theft statute and within the exception to discharge in § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising when a debtor knowingly diverts another’s collected payments to his own use.

Central Investors Real Estate Corp. v. Powell (In Re Powell) · filed 1983-11-15(a)(4)

The Court finds that when the plaintiff discontinued the supply of new money by additional contract purchases the defendant knowingly, wilfully and wrongfully applied payments from customers of contracts assigned to the plaintiff by him to defendant’s own use well knowing that although he was entitled to receive the payments, he had a duty to promptly deliver such payments to the plaintiff and not divert them to his own use and that use such constituted embezzlement as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and causes the obligation to be non-dischargeable in defendant’s bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from embezzlement from discharge.

Great American Insurance v. Graziano (In Re Graziano) · filed 1983-12-06(a)(4)

Accordingly, the court finds that the debt owed to Great American is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not require a fiduciary or express trust relationship for a debt arising from embezzlement to be excepted from discharge.

Reiten Equipment, Inc. v. Wightman (In Re Wightman) · filed 1984-01-04(a)(4)

Nonetheless, embezzlement under 523(a)(4) does not require the existence of a fiduciary relationship or an express trust relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts embezzlement debts from discharge, but a finding of misappropriation alone does not establish embezzlement because misappropriation may be merely negligent.

Guarantee Insurance v. Certo (In re Certo) · filed 1983-12-14(a)(4)

“Misappropriation”, however, is a broader term which includes acts which are not criminal and may include acts which are merely negligent. ... Plaintiff has not, therefore, carried its burden of demonstrating that its claim is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement from discharge.

Virginia v. Haley (In Re Haley) · filed 1984-04-09(a)(4)

It is noted at the outset of this opinion that the claim of the Commonwealth for funds embezzled is non-dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). Consequently, the order of discharge entered in this case has had no effect on the validity of the claim.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from embezzlement nondischargeable without requiring the debtor to have acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Bailey v. James (In Re James) · filed 1984-09-06(a)(4)

The phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not qualify the word “embezzlement” and therefore the court need not find that the debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity in order to hold a debt nondisehargeable on the grounds of embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from a debtor’s fraudulent misappropriation of funds from discharge as embezzlement.

First National Bank of Boston v. Overmyer (In Re Overmyer) · filed 1985-06-19(a)(4)

However, a fraudulent misappropriation of funds by a debtor is sufficient to hold a liability arising out of such conduct as non-dischargeable embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for embezzlement nondischargeable even when the debtor was not acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Skemp v. Michel (In Re Michel) · filed 1985-08-13(a)(4)

The Bankruptcy Code, however, sets “embezzlement” and “larceny” apart from acts committed in a fiduciary capacity, and compels a consideration of whether either of those acts have been committed by the debtor.

A properly pleaded § 523(a)(4) larceny claim can proceed when material facts about its elements remain disputed.

Zweygardt v. Colorado National Bank of Denver · filed 1985-07-19(a)(4)

While I note some considerable concern over the ability of CNB to establish the elements of “larceny” under § 523(a)(4), it has been properly pleaded and is sufficiently the subject of factual dispute that evidence should be presented on the matter.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) make debts arising from embezzlement and willful, malicious injury to property nondischargeable.

Gateway Star, N v. v. Zumwalt (In Re Zumwalt) · filed 1985-09-12(a)(4), (a)(6)

As to the claim of the receiver, defendant’s withdrawals of funds constituted an embezzlement and a conversion of Ter-raceview property in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (6). The funds diverted were partnership property. Defendant’s diversion was in violation of O.R.S. 69.-350(l)(d) and O.R.S. 68.420(2)(a) and was willful and malicious.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge as embezzlement when the debtor never possessed the creditor’s property.

Tecnitur, S.A. v. Figari (In re Figari) · filed 1986-03-05(a)(4)

Even if it did, the money received by Trav Am from its customers was never the property of the plaintiff and the debtor never had possession of any property of the plaintiff. He could not have embezzled from plaintiff had he wished to do so.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for embezzlement from discharge; embezzlement means fraudulent appropriation of property entrusted to someone or lawfully in that person's hands.

Klemens v. Wallace · filed 1986-03-06(a)(4)

In the instant case, the Judgment of the state court reflects a prior determination of embezzlement which is essentially the same determination required by § 523(a)(4). Embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) is defined according to federal common law as “the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come.”

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when the debtor intended to misappropriate the funds.

S.E. Nichols, Inc. v. McGohan (In Re McGohan) · filed 1986-04-21(a)(4)

The evidence presented clearly establishes McGohan’s actual intent to embezzle certain of the sums placed in his control, with the debt thus nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(4) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt resulting from embezzlement nondischargeable even without a fiduciary relationship.

Clark v. Taylor (In Re Taylor) · filed 1986-03-19(a)(4)

The absence of a fiduciary relationship does not conclude the analysis under section 523(a)(4), however, because a fiduciary relationship is not required to make a debt resulting from embezzlement or larceny nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt for defalcation from discharge when the debtor owed no fiduciary duty to the creditor individually.

In Re Gerald T. BLACK and Denise B. Black, Debtors. Garth L. DRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald T. BLACK, Defendant- · filed 1986-03-19(a)(4)

Accordingly, we conclude that Driggs’ defalcation claim must fail because Black did not stand in a fiduciary capacity to Driggs individually when the acts complained of occurred.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from embezzlement nondischargeable even without a fiduciary relationship.

Skemp v. Michel (In Re Michel) · filed 1986-06-17(a)(4)

It is clear from section 523(a)(4) and cases interpreting it that if embezzlement is established, a debt is not discharge-able regardless of whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the debtor and the creditor.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge even when the debtor did not act in a fiduciary capacity.

Damian Manufacturing Co. v. Corwin (In Re Corwin) · filed 1987-08-03(a)(4)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) a judgment is excepted from discharge if the debt was “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” Although the Court finds that the judgment is excepted from discharge under this provision for embezzlement by the debtor, the Court agrees with the debtor’s counsel that the debtor did not commit “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.”

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for embezzled funds from discharge even without a preexisting fiduciary relationship.

Watson v. Buhay (In Re Buhay) · filed 1987-09-18(a)(4)

The Bankruptcy Code, however, sets “embezzlement” and “larceny” apart from acts committed in a fiduciary capacity, and compels a consideration of whether either of those acts has been committed by the Debtor. ... Therefore the sum of $20,365.93 will be held to be nondischargeable as being embezzled funds within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) can except actual audit expenses from discharge when the audit identifies and repairs harm caused by the debtor’s misappropriation.

Brookman v. Gibson (In re Gibson) · filed 1987-09-21(a)(4)

In this case however, the facts justify the inclusion of the actual expenses incurred for the audit within the scope of § 523(a)(4). Therefore, the $9,297.73 amount actually paid by the Plaintiff to the accountant for these services is held to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4)’s embezzlement exception requires the creditor to prove damages resulting from the embezzlement.

Homemakers, Inc. v. Salamone (In Re Salamone) · filed 1987-09-23(a)(4)

In my view, however, a requirement that the creditor prove the damages resulting from the embezzlement is implicit in the embezzlement exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) embezzlement requires entrustment of the funds at issue; a commitment letter concerning lien positions does not establish entrustment of another lender’s funds.

First Valley Bank v. Ramonat (In Re Ramonat) · filed 1988-02-03(a)(4)

The commitment letter may create an obligation to provide certain, lien positions to plaintiff, but it does not create a relationship in which debtors are entrusted with MMB’s funds to use for the benefit of plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for embezzlement nondischargeable without requiring a fiduciary relationship.

Champion Home Builders Co. v. Tarrant (In Re Tarrant) · filed 1988-03-30(a)(4)

A showing of embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code does not require a showing of the existence of a fiduciary capacity. Accordingly, Plaintiff Champion has made a sufficient showing of embezzlement as to each Defendant to render the Defendants personally liable to Champion in the amount of $65,252.00 and to render this debt nondischargeable within the meaning of § 523(a)(4) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(4) does not require a fiduciary relationship for a debt arising from embezzlement or larceny to be excepted from discharge.

Rountrey v. Lee (In Re Lee) · filed 1988-06-06(a)(4)

In Code Section 523(a)(4) the phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not apply to the terms embezzlement and larceny; therefore, this phrase is not applicable to a creditor’s proceeding under Code Section 523’s grounds of embezzlement or larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement or larceny from discharge.

Computer Products, Inc. v. Nahabedian (In Re Nahabedian) · filed 1988-06-30(a)(4)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) a debtor may not receive a discharge from any debt arising from an embezzlement or larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent intent to except a debt for embezzlement from discharge.

First American National Bank-Eastern v. Jimmy Lee Mullins, T/a Jim Mullins Motors · filed 1988-05-23(a)(4)

We affirm on the opinion of the district court that plaintiff made no showing of fraudulent intent, and hence there was no embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge as embezzlement when the debtor did not use the proceeds for his own benefit and the creditor failed to prove fraudulent intent.

First National Bank of Midlothian v. Harrell (In Re Harrell) · filed 1988-12-12(a)(4)

The only real issue before the Court is whether or not the Plaintiff has met its burden of proof to establish that Code § 523(a)(4) applies to the facts so as to bar discharge of the Debtor’s obligation to FNB-M. ... Thus, the proceeds of the cattle sales in this instance were not diverted to the Debtor’s own use and benefit. ... In addition, Plaintiff fails to carry its burden of proof with respect to the Debtor’s fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(4) permits discharge of a debt for unpaid sales tax when the debtors did not act in a fiduciary capacity and embezzlement was not established.

Sines & Sons, Inc. v. Mauk (In re Mauk) · filed 1988-12-30(a)(4)

Under the facts presented, Debtors’ liability for failure to pay sales tax is not a debt incurred while acting in a fiduciary capacity, nor is it based on embezzlement. Consequently, Debtors’ liability is not a debt within the parameters of Section. 523(a)(4) and is, therefore, dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make a debt nondischargeable as embezzlement when the parties’ agreement allowed the debtor to use the payment freely.

In Re Richard F. Belfry, Debtor. Richard F. Belfry v. Cardozo · filed 1989-01-04(a)(4)

In short, the agreement permitted full use of the money by the debtor. In such a case, the result is a dischargeable breach of contract.

Section 523(a)(4) requires the creditor to prove all elements of embezzlement to except a debt from discharge on that ground.

Brown v. Beckett (In Re Beckett) · filed 1989-02-03(a)(4)

Based on the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish with the requisite degree of proof all of the elements of embezzlement and, therefore, their claim of nondischargeability based upon § 523(a)(4) cannot be sustained.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt for embezzlement when the debtor owns the funds subject to a creditor’s security interest. Under section 523(a)(6), breach of a security agreement must be both willful and malicious to prevent discharge.

First National Bank of Fayetteville v. Phillips · filed 1989-08-08(a)(4), (a)(6)

Because the funds belonged to Midwest subject to FNB’s security interest, the debtors could not have embezzled the funds and the debt is not nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). ... It has long been held that the breach of a security agreement may be sufficient to render a secured debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6). ... However, the breach must be both willful and malicious. ... Therefore, we find no intent or expectation on the part of the debtors to harm the economic interest of FNB.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt for larceny or embezzlement when the debtor disposes of collateral the debtor owns, even if a creditor holds a security interest.

American General Finance, Inc. v. Heath (In Re Heath) · filed 1990-03-12(a)(4)

Defendant properly contends that plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, do not constitute embezzlement or larceny under § 523(a)(4). ... Since the property at issue belonged to defendant and was not property of another, the debt here could not be for larceny or embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of common law larceny to except a debt from discharge; a violation of a state statute defining larceny more broadly is insufficient by itself.

Builders Supply Co. of Petersburg v. Lane (In Re Lane) · filed 1990-05-16(a)(4)

After considering the Lieberman opinion addressing the use of Va.Code § 43-13 in the context of § 523(a)(2)(A), as well as cases exploring the application of comparable state larceny statutes to § 523(a)(4) larceny, this court concludes that § 523(a)(4) requires proof of common law larceny before a debt will be excepted from discharge due to larceny.

Section 523(a)(4)'s larceny exception requires a taking of personal property; it does not cover real property.

Weinreich v. Langworthy (In Re Langworthy) · filed 1990-11-28(a)(4)

Thus, this Court is satisfied that notwithstanding the Florida Statute, for the purpose of Section 523(a)(4), before the claim based on larceny can be sustained, it must be established that the property involved was personal property and not real property which is the property involved in the instant case.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from larceny nondischargeable even if the debtor owed the creditor no fiduciary duty.

American National Bank v. Cooper (In Re Cooper) · filed 1991-03-21(a)(4)

Thus, the fact that Cooper owed no fiduciary duty to the Bank is not fatal to the Banks’ claims under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt incurred through larceny nondischargeable when the debtor wrongfully takes the owner's property with fraudulent intent.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,032 in the Matter of Dawn Rose, Debtor-Appellant. Elliott Kaye v. Dawn Rose · filed 1991-06-14(a)(4)

In sum, we agree with the bankruptcy court and the district court that Kaye owned the $93,000 in question and that Rose wrongfully and with fraudulent intent took the funds. This amounted to larceny and she was not entitled to a discharge of the debt she had incurred as a result of the divorce court judgment.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for embezzling an employer’s funds nondischargeable.

Chicago Midwest Credit Service Corp. v. Trovato (In Re Trovato) · filed 1991-06-26(a)(4)

Thus, in this instance, Trovato did divert to himself funds that belonged to Chicago Midwest, and thus is liable for embezzlement of these funds, giving rise to a nondischargeable claim under Section 523(a)(4), as alleged by Chicago Midwest.

Section 523(a)(4) makes debts incurred through larceny nondischargeable.

United States Fire Insurance Company Urban Service Systems, Incorporated v. Harris · filed 1992-01-21(a)(4)

James H. Harris appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's finding that a certain debt was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) (1988), which renders non-dischargeable debts incurred through larceny. We affirm. ... Because the issue was before the bankruptcy court on a motion for summary judgment, and Harris failed to introduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of larceny established by his prior guilty plea, summary judgment was properly awarded to United States Fire.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from embezzlement from discharge even when a restitution order is later entered.

Fruehauf Trailer Corp. v. Stahler (In re Stahler) · filed 1992-03-04(a)(4)

By admission, then, the court finds that defendant embezzled funds from-plaintiff which represents a debt that is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4). ... The debt was incurred as a result of defendant’s embezzlement; its character is not changed after entry of the restitution order.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor fraudulently misappropriates sale proceeds entrusted to him.

Hyman Wholesale Corp. v. Allman (In Re Allman) · filed 1992-03-30(a)(4)

The debtor’s subsequent misappropriation of proceeds shall be considered embezzlement under the federal definition. For the reasons stated above the court finds the entire debt excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge for larceny when the debtor wrongfully takes another’s property without consent and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it.

Beneficial Mortgage Co. v. Craig (In Re Craig) · filed 1992-03-31(a)(4)

Section 523(a)(4) also excepts a debt from discharge for larceny, defined as the wrongful taking and carrying away of another’s property with intent to convert that property, without the owner’s consent and to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor claiming larceny to prove the resulting loss; for a wrongfully released promissory note, the loss is the amount enforceable against its maker at the time of release.

In Re Carl Michael Caranna, Debtor. Carol Ruth Huserik v. Caranna · filed 1992-05-11(a)(4)

The proper measure of damages resulting from the larceny, therefore, was the amount for which plaintiff could have enforced the promissory note against Mr. Scarff at the time debtor wrongfully released Mr. Scarff from his obligations under the note. Review of the record indicates plaintiff did not present evidence establishing the amount Mr. Scarff owed on the promissory note at the time of his release.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for embezzlement nondischargeable when a debtor fraudulently diverts consignment sale proceeds owed to the consignor.

Sandalon v. Cook (In Re Cook) · filed 1992-06-12(a)(4)

The Court is persuaded that Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiff. Defendant knew that he was selling Plaintiff’s property. Defendant was having financial problems and knew that he may not be able to pay Plaintiff. The Court is persuaded that Defendant committed an act of embezzlement against Plaintiff and that the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor wrongfully takes the creditor’s property with fraudulent intent.

Allstate Life Insurance v. Guerrerio (In Re Guerrerio) · filed 1992-08-18(a)(4)

For purposes of section 523(a)(4), larceny is proven if the debtor has wrongfully and with fraudulent intent taken property from its owner. ... Thus, Allstate’s debt in the amount of $69,000 plus interest, the amount sought in the first claim for relief in Allstate’s complaint is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4)’s larceny exception requires an unlawful initial taking; property lawfully received under a lease does not qualify.

Werner v. Hofmann (In Re Hofmann) · filed 1992-09-04(a)(4)

Embezzlement focuses on the lawful or authorized possession of another’s property whereas larceny involves the original unlawful taking or carrying away of the property. As the court discussed earlier, the procurement of the cattle by the Hofmanns was lawfully derived from the lease agreements entered between the Hofmanns and the Werners. Consequently, because the Hof-manns’ original taking and possession of the cattle were lawful, the Hofmanns did not commit larceny under the confines of section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor fraudulently appropriates property lawfully entrusted to him.

Hall v. Blanton (In Re Blanton) · filed 1992-12-11(a)(4)

The debtor’s subsequent misappropriation of plaintiff’s proceeds is embezzlement under the federal definition. For the reasons stated the court finds the entire debt excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of fraud or fraudulent intent for an embezzlement exception to discharge, but does not require a fiduciary relationship.

General Electric Capital Corp. v. Pickett (In Re Pickett) · filed 1992-12-14(a)(4)

Proof of a fiduciary relationship is not necessary to prevail on an embezzlement claim; however, a showing of fraud or fraudulent intent is. ... In the proceeding at bar, no evidence of fraud or fraudulent intent on the part of the defendants was shown.

Section 523(a)(4) uses larceny in its common-law sense.

Fleet Bank of Massachusetts v. Lavita (In Re Lavita) · filed 1993-01-15(a)(4)

Under bankruptcy law, larceny as used in section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code means common law larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) requires rightful possession, diversion from the entrusted use, and circumstances indicating fraud to establish embezzlement.

Tobkin v. Waltrip · filed 1993-01-22(a)(4)

Embezzlement in the context of nondischargeability requires three elements: (1) property rightfully in the possession of a nonowner; (2) nonowner's appropriation of the property to a use other than that to which it was entrusted; and (3) circumstances indicating fraud.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge for embezzlement when the parties’ debtor-creditor relationship means the property belongs to the debtor.

Carlson v. Rigsby (In Re Rigsby) · filed 1993-03-29(a)(4)

If the actions of the parties are more in the nature of a debtor-creditor relationship, property that comes to the debtor belongs to him and cannot be embezzled. ... In the instant proceeding, the weight of the evidence indicates that the parties were also in a debtor-creditor relationship. ... Accordingly, no embezzlement has been committed, and a separate Judgment finding in favor of defendant and against plaintiff will be entered.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt arising from larceny nondischargeable.

Great American Insurance v. O'Brien (In Re O'Brien) · filed 1993-05-12(a)(4)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), a debt for larceny is not dischargeable under the general discharge provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 727.

Section 523(a)(4) can except a debt for embezzlement from discharge even if the debtor did not act in a fiduciary capacity.

Gore v. Kressner (In Re Kressner) · filed 1993-05-25(a)(4)

This court rejects the debtor’s argument that the action should be dismissed because the debtor was not a fiduciary with respect to the fee splitting agreement. An obligation may be found non-dischargeable for embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) even if the debtor did not act in a fiduciary capacity.

Section 523(a)(4)'s larceny exception does not apply when the debtor originally possessed the property lawfully.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,476 Harlan Werner Mary Werner v. Willis D. Hofmann Bonnie L. Hofmann · filed 1993-09-30(a)(4)

We also agree with the bankruptcy court that the larceny exception could not apply because the Hofmann’s original possession of the cattle was lawful.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) do not prevent discharge when the creditor fails to prove the alleged fraud or embezzlement.

Bethesda Hospital v. Kessnick (In re Kessnick) · filed 1993-12-09(a)(2), (a)(4)

Further, we agree with Mr. Kessnick’s counsel that there has been no showing under § 523(a)(2) of actual fraud or of the use of a false financial statement, nor has there been a showing of fraud or embezzlement in a fiduciary capacity as required under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not require a fiduciary relationship for a debt arising from embezzlement to be excepted from discharge.

Green v. Pawlinski (In Re Pawlinski) · filed 1994-07-20(a)(4)

The words “fiduciary capacity” in § 523(a)(4) only modify “fraud” and “defalcation”, not “embezzlement” and “larceny”.

Section 523(a)(4) treats the conversion of another’s trade secrets as larceny, making the resulting debt nondischargeable.

Rowe Oil, Inc. v. McCoy (In Re McCoy) · filed 1995-11-06(a)(4)

This Court can only conclude that this conversion is the “constructive taking away of property of another,” and therefore falls within the definition of larceny as required for nondis-chargeability under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge for embezzlement when the creditor holds only a security interest in property the debtor owns.

Trane Federal Credit Union v. Conder (In Re Conder) · filed 1995-12-20(a)(4)

Where a creditor holds nothing more than a security interest in a debtor’s property, the relationship is insufficient to support a finding of embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent misappropriation for embezzlement; a debtor’s authorized use of sale proceeds does not become embezzlement merely because the debtor cannot pay the creditor.

Rentrak Corp. v. Cady (In Re Cady) · filed 1996-04-08(a)(4)

Debtor was authorized to sell the tapes and use the proceeds of the sale or lease in the general operating account of Universal Video. The fact that Debtor did not have sufficient funds after paying other creditors to pay Rentrak does not mean that Debtor is guilty of embezzlement. Rentrak failed to proved the requisite fraudulent intent to deprive, and section 523(a)(4) will not prevent the discharge of Debtor’s debt.

Section 523(a)(4)'s larceny exception does not require the debtor to have acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Cherken v. Graham (In Re Graham) · filed 1996-04-10(a)(4)

The case law interpreting the “larceny” prong of § 523(a)(4) establishes that the “fiduciary capacity” requirement need not be satisfied for this ground of nondischargeability to prevail.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor seeking to except an embezzlement debt from discharge to prove the extent of the loss by a preponderance of the evidence.

J.H. Buhrmaster Co. v. Snyder (In Re Snyder) · filed 1996-04-15(a)(4)

In order to prevail against the Debtor on its claim under Code § 523(a)(4), the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Here, although the Plaintiff has been partially relieved of its burden to prove that the Debtor embezzled funds, it is still required to show by a preponderance of evidence, the extent of the loss caused by Debtor.