11 U.S.C. § 523

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

Robert W. Steele, II - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-08-08(a)(4)

Because Mr. Steele has shown with uncontradicted evidence that he did not act with fraudulent intent, the third element is not met, and the Embezzlement Claim fails, even when taken in the light most favorable to Swift as the nonmoving party.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising from embezzlement of property entrusted to the debtor.

Erik D. Lawrence and Philippi Property Group, LLC v. Barber · filed 2019-08-09(a)(4)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), the Court finds that Barber embezzled the guns.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge for larceny when the debtor’s valid agreement admits that she stole the creditor’s property.

Jessica Lynn Hulet - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-08-29(a)(4)

Therefore, Hulet’s admission, standing alone, is sufficient to establish that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4), and the Court concludes that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) for larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves that the debtor misappropriated entrusted property under circumstances indicating fraud.

Koressel v. Bowman · filed 2019-10-01(a)(4)

For reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Bowman’s mismanagement of funds amounted to embezzlement, that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in the amount of $36,266.67, a sum which represents Brian Koressel’s total contribution in the funeral home venture minus reimbursements and recoveries already received, and that this judgment is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat a security interest in property owned by the debtor as sufficient ownership to support an embezzlement claim.

Fidelity Bank v. Jimenez · filed 2019-10-10(a)(4)

This court agrees with its sister courts in the northern and southern district of Georgia and holds that a creditor’s security interest in property owned by the debtor is an insufficient ownership interest to support a claim under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising from larceny, including the knowing diversion and resale of another’s satellite signal.

Randy P. Coley - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-10-24(a)(4)

By its nature, knowingly and secretly downloading a communications signal from the sky and surreptitiously re-selling it to third parties at a significant profit, while depriving the owner of the value of the signal, is conversion and larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for larceny nondischargeable when the debtor misappropriates services for personal benefit with fraudulent intent.

Philadelphia Gas Works v. Esola · filed 2019-10-29(a)(4)

Accordingly, to establish a debt is nondischargeable for larceny under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), the plaintiff must show that (1) the debtor misappropriated services for his or her own benefit and (2) that he or she did so with fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from embezzlement, including ancillary obligations, from discharge.

Kimberly Rose Solario - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-01-22(a)(4)

The State Court Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment and Order to Pay Taxes, and 2033.420 Order obligations are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) as having arisen from and ancillary to Defendant-Debtor committing embezzlement of Plaintiff’s proceeds from the sale of the Escalon Property.

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof that the debtor appropriated funds for personal benefit with fraudulent intent or deceit to except a debt for embezzlement.

Ambassador Steel Fabrication, LLC v. Thornton, Jr. · filed 2020-02-28(a)(4)

Even if the Debtor was personally liable, however, Ambassador also failed to prove the elements of embezzlement by a preponderance of the evidence. It failed to prove that the Debtor diverted the funds from the joint checks for his own benefit and failed to prove any fraudulent intent in the deposit of the joint checks into the Thornton Rave account.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an embezzlement claimant to own the property allegedly misappropriated; an unsecured claim to payment does not establish ownership.

Fiebelkorn v. Cooke · filed 2020-06-15(a)(4)

For Plaintiff to succeed on his embezzlement claim under §523(a)(4), he needed to prove that he was an owner of the Property, that Defendant was rightfully in possession of his ownership interest, that Defendant appropriated his property for a use other than which it was entrusted and that the relevant circumstance indicate fraud. Since Plaintiff was not an owner of the Property, he cannot satisfy the first element of his embezzlement claim.

Section 523(a)(4) uses federal common law to define larceny for dischargeability purposes.

Z Constructors Nationwide, LLC v. Hadley, II · filed 2020-07-01(a)(4)

For purposes of § 523(a)(4), larceny is to be interpreted under federal common law.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for larceny from discharge only if the creditor proves a taking.

Amine · filed 2020-07-30(a)(4)

The Almansuris next rely on § 523(a)(4). ... But the Almansuris have not proven a taking, and without proving a taking, they cannot prove larceny. So this claim also fails as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for larceny from discharge when the debtor wrongfully and intentionally took another person’s property.

DN Enterprises v. Navarro · filed 2020-08-11(a)(4)

An exception to discharge for larceny under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) requires proof that the debtor wrongfully and intentionally took another's property.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor embezzles property that was lawfully entrusted to them.

Camp Inn Lodge LLC v. Kirvan · filed 2020-08-19(a)(4)

For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court finds and holds that Camp Inn has met its burden of proof as to its Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) claims.

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of fraudulent or unlawful intent at the time of misappropriation to except a debt for embezzlement.

Popescu v. Cockey, II · filed 2020-10-01(a)(4)

The Plaintiffs must show that the Debtor had a fraudulent or unlawful intent, directed at the Plaintiffs, at the time of the claimed misappropriation.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge salary overpayments a debtor obtains by knowingly and fraudulently misappropriating funds entrusted to her.

AFSCME Local 2187 v. Marshall · filed 2020-10-02(a)(4)

Based on these inferential findings, I conclude that the elements of embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(4) have been satisfied with respect to the portion of the First Overpayment that the Debtor received after April 21, 2014. The Debtor controlled union funds as president of Local 2187 and then, knowingly and wrongfully, with fraudulent intent, misappropriated those funds by overpaying her own salary.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat a contractor’s use of contract payments as embezzlement when the contract does not restrict the money to a particular phase of work.

Eric M. Udelhoven - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2021-01-14(a)(4)

There was no contract term, however, that required the funds to be used only for the labor and materials needed for that phase. Under § 523(a)(4),it does not matter that Udelhoven completed none of those phases, or that usually demolition is complete before other phases of construction begin. The procedures set forth in the contract were followed. Udelhoven could not embezzle money that belonged to him.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when the circumstances show fraudulent intent, which may be established by circumstantial evidence.

Kirvan · filed 2021-02-19(a)(4)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court correctly held that Kirvan embezzled the $55,857.45 for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and that such amount was non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4)'s larceny exception does not cover funds the creditor never owned, even if the debtor promised to turn them over.

Fischer v. Millis · filed 2021-03-31(a)(4)

As the Debtor-Defendant points out, the Plaintiff never owned the $70,000 and thus she could not have taken it from him by larceny. Any claim he has to the funds is based on her alleged representation that she would turn over the proceeds of the subleases to him. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for larceny as to the $70,000 in subtenant fees.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for embezzlement from discharge when a debtor fraudulently appropriates property entrusted to them.

Zeba, LLC v. Hosseini · filed 2021-05-14(a)(4)

The Debtor embezzled $14,650.00 of funds from the Business, and that amount is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

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

Brown v. Prieto · filed 2021-06-23(a)(4)

In short, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has presented evidence sufficient to sustain the embezzlement claim against the Debtor under § 523(a)(4), and that the Plaintiff, derivatively on behalf of the LLC, was damaged by that embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) requires the original taking of property to be unlawful for a debt to be nondischargeable as larceny.

Webb v. Struhar, Sr. · filed 2021-07-01(a)(4)

Unlike embezzlement, for a debt to be nondischargeable on grounds of larceny, the original taking of the property must have been unlawful.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge for embezzlement when the debtor was free to spend the funds and did not appropriate them fraudulently.

Thomas G Cinney · filed 2021-08-16(a)(4)

Thus, the Plaintiff’s embezzlement claim cannot stand because no fraudulent appropriation of the property occurred. The Plaintiff knew that the Debtor would spend the Payments and the Funds.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts restitution for larceny from discharge even when the debtor entered an Alford plea without admitting the conduct.

Bidell, as of the Estate of Annette Livin v. Reid · filed 2021-08-20(a)(4)

Here, the plea agreement established an obligation to pay restitution for damages related to Petit Larceny. Although the debtor may have been unwilling to admit the occurrence of larceny, she nonetheless agreed to assume a debt for larceny. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), a debt of this type is non-dischargeable as to any objecting creditor.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising from embezzlement when the debtor lawfully receives property and fraudulently appropriates it.

Poddar v. Hamza-Haris · filed 2021-09-17(a)(4)

The Court finds that the Car Debt should be excepted from discharge as to Defendant Muhammad S. Hamza-Haris for embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4)'s larceny exception requires the debtor's initial taking of the property to be unlawful.

WesBanco Bank Inc v. Smalley · filed 2021-11-03(a)(4)

Because a finding of larceny requires a taking of property that was unlawful when it occurred, the larceny provision of § 523(a)(4) does not apply here. There are no allegations that the Defendants unlawfully took the Loan or unlawfully took the proceeds from the sale of the DMX building. The initial “taking” of those funds by the Defendants was not unlawful, so larceny did not occur and that category of § 523(a)(4) is inapplicable.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising when a debtor embezzles funds entrusted for a specific purpose.

Luis Alberto Castaneda and Esther Alicia Castaneda - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2022-01-26(a)(4)

As a result, the Court finds that the Castenadas embezzled the entire $50,000.00. ... The Court awards a non-dischargeable judgment against the Castanedas pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) in the amount of $137,500.00, plus post judgment interest at the federal judgment rate for which execution may issue.

Section 523(a)(4) makes debts arising from embezzlement or larceny nondischargeable when the debtor fraudulently appropriates another’s property.

In re: Lance Herschel Harrison · filed 2022-02-28(a)(4)

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel AFFIRMS the grant of a nondischargeable summary judgment in Hadley PLLC’s favor for Harrison’s embezzlement and/or larceny of Hadley PLLC’s Property under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), consisting of damages totaling $167,621.50.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor claiming embezzlement to show that it owned the property and that the debtor misappropriated it.

F&F Investments Group, LLC v. Case · filed 2022-02-23(a)(4)

These facts do not and can never state a claim for embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) because they neither support the Plaintiff maintaining any ownership interest in the funds nor misappropriation of the funds.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor alleging larceny or embezzlement to show a legally recognizable property interest in the property taken.

AIXO, LLC v. Cavallino · filed 2022-03-14(a)(4)

Because AIXO failed to show that it had a property interest in the funds received by Property Management, its claims based on larceny and embezzlement must fail.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor lawfully receives another’s property and fraudulently appropriates it for personal use.

Ideal Development Concepts, LLC v. Gross · filed 2022-03-22(a)(4)

IT IS ORDERED that the Ideal Debt is nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a debtor’s fraudulent appropriation of entrusted property.

Lou v. Ochello · filed 2022-03-30(a)(4)

Lou is therefore entitled to a nondischargeable judgment for $14,739.64 under § 523(a)(4).

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

BRRRT Properties, LLC v. Pfeifer · filed 2022-07-12(a)(4)

The court affirms the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Pfeifer’s $235,174 debt is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent intent for embezzlement; deceit alone is insufficient.

Squarepoint Ops, LLC v. Sesum · filed 2022-09-12(a)(4)

The Court finds that fraudulent intent is required as an element of embezzlement and that deceit alone is insufficient.

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

Dixon v. Wilkerson, Jr. · filed 2022-09-16(a)(4)

Having found that Wilkerson embezzled the $133,000 check, the claim is excepted from Wilkerson’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4)’s larceny and embezzlement exceptions may apply to intangible property interests created by business-broker listings.

VL Wallace Investments, LLC d/b/a Transworld Busin v. Tavernier · filed 2022-10-05(a)(4)

Tavernier offers no legal authority for her implicit argument that, as a matter of law, a business-broker listing doesn’t create an intangible property interest in favor of the broker that could be the subject of a claim for larceny or embezzlement. I will deny Tavernier’s motion on the 523(a)(4) claim.

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

Iron Horse Welding, LLC. v. Beach · filed 2022-10-21(a)(4)

Iron Horse’s embezzlement claim therefore fails for lack of proof that any funds were misappropriated with fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(4) excepted the debtor’s embezzlement debt from discharge.

Hales v. Reed · filed 2022-11-04(a)(4)

For the reasons set forth above, the court will award judgment to plaintiff on his claims that (i) Jason Howard Reed was the alter ego of ShinePro Building Solutions, LLC, and (ii) the obligations of Mr. Reed to pay the judgment against ShinePro and in favor of Sami Hales are nondischargeable as arising from embezzlement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent intent for a claim that a debt arose from embezzlement or larceny; a Florida conversion verdict alone does not establish either.

Panjwani v. Khan · filed 2023-03-08(a)(4)

The jury’s verdict finding Aamir Khan liable for conversion therefore does not collaterally estop him from contesting the dischargeability of this debt because the issues were not identical.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when a debtor fraudulently diverts entrusted property.

Chris M. Carlos, as Trustee for the Chris M. Carlo v. Howard · filed 2023-08-23(a)(4)

Howard was entrusted with the sales of the Porsche and the Mercedes. Howard did not turn over the sales proceeds from either vehicle when they were sold and lied about having received the money. Howard’s excuse that he was holding onto the proceeds to use for a trade later on to save taxes for the Carlos Trust rings hollow in the face of the arbitration lie. If, in fact, there was a good reason to hold onto the proceeds there would have been no reason for Howard to lie. Thus, pursuant to section 523(a)(4) the Vehicle Sales Debt is not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4)’s embezzlement exception requires fraudulent intent, which a debtor lacks when acting under an honest but mistaken belief of entitlement to the property.

Parker v. Martin · filed 2023-09-11(a)(4)

Importantly, a defendant “acting under an erroneous belief of entitlement” lacks fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when a debtor uses entrusted property in violation of a restriction on its use.

Wilson Bros.-Hanover, Inc. v. Linenfelser · filed 2023-10-04(a)(4)

Wilson Bros. carried its burden of proof for embezzlement under § 523(a)(4). Based on the record as outlined above, Wilson Bros. demonstrated that (1) Linenfelser was one of the few employees entrusted with the responsibility of ordering parts for the business, (2) Linenfelser was able to order parts only for use of Wilson Bros.’ customers, and (3) Linenfelser’s personal use of the ordered parts was a violation of his employment relationship with Wilson Bros.

Section 523(a)(4)’s embezzlement exception does not apply when the creditor merely holds a lien on property owned by another entity.

Coastal Capital, LLC v. Savage · filed 2023-11-28(a)(4)

Because the property was never Coastal’s property, Coastal has not established and cannot establish that any of the debt that the Debtors owe to Coastal should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

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

Reeves v. DiBassie · filed 2024-01-12(a)(4)

The Court holds that the transfers from SCS Repair Group, LLC to Structural Concrete Systems, LLC that exceeded the transfers from Structural Concrete Systems, LLC authorized by Michele DiBassie are embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor appropriates funds for personal benefit with fraudulent intent.

SCS Repair Group, LLC v. DiBassie · filed 2024-01-12(a)(4)

Embezzlement consists of three essential elements as follows: (1) the debtor appropriated funds, (2) the appropriation was for the debtor's use or benefit, and (3) the debtor did the appropriation with fraudulent intent. ... The Court holds that the transfers from SCS Repair Group, LLC to Structural Concrete Systems, LLC that exceeded the transfers from Structural Concrete Systems, LLC authorized by Michele DiBassie are embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4)’s larceny exception requires a wrongful taking with intent to convert the property or permanently deprive its owner of it.

Delta Community Credit Union v. Randall, Jr · filed 2024-02-05(a)(4)

For purposes of establishing an exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(4), larceny is defined as “a felonious taking of property with the intent to convert it or to permanently deprive the owner of it.” In re Gross, 2019 WL 2335912, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. May 31, 2019)(citations omitted).

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) make a debt for embezzled funds nondischargeable when the debtor knowingly keeps the funds with substantial certainty of injuring their owner.

Kirk R. House · filed 2024-02-26(a)(4), (a)(6)

But, the Court finds that a portion of Mr. House’s debt to Ms. Johnston is non- dischargeable under sections 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6). Specifically, the Court concludes that the $12,777 that was not returned to Ms. Johnston from the $20,000 given to Mr. House for safekeeping is non-dischargeable.

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

Armin Litigation, LLC, a Florida limited liability v. Ebrahimpour · filed 2024-03-15(a)(4)

The issue before the Court is whether the misappropriation of Benz Research’s Property was carried out by the Debtor with fraudulent intent or deceit. For the reasons discussed above, the Court answers this question in the affirmative. Therefore, the debt owed by the Debtor to Benz Research is excepted from his discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not require a fiduciary relationship or technical trust to except a debt for embezzlement from discharge.

Mashala Investments, LLC v. Storm · filed 2024-03-27(a)(4)

To the extent that Defendant is arguing that a technical trust is necessary to support a claim for embezzlement, the Court disagrees, as Plaintiff need not rely on the existence of a fiduciary relationship to establish a debt for embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4)’s embezzlement exception requires proof of fraudulent intent.

Squarepoint Ops, LLC v. Sesum · filed 2024-06-13(a)(4)

For these reasons, the third element of the embezzlement claim is not satisfied. Thus, Squarepoint’s debt which is based upon the Arbitration Award does not fall within the exception to discharge of section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt nondischargeable as embezzlement when a debtor fraudulently uses entrusted property for an unauthorized purpose.

McNulty v. Palecki · filed 2025-02-10(a)(4)

Based upon the foregoing, the McNultys have established all the requirements of Section 523(a)(4) embezzlement and are entitled to a nondischargeable judgment in their favor and against the Debtor for $59,129.52.

Section 523(a)(4) permits an embezzlement claim based on misuse of confidential information in a computerized database when that information qualifies as property under state law.

MAJOR, LINDSEY & AFRICA, LLC v. Mahn · filed 2025-02-10(a)(4)

MLA has sufficiently alleged that Mahn misappropriated “property” as defined by New York law by pointing to her misuse of information on MLA’s “computerized database of active candidate information.” ... The Court finds that MLA sufficiently pleaded embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) allows a 50% owner of a two-member company to pursue a nondischargeability claim for the other owner’s embezzlement of company funds.

DiBassie · filed 2025-03-31(a)(4)

Under the bankruptcy court’s fact findings, the money that DiBassie took was half hers and half Reeves’s, which is why the bankruptcy court awarded Reeves only half of what DiBassie actually took. The Court concludes that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that Reeves had standing to pursue an embezzlement claim under Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a state court judgment has preclusive effect on the elements of larceny.

Karam Family, LLC v. Lane · filed 2025-04-28(a)(4)

As a result, the Court finds that the Default Judgment is entitled to preclusive effect and the debt should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt from discharge when a prior judgment necessarily decided that the debtor caused willful and malicious injury.

LaFaver Fiberglass Corporation v. Price · filed 2025-05-01(a)(6)

The issues that must be proven to except the judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(6) are the same issues that were determined by the state court. Moreover, the willful nature of the Defendants’ acts and their malicious motives in bringing successive actions against the Plaintiffs were essential issues to be determined by the state court.

Issue preclusion principles apply in Section 523(a) discharge proceedings.

Adair v. Stutsman Construction · filed 2025-05-20(a)

Issue preclusion principles apply in bankruptcy discharge proceedings under § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(4)’s embezzlement exception requires proof that the debtor had fraudulent or unlawful intent toward the creditor when appropriating the property.

Parker v. Martin · filed 2025-07-01(a)(4)

The plaintiff must show that the debtor had a fraudulent or unlawful intent, directed at the plaintiff, at the time of the claimed misappropriation.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt for embezzlement of confidential electronic information that qualifies as property under state law.

Sharon Mahn · filed 2025-08-18(a)(4)

The arbitrator’s other factual findings suffice to show that the data on the Recruit database constitutes “property” under New York law and thus can form the basis of an embezzlement claim under the Code.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a debt arising from the fraudulent appropriation of confidential electronic data entrusted to the debtor.

MAJOR, LINDSEY & AFRICA, LLC v. Mahn · filed 2025-08-18(a)(4)

The arbitrator’s other factual findings suffice to show that the data on the Recruit database constitutes “property” under New York law and thus can form the basis of an embezzlement claim under the Code.

For embezzlement under § 523(a)(4), the debtor must have lawfully possessed the property allegedly embezzled.

Independent Health Association, Inc. v. DiMarco · filed 2025-09-19(a)(4)

Furthermore, in order for embezzlement to occur, the Debtor must have been in lawful possession of the embezzled property. See In re Hoyt, 326 B.R. 13, 19-20 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2005). Based upon the Panel’s findings in the Final Award, the Defendant was not in lawful possession of the overpaid funds, so this element of a claim for embezzlement is not satisfied. Therefore, the Plaintiffs argument under § 523(a)(4) fails, and the Court will deny the Motion as to Count II.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts larceny debts from discharge; a Massachusetts larceny conviction can establish the required elements through issue preclusion.

Chau v. Taing · filed 2025-09-26(a)(4)

For the reasons set out in the Movants’ briefs, I agree that proof of the elements of larceny under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 30, including the required intent, and the convictions establish the elements of a claim of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires more than making a creditor’s expected receipts inaccessible to establish embezzlement; the creditor must show that the debtor used the funds without explanation of reason or purpose.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc. as servicing agent for Kap v. Etunnuh · filed 2025-09-26(a)(4)

Plaintiff’s point that Defendants later made their receipts inaccessible to Plaintiff speaks more to the fact that Defendants’ business operations did not go as the parties intended, but Plaintiff must show more than that—it must show that Defendants used the borrowed funds without explanation of reason or purpose.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from larceny from discharge, and a conviction establishing the elements of larceny can preclude relitigation of those elements.

Chy v. Taing · filed 2025-09-26(a)(4)

For the reasons set out in the Movants’ briefs, I agree that proof of the elements of larceny under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 30, including the required intent, and the convictions establish the elements of a claim of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from larceny from discharge; a final Massachusetts larceny conviction can establish the elements through issue preclusion.

Thi v. Taing · filed 2025-09-26(a)(4)

As such, by application of collateral estoppel, the Movants are entitled to summary judgment that the Debtor’s debts to them are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt for embezzlement from discharge when a debtor fraudulently appropriates another’s entrusted property for the debtor’s use or benefit.

Bridges · filed 2025-10-17(a)(4)

Thus, to prevail on a claim under § 523(a)(4), a party must show that the debtor was entrusted with property of another and that there was (1) an appropriation of funds by the debtor, (2) for the debtor’s use or benefit, (3) with fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat a debtor’s misappropriation of collateral subject to a creditor’s security interest as embezzlement, because the debtor owns the collateral.

Laake · filed 2026-01-27(a)(4)

Thus, a debtor who misappropriates a creditor’s collateral does not embezzle that property.

Section 523(a)(4) does not require proof of actual fraud for embezzlement; circumstances indicating fraud can be established by a gross deviation from the conduct of a law-abiding person in the debtor’s situation.

Soto · filed 2026-02-05(a)(4)

Finally, it should be emphasized that the “circumstances indicating fraud” essential element lies in the penumbra of fraud, is not congruent with actual fraud, and does not require proof of actual fraud. Rather, it suffices to establish a gross deviation from the standard that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from larceny from discharge when the debtor wrongfully takes another’s property with intent to convert it and permanently deprive the owner of it.

Baird · filed 2026-04-15(a)(4)

Ms. Baird’s claim against Mr. Matlack is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) as a debt arising from Mr. Matlack’s commission of larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from larceny from discharge; findings in a prior judgment can establish the elements of larceny.

Attariwala · filed 2026-04-29(a)(4)

As set forth in Part II(B), the Amended Claim consists solely of damages awarded to the Plaintiff in the Final Judgment as a result of the Debtor’s violations of the IUTSA and DTSA, and, therefore, the entire Final Judgment is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge as larceny when property is wrongfully taken through undue influence without legal authority and with intent to permanently deprive its owner.

Craig · filed 2026-05-19(a)(4)

The jury’s findings satisfy the elements to establish the nondischargeability of the debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) for larceny.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a Florida civil theft judgment from discharge when the judgment establishes larceny and is entitled to preclusive effect.

Lane · filed 2026-05-22(a)(4)

In sum, after conducting a de novo review, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court correctly applied collateral estoppel to the Florida default judgment and that the Florida court’s civil theft finding satisfies the requirements for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge for embezzlement when a debtor lawfully receives another’s funds and then fraudulently appropriates them.

All Terrain Ponds and Sprinklers, LLC v. Tyler J. Moody · filed 2026-05-19(a)(4)

Here, the State Court’s findings match those necessary to find the debts owed to All Terrain are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) due to embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts from discharge a civil theft debt arising from embezzlement of funds entrusted to the debtor.

Young · filed 2026-05-19(a)(4)

Based on these facts, Plaintiffs’ civil theft claim is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor lawfully possesses another’s property but fraudulently diverts and retains it as embezzlement.

Georges v. Exceptional Properties · filed 2007-02-28(a)(4)

In other words, the court held that while Georges did not obtain the missing material by fraud (e.g., fraud in the inducement with respect to the parties’ agreement), he diverted and retained i t , converting it to his own use through fraudulent means (i.e., embezzlement — fraudulent conversion of the property of another by one who has lawful possession of the property).

Section 523(a)(8) applies to educational loans a parent takes out for a child’s education.

Wells v. Sallie Mae (Wells) · filed 2007-10-18(a)(8)

Thus, this Court concludes that Code § 523(a)(8) is applicable to the loans obtained by the Debtor in connection with his son’s education.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) excepts qualified educational loans from discharge, and whether a loan qualifies depends in part on the institution’s determination of the cost of attendance.

Rogers v. Key Bank, National Ass'n (In Re Rogers) · filed 2007-08-31(a)(8)(B)

A genuine issue of material fact exists as to the Institute’s determination of which, if any, of the loan proceeds which the Institute advanced to Rogers constituted a “cost of attendance” which qualified as a “higher education expense.” The cost of attendance is a necessary component of a higher education expense under Section 108711.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts educational stipends from discharge when the recipient agreed either to perform teaching service or to repay the funds.

Burks v. Louisiana Board of Regents (In re Burks) · filed 2001-03-19(a)(8)

It is clear from the agreements entered into between Burks and the Board that Burks agreed to repay the Board for the three loans he received to help finance his graduate education and that repayment thereof was available either through serving as an instructor at an “other-race” institution, or through repayment of the loans plus interest. These loans clearly fall within the ambit of non-dischargeable loans contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts a graduate stipend from discharge when it finances education and the recipient must either teach or repay it, even if the program also promotes faculty diversity.

Eddy J. Burks v. Louisiana, State of · filed 2001-03-19(a)(8)

We disagree and hold that Burks' obligation incurred under the "Graduate Fellowship Program" was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)(A) excepts a federally guaranteed student loan consolidation from discharge even when a co-obligor received no educational benefit.

Lawson v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (In Re Lawson) · filed 2000-09-19(a)(8)(A)

The first issue facing the Court is whether or not a non-student co-obligor may discharge a student loan from which that co-obligor received no educational benefit. ... This Court elects to follow the majority position and excepts from discharge Plaintiffs debt stemming from the consolidation.

Section 523(a)(8) can except a student loan for room and board from discharge because those expenses confer an educational benefit.

Stevens Institute of Technology v. Joyner (In Re Joyner) · filed 1994-08-16(a)(8)

Hence, we conclude that room and board expenses are funds received by the Debtor which conferred an “educational benefit” and are therefore nondisehargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except tuition, room, board, or other university service charges from discharge when no loan or extension of credit exists.

Peller v. Syracuse University (In Re Peller) · filed 1994-08-09(a)(8)

This Court concludes, as a matter of law, that § 523(a)(8) does not include a claim for tuition, room, board or other University services. To extend § 523(a)(8) to include services from a university or other higher education institution, where no loan or extension of credit exists, would contravene both the plain meaning of the statute as well as the legislative intent.

Section 523(a)(8) makes a service scholarship debt nondischargeable as an educational loan when the recipient must repay the funds after failing to fulfill the service obligation.

United States Department of Health and Human Services v. Robert Porter Smith and Julie Rose Smith · filed 1986-12-04(a)(8)

We hold that Robert’s obligation incurred under PSASP was a nondischargeable “educational loan” within the meaning of § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not govern discharge of HEAL student loans in Chapter 7; 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g) controls.

Hines v. United States (In Re Hines) · filed 1986-08-20(a)(8)

As to the first issue, the. Court holds 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g), and not 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), is paramount for determining HEAL student loan dischargeability in Chapter 7 matters.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except an accommodation party’s secondary obligation on a guaranteed student loan from discharge when that party received no loan proceeds.

Bartsch v. Wisconsin Higher Education Corp. (In Re Meier) · filed 1986-07-01(a)(8)

Using the aforementioned principles of statutory interpretation, it is clear that the obligation of an accomodation party to a debtor for a guaranteed student loan should not fall within the exception of § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. The actual “debt for an educational loan” is that of the principal obligor. The principal obligation was the debt intended to be excepted from discharge under § 523. The secondary liability of the accomodation party who received no benefits from the loan proceeds was not expressly excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except a later note from discharge when the debtor received no new educational loan in exchange for it.

Virginia Ex Rel. State Education Assistance Authority v. Ziglar (In Re Ziglar) · filed 1982-03-31(a)(8)

Only educational loans are nondis-chargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. Because no educational loan was extended to Ziglar in return for the 1978 note the debt which that note represents is clearly dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except a trust fund’s educational loan from discharge solely because a governmental unit acts as trustee.

Shore v. Columbus College (In re Shore) · filed 1982-10-13(a)(8)

The loss will run to the Greentree-Sevier Trust Fund, and trust funds established to make educátional loans are not included in the exception at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). The educational loan was made by the Greentree-Sevier Trust Fund with the Regents of the University System of Georgia acting as trustees. The fact that the trustees of the trust fund are a governmental unit does not result in a loan “made by” a governmental unit.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts from discharge an educational loan made by a governmental unit, including the loan Columbus College made to the debtor.

Columbus College v. Shore (In Re Shore) · filed 1982-12-27(a)(8)

Comprehensive briefs have been submitted by the Appellant and the Appellee, and upon consideration, the Court determines that the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding that the educational loan obtained by the Appellee from Columbus College was not made by a governmental unit within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8)’s student loan exception to discharge applies only to the student debtor, not to a nonstudent co-maker.

Boylen v. First National Bank of Akron (In Re Boylen) · filed 1983-05-16(a)(8)

The first issue which this court must determine is whether the exception to discharge for student loan debts as set forth in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(8) applies to debtor, John G. Boylen, in light of the fact that he was only a co-maker on the debt and never was a student. Based on the Legislative History and the remarks of various congressmen relative to this exception to discharge, this Court finds that the United States Congress intended that this exception be applicable only to the student debtor and not to any co-makers on the debt.

Section 523(a)(8) covers an educational loan made by a governmental unit when that unit is the lender and holds the loan obligation, regardless of which fund supplied the money.

In Re Joan Edna Shore, Debtor. Columbus College, a Unit of the University System of Georgia v. Shore · filed 1983-06-24(a)(8)

An educational loan “made by” a governmental unit within the meaning of Section 523(a)(8) is one in which a governmental unit is the lender and the holder of the loan obligation. The particular fund on which the governmental unit draws to fund the loan does not alter the definition.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts covered educational loans from Chapter 7 discharge despite the Bankruptcy Code’s fresh-start policy.

Johnson v. Edinboro State College and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. Appeal of Edinboro Stat · filed 1984-02-27(a)(8)

Here, it is abundantly clear, from both the legislative history and the text of the Bankruptcy Code itself that Congress meant to bar the discharge of educational loans like those Johnson received through Edinboro State College.

Section 523(a)(8) covers a parent’s PLUS educational loan guaranteed by a governmental unit.

Reid v. First Tennessee Bank & Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. (In Re Reid) · filed 1984-04-13(a)(8)

The PLUS program through which the plaintiff obtained this educational loan makes loans available to parents of dependent undergraduate students. ... The loan obtained by the plaintiff is an educational loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit within the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not except a nonstudent co-maker’s student loan obligation from discharge.

Washington v. Virginia State Education Assistance Authority (In Re Washington) · filed 1984-06-18(a)(8)

In summary, this Court holds that the debtors’ obligation to Virginia State Education Assistance Authority should be included in the debtors’ discharge that was granted in this matter on June 7, 1983, because the exception to discharge for student loans does not apply to co-makers who are not student borrowers.

Section 523(a)(8) treats tuition credit extended by a nonprofit university as a nondischargeable educational loan.

University of New Hampshire v. Hill (In Re Hill) · filed 1984-09-14(a)(8)

Accordingly, 1 find the credit supplied by the University of New Hampshire a loan, and the debt of $2,500 is determined to be non-dischargeable within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)’s general rule for student loans does not govern H.E.A.L. loans, whose discharge is controlled by 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g).

United States v. Hampton (In Re Hampton) · filed 1985-01-11(a)(8)

Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(8) was enacted as part of the “Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978” which became effective on October 1,1979. Public Health Service Act § 294f(g) was enacted as part of the “Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981”. The Bankruptcy Code provision concerns the discharge of guaranteed student loans in general while the Public Health Service Act is specifically concerned with the discharge of H.E.A.L. loans. Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g) being the more recently enacted and more specific statute controls the discharge of debtor’s loan.

Section 523(a)(8) covers government-guaranteed educational loans made to a student's parent even when the student did not sign the note.

Feenstra v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Feenstra) · filed 1985-07-12(a)(8)

Therefore, until the legislature or a higher Court says otherwise, § 523(a)(8) excepts from discharge, an educational loan guaranteed by a governmental unit or non-profit institution regardless of whether the loan is made directly to the student or to the student’s parent.

Section 523(a)(8) makes a government health professions scholarship debt nondischargeable as an educational loan when the recipient must repay the funds through service or money.

United States Department of Health & Human Services v. Avila (In Re Avila) · filed 1985-10-21(a)(8)

The funds owing to the Department of Health and Human Services by Mr. Avila are an educational loan under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and it is non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) covers an award designated for tuition and academic support as an educational loan even when the obligation can be satisfied through service or payment.

United States Department of Health & Human Services v. Vretis (In Re Vretis) · filed 1985-12-27(a)(8)

The fact that the obligations under the award could be discharged by either service or by payment does not change its initial character of being for educational purposes. Clearly, this award was an educational loan within the meaning of Section 523.

Section 523(a)(8)’s student loan exception applies only to student borrowers, not nonstudent endorsers.

Bawden v. First Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Bawden) · filed 1985-11-01(a)(8)

In summary, this court holds that the debtor’s obligation to the Alabama Commission on Higher Education should be included in the debtor’s discharge because the exception to discharge for student loans applies only to student borrowers.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts scholarship funds used directly for education from discharge when the recipient must repay them after failing a service obligation.

United States Department of Health & Human Services v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1986-01-08(a)(8)

Thus, the $3,615.00 was clearly for educational purposes and should be declared nondischargeable under 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not make a nonstudent co-maker’s student loan liability nondischargeable.

Zobel v. Iowa College Aid Commission (In Re Zobel) · filed 1986-02-13(a)(8)

This Court agrees with these conclusions and determines § 523(a)(8) does not apply to Larry E. Zobel.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except a non-student co-maker’s liability for a student’s educational loan from discharge.

Northwestern University Student Loan Office v. Behr (In Re Behr) · filed 1987-09-18(a)(8)

The Court concludes that Debtor’s liability as a non-student co-maker on the note for an educational loan made to his son is outside the scope of § 523(a)(8) and therefore is dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 727.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except liquidated damages for breaching a medical service obligation from discharge when those damages are penalties rather than repayment of an educational loan.

Rural Kentucky Medical Scholarship Fund, Inc. v. Lipps (In Re Lipps) · filed 1987-09-25(a)(8)

From this conclusion it follows that the amounts owed in liquidated damages are not debts “for an educational loan,” but are contractual penalties as their purpose is not to repay the extension of money, but is to penalize the Debtor. Clearly, contractual penalties are not included among the exceptions to discharge set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship exception does not govern discharge of an NHSC scholarship repayment obligation during the five-year period set by 42 U.S.C. § 254o(c)(3).

United States v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1987-11-16(a)(8)

As previously stated in this opinion, this Court holds that the question of whether the debtor’s obligation to repay his NHSC scholarship may be included in the discharge he received in this Chapter 7 case is to be determined by reference to 42 U.S.C. § 254o (c)(3) not 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)’s undue hardship standard does not govern discharge of a HEAL loan, even when the borrower did not complete a health professional degree.

United States v. Green (In Re Green) · filed 1988-02-05(a)(8)

The dischargeability in bankruptcy of HEAL loans is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g) rather than by any provision of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Therefore, since the debtor is a HEAL loan recipient, and the unconsciona-bility standard applies to all HEAL loans regardless of whether the student borrower has completed a health professional education, the unconscionability standard must be applied in determining whether the Debtor is entitled to a discharge of her HEAL loan.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a student loan creditor to seek collection without first filing a dischargeability complaint when the debtor acknowledges having no defense to the loan.

Buford v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation · filed 1988-04-15(a)(8)

The court finds that this language permits the student loan creditor to seek collection of the debt without having to first file a complaint to determine dischargeability in the bankruptcy court, at least in a case such as the present one in which the debtor has already acknowledged that he has no defenses to the loan.

Section 523(a)(8) does not treat unpaid tuition as an educational loan without an agreement to advance money and repay it.

In Re Ellenburg · filed 1988-06-23(a)(8)

Under these definitions of “loan”, the claims of Emory and Tufts did not arise from educational loans.

Section 523(a)(8) applies to nonstudent co-signers of educational loans as well as student borrowers.

Educational Resources Institute, Inc. v. Selmonosky (In Re Selmonosky) · filed 1988-12-08(a)(8)

Therefore, this Court is compelled to find that § 523(a)(8) applies to nonstudent co-signer debtors, as well as student debtors.

Section 523(a)(8) covers educational loans owed by a student's parent and loans made through a program in which a nonprofit institution meaningfully helps provide funds.

Education Resources Institute, Inc. v. Hammarstrom (In Re Hammarstrom) · filed 1989-01-13(a)(8)

I thus conclude that the plain meaning of the statute provides that covered educational loans are nondischargeable, irrespective of whether the student or some other person is the obligor under the promissory note. ... I conclude that by using the broad language “made under any program funded in whole or in part by ... a nonprofit institution,” Congress intended to include within section 523(a)(8) all loans made under a program in which a nonprofit institution plays any meaningful part in providing funds.

Section 523(a)(8) covers an educational loan made by a debtor even when the loan pays for someone else's education.

Education Resources Institute, Inc. v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 1990-09-11(a)(8)

In the instant case, the obligation incurred by the Defendants/Debtors was for educational purposes, albeit for their son, and was one in which they were the sole makers. Giving the statute its literal meaning, this is precisely the type of obligation intended to be deemed nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) covers a government-guaranteed education loan owed by a parent who borrowed to finance a dependent child’s education, even though the parent was not the student.

Hudak v. Union National Bank of Pittsburgh (In Re Hudak) · filed 1990-11-25(a)(8)

The purpose of the loan at issue was for education and it is guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. Therefore, it fits within the literal wording of § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) applies to qualifying educational loans signed by a student’s parent.

Hawkins v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Hawkins) · filed 1991-07-03(a)(8)

The legislative history offers no basis for not enforcing the literal language of Section 523(a)(8) to bar the discharge of educational loans signed by a student’s parent.

Section 523(a)(8) does not treat a credit union as a nonprofit institution for purposes of excepting a student loan from discharge.

Lincoln Park Community Credit Union v. Sinclair-Ganos (In Re Sinclair-Ganos) · filed 1991-10-06(a)(8)

Thus, this court holds that a credit union is not a nonprofit institution under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and Beverly Sinclair-Ganos’ debt to the Lincoln Park Community Credit Union is discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) allows a parent who co-signed a child's student loan to discharge that debt without showing undue hardship.

Pelkowski v. Ohio Student Loan Commission (In Re Pelkowski) · filed 1992-01-06(a)(8)

The issue is whether a parent-debtor who has co-signed with her child a note for an educational loan for the child, may be discharged without showing undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). We hold that the debt should be discharged.

Section 523(a)(8) covers a parent's educational loan used for a child's education; the loan's purpose, rather than who receives the education, controls.

Educational Resources Institute, Inc. v. Varma (In Re Varma) · filed 1992-01-23(a)(8)

The relevant inquiry into the applicability of this section is the purpose of the loan, not the beneficiary of the education.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts an educational loan from discharge only as to the student for whose benefit the loan was made, not a nonstudent guarantor.

Education Resources, Inc. v. Wilcon (In Re Wilcon) · filed 1992-01-27(a)(8)

Accordingly the Court holds that a loan is “educational” within the meaning of § 523(a)(8) only with respect to the student for whose benefit the loan was made. The obligations of nonstudent obligors on such loans are not excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts from discharge an educational bank loan partly funded by a nonprofit university’s guaranty and the university’s extensions of credit for educational expenses.

In Re Weiner Merchant, Debtor. Andrews University v. Weiner Merchant · filed 1992-03-11(a)(8)

We hold that Merchant’s obligation to the Bank was funded, in part, by the University and that the loan is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). ... Following the Hill analysis we hold the credit extensions are not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts a Public Health Service education loan from discharge when the debtor has not established undue hardship.

In re Ascue · filed 1992-05-13(a)(8)

The loan in issue here was apparently awarded through the U.S. Public Health Service Scholarship Program and is therefore an education loan covered by § 523(a)(8). ... Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and § 727(b), debtor was not discharged of this education loan debt.

Section 523(a)(8) covers a parent’s qualifying educational loan for a child’s education, subject to the undue hardship exception.

Education Resources Institute, Inc. v. Wilcon (In Re Wilcon) · filed 1992-05-18(a)(8)

This Court rules that it is erroneous to limit the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) to loans made only to students, and Wil-con’s debt to TERI, incurred to educate his son, meets the criteria of nondischargeability under that statute.

Section 523(a)(8) does not bar discharge of a parent co-maker’s obligation on a child’s student loan.

Kirkish v. Meritor Savings Bank (In Re Kirkish) · filed 1992-08-19(a)(8)

The legislative history, clearly focussing on the student’s non-discharge-ability, compels a narrow interpretation of what constitutes an educational loan so as not to include co-makers or co-signers within 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) applies to student loans owed by nonstudent borrowers, including parents who borrow for a child’s education.

Webb v. Student Loan Funding Corp. (In Re Webb) · filed 1992-10-15(a)(8)

This court believes that, despite these persuasive arguments, Congress did intend Section 523(a)(8) to apply to all student loan borrowers regardless of their status as comakers, sureties, or non-student borrowers.

Section 523(a)(8)(B)'s undue hardship standard does not govern discharge of an NHSC scholarship obligation; 42 U.S.C. § 254o(d)(3) governs it instead.

Matthews v. United States, National Health Service Corps (In Re Matthews) · filed 1992-12-30(a)(8)(B)

This is not the ordinary student loan case requiring the Court to find an “undue hardship” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B). Discharge of an obligation to the NHSC is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 254o (d)(3).

Section 523(a)(8) makes an educational loan under a nonprofit credit union’s student loan program nondischargeable.

Construction Equipment Federal Credit Union v. Roberts (In Re Roberts) · filed 1993-01-21(a)(8)

Section 523(a)(8) prohibits the discharge of an educational loan made pursuant to any program funded by a nonprofit association. The Credit Union loaned money to Roberts pursuant to its student loan program. Accordingly, the Court finds that it comes within the protection of § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires nonprofit funding of the educational loan program, not of the individual loan.

Hemar Service Corp. of America, Inc. v. Pilcher (In Re Pilcher) · filed 1993-01-21(a)(8)

Notwithstanding Pilcher’s contentions, the overall educational loan program received nonprofit funding. As we have stated in the preceding section, § 523(a)(8) does not require that the actual loan itself be funded by a nonprofit institution.

Section 523(a)(8) covers an educational loan made under a program funded in whole or in part by a nonprofit institution.

Carson v. Logan College of Chiropractic (In Re Carson) · filed 1993-02-04(a)(8)

For purposes of this consideration, the debt owed by this Debtor to the Logan College is at least in part an educational loan made under a program funded in whole or in part by a nonprofit institution pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) applies to a nonstudent co-signer’s debt for another person’s educational loan, subject to the statutory exceptions.

In Re Virginia M. Pelkowski A/K/A Virginia M. Dodd, Debtor, Ohio Student Loan Commission, the Loan Servicing Center, Jam · filed 1993-03-24(a)(8)

We are persuaded that section 523(a)(8) applies to a co-signer of a note for the educational expenses of another person, and that the district court correctly found Pelkowski’s debts nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts covered educational loan debt from discharge even when the debtor is a non-student cosigner who received no educational benefit.

Palmer v. Student Loan Finance Corp. (In Re Palmer) · filed 1993-05-11(a)(8)

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Section 523(a)(8) applies to non-student debtors, and, therefore, the student loan debt in this case is determined nondis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(8) makes an unpaid educational benefit nondischargeable to the extent of the benefit the debtor received.

Najafi v. Cabrini College (In Re Najafi) · filed 1993-05-13(a)(8)

We therefore conclude that the Debtor is in fact liable to Cabrini for a nondischargeable debt within the scope of § 523(a)(8), but only to the extent of the $750 benefit which he received from Cabrini in the 1991-92 fall semester.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts an educational loan from discharge when a parent is the sole borrower and the loan benefits the parent’s child.

Owens v. Nebraska Higher Education Loan Program, Inc. (In Re Owens) · filed 1993-12-06(a)(8)

I thus conclude that § 523(a)(8) applies to the situation where a parent is the sole obligor on an educational loan for the benefit of his or her children.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts the entire educational loan debt from discharge, including postpetition interest.

In Re Shelbayah · filed 1994-03-15(a)(8)

A debt that is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(8) is the entire debt, including a claim for unmatured interest.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except unpaid tuition from discharge merely because a school allowed a student to attend classes without paying.

Seton Hall University v. Van Ess (In Re Van Ess) · filed 1994-05-19(a)(8)

To read § 523(a)(8) as encompassing the mere nonpayment of tuition requires an overly broad reading of the statute and is unsupported by the legislative history.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts student loan obligations from discharge in bankruptcy.

New York State Higher Education Services Corp. v. Laudenslager · filed 1994-05-25(a)(8)

Defendant’s student loan obligation was not discharged in the 1978 bankruptcy adjudication (11 USC § 523 [a] [8]).

Section 523(a)(8) does not except educational loans from discharge when the lender has shareholders and pays dividends and therefore is not a nonprofit institution.

TI Federal Credit Union v. Delbonis (In Re Delbonis) · filed 1994-06-22(a)(8)

In my opinion non-profit organizations do not normally have shareholders nor do they pay dividends to those involved in them. Since TI does both, I find that it is not a nonprofit organization within the meaning of § 523(a)(8). As a result, the loans to Debtor are not loans which could be held to be nondischargeable under that section.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except student housing charges from discharge merely because they are owed to an educational institution.

Alibatya v. New York University (In Re Alibatya) · filed 1995-02-24(a)(8)

Plainly, Plaintiffs housing debt, standing alone, fails to fall within the zone of protection afforded by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) excepts a student’s promissory note for unpaid university charges from discharge when the note is an educational loan.

Stone v. Vanderbilt University (In Re Stone) · filed 1995-04-07(a)(8)

It was a “loan” within § 523(a)(8). An “educational benefit” undoubtedly was conferred upon debtor at the expense of Vanderbilt.

Section 523(a)(8) treats a federal credit union as a nonprofit institution whose qualifying educational loans are nondischargeable.

TI Federal Credit Union v. Delbonis (In Re Delbonis) · filed 1995-06-07(a)(8)

The court is persuaded by this wealth of authority that credit unions, by definition, are nonprofit institutions. It follows then that TIFCU, a federal credit union, is a nonprofit institution.

Section 523(a)(8) does not make a loan under an employment contract nondischargeable merely because its proceeds repay educational debt.

Santa Fe Medical Services, Inc. v. Segal (In Re Segal) · filed 1995-06-16(a)(8)

Because we do not believe that such loans are educational in nature and are therefore not subject to the non-dischargeability exception set forth in section 523(a)(8), we will affirm.

Section 523(a)(8) applies to a parent’s educational loan even when only the parent owes the debt and the child receives the education.

Uterhark v. Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. (In Re Uterhark) · filed 1995-07-27(a)(8)

There is nothing in the language of section 523(a)(8) which limits its application to the recipient of educational benefits as opposed to others liable on educational loans.

Section 523(a)(8) does not treat unpaid tuition, room, board, and related charges as an educational benefit overpayment or loan merely because a university provided those services.

Dakota Wesleyan University v. Nelson (In Re Nelson) · filed 1995-09-27(a)(8)

The tuition, room and board, and other services provided by the University to debtor cannot be categorized as an “educational benefit overpayment” or as a “loan.”

Section 523(a)(8) applies to educational loans taken out by a nonstudent parent and to loans originated by a private bank and guaranteed by a government agency.

Keilig v. Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. (In Re LaFlamme) · filed 1995-10-31(a)(8)

In accordance with the following, the Court holds that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) applies to non-student debtors, and that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) applies to loans obtained from private banks and guaranteed by government agencies.

Section 523(a)(8) treats federal credit unions as government units, making their educational loans nondischargeable unless a statutory exception applies.

T I Federal Credit Union v. DelBonis · filed 1995-12-18(a)(8)

Therefore, we hold that, federal credit unions are government units within the purpose and meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) treats federal credit unions as government units, so their educational loans are nondischargeable unless a statutory exception applies.

T I v. DelBonis · filed 1995-12-18(a)(8)

Therefore, we hold that, federal credit unions are government units within the purpose and meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) leaves postpetition interest on nondischargeable student loans collectible from the debtor after bankruptcy.

In Re Sullivan · filed 1996-03-20(a)(8)

If the claim is nondisehargeable, so also is the interest that continues to accrue on that claim.

Section 523(a)(8) applies to covered educational loans owed by parent borrowers and cosigners, even when they are not the students.

Karben v. Elsi (In Re Karben) · filed 1996-08-23(a)(8)

The statutory language draws no distinction between obligors on an educational loan. The plain meaning of the statute strongly suggests that educational loans are nondischargeable whether the named borrower is a student or not.

Section 523(a)(8) treats an educational debt as a loan only when a sum of money changes hands; an extension of credit for services alone is insufficient.

New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology v. Coole (In Re Coole) · filed 1996-10-04(a)(8)

The plain meaning of “loan” is that a sum of money must change hands. This did not occur between the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff provided services through an extension of credit.

Section 523(a)(8) does not except an educational debt from discharge when the lender qualifies under neither its nonprofit nor governmental alternative.

Motoring Technical Services, Inc. v. Shorts (In Re Shorts) · filed 1997-05-06(a)(8)

In T I Federal Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921 (1st Cir.1995), Senior Circuit Judge Hugh Bownes wrote that there are two alternatives under Section 523(a)(8) to determine the dischargeability of such debts: ... The Plaintiff’s status qualifies it for neither of these alternatives in the instant case. Therefore, the debt owed to Motoring Technical Services is discharged, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.

Section 523(a)(8) does not make a loan from a for-profit school nondischargeable merely because it provided an educational benefit.

McClure v. Action Career Training (In Re McClure) · filed 1997-07-24(a)(8)

In order for this court to find the debt to ACT nondischargeable it would be necessary to expand § 523(a)(8) to any loan which can be said to provide an educational benefit. The court finds that this would be outside the intent of Congress, and thus refuses to broaden § 523(a)(8). The court holds the debt dischargeable.