11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(4) excepts an agent’s debt for breach of fiduciary duty from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for knowing conversion of another’s funds.

Payne v. Lomantini (In re Lomantini) · filed 2000-08-03(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Court’s finding that the Defendant breached his fiduciary duty under the principal/agent relationship supports the determination that the debt in not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The Court’s finding that the Defendant knowingly converted funds belonging to the Plaintiff supports the determination that the debt is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts arising from willful and malicious injury.

Hooker v. Hoover (In Re Hoover) · filed 2003-02-24(a)(4), (a)(6)

Based on the foregoing, the Defendant’s debts owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Judgment of the Texas trial court and the affirmation by the Court of Appeals are excepted from discharge under the provisions of § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false representation or actual fraud from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury.

Telhio Credit Union, Inc. v. Corner (In Re Corner) · filed 2003-05-12(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6)

Based on these findings, Telhio has prevailed on its nondischargeability claim for false representation. Alternatively, the Court determines that the Debtor’s scheme to deprive Telhio of the $18,600.55 constituted actual fraud which is conceptually broader than misrepresentation. ... Therefore, she has committed a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6). ... The Court determines that this judgment is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) except debts arising from false pretenses, fiduciary misconduct, or willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Owen v. McKibben · filed 2003-10-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Therefore, after a thorough de novo review of the briefs and the record, we agree that the debt was non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6).

Section 523 excepts a debt from discharge when an agent’s fraudulent nondisclosure induces justifiable reliance, the agent misappropriates funds held as a fiduciary, or the agent willfully and maliciously injures another’s property.

Miller v. Cigna Insurance · filed 2004-06-17(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

The bankruptcy court, therefore, did not err in finding that Miller’s conduct rendered his judgment debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Because Miller misappx*opriated money that he held in a fiduciary capacity for Cigna, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that his judgment debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). ... Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Miller’s judgment debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not except an unpaid sale of goods from discharge when the debt does not arise from fiduciary fraud or defalcation, embezzlement, larceny, or willful and malicious injury.

IBA, Inc. v. Hoyt (In Re Hoyt) · filed 2005-06-27(a)(4), (a)(6)

The IBA Obligation arose from and is the result of the sale of goods in the ordinary course of business by IBA to Dairy and/or Hoyt. It did not arise or result from any of the elements set forth in Section 523(a)(4) or Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) do not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove fiduciary fraud, embezzlement, larceny, or willful and malicious injury.

Tulsa Spine Hospital, LLC v. Tucker (In Re Tucker) · filed 2006-07-25(a)(4), (a)(6)

Based upon the findings and legal conclusions set forth herein, this Court finds that the Plaintiff Tulsa Spine Hospital, L.L.C. has failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the debt of Defendants Paul and Sondra Tucker should be excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(4) and (6). The Defendants’ debt to the Plaintiff is therefore dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except debts arising from fraud and fraud while acting under an express trust from discharge, including allowable fees, costs, and damages.

Rodrigue v. Humphrey (In re Humphrey) · filed 2006-07-27(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The Defendant’s actions fall within the § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) exceptions and therefore the Plaintiffs claims to any allowable fees, costs, interest, and general damages are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make unpaid employer contributions nondischargeable merely because the debtor is an ERISA fiduciary; a contractual duty to pay, without an intent to hold the money in trust, does not establish the required fiduciary capacity.

Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund Ex Rel. Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Bucci · filed 2006-08-15(a)(4)

This Court agrees with the reasoning of those cases which find that where the record evidences only a contractual obligation to pay but no intent to act as a trustee, the employer is not a fiduciary of the monies owed.

For fiduciary defalcation under § 523(a)(4), a creditor must prove a qualifying trust and defalcation; for willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6), the creditor must prove an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm.

McCrey v. Hughes (In Re Hughes) · filed 2006-10-30(a)(4), (a)(6)

The Court finds that no express trust existed between debtor and McCrey. Furthermore, even if the couple’s relationship and agreement for the deposit of funds were construed as giving rise to a fiduciary relationship, McCrey has failed to prove breach of any fiduciary duty or a defalcation on debtor’s part concerning the proceeds of her lawsuit. ... As to McCrey’s contention that debtor is liable for a willful and malicious injury to her lawsuit proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), the Court finds that McCrey has failed to prove an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm to her property on debtor’s part.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts criminal restitution from discharge, and § 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from larceny.

Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Humphrey (In Re Humphrey) · filed 2006-11-30(a)(4), (a)(7)

As such, summary judgment must be entered for the Plaintiffs on both their claims: (1) that involving the restitution order brought under § 523(a)(7); and (2) in accordance with § 523(a)(4), any liability arising from the Defendant’s theft of Heer’s backhoe.

Section 523(a)(4) requires embezzlement or larceny to involve another’s property, and § 523(a)(6) requires an actual intent to injure a person or property.

Schlessinger v. Schlessinger (In Re Schlessinger) · filed 2006-12-14(a)(4), (a)(6)

In addition, as the Bankruptcy Court pointed out, embezzlement and larceny both require the appropriation or taking of another’s property. Here, Schlessinger took business opportunities and commissions before they ever materialized as “property” of either David or Dave-N-Son. ... To establish entitlement to an exception under subsection (a)(6), David must show his father actually intended to injure Dave-N-Son or its property.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for embezzlement from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury to another’s property.

Martello v. Fowers (In Re Fowers) · filed 2007-01-18(a)(4), (a)(6)

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Arthur A. Martello is entitled to judgement against Craig N. Fowers in the amount of $265,221.34, and that said indebtedness is excepted from the discharge granted to Craig N. Fowers in Case Number 04-65316 under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

A complaint alleging fraudulent conveyance of pledged lottery proceeds does not state a claim under § 523(a)(5), (8), or (9).

Singer Asset Finance Co. v. Mullins (In Re Mullins) · filed 2007-02-12(a)(5), (8), (9)

The factual allegations in Singer's compliant do not allege any cause of action arising under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), (8), or (9). Therefore, Singer has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through intentional misrepresentation from discharge, and § 523(a)(4) excepts debts arising from larceny.

McCulloch v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2007-05-24(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

As to the Debtor, William Joseph Smith, the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum Opinion issued by the State Court on December 22, 1999, sufficiently establishes each of the elements required for a determination of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A creditor must demonstrate that a debt falls within an applicable § 523 exception for it to survive discharge.

Barcelona v. Vizzini · filed 2007-07-06(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)

The Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded, and the District Court correctly affirmed, that Appellant failed to demonstrate that the debt at issue was exempt from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) require proof of wrongful intent; a simple breach of contract does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Siebanoller v. Rahrig (In Re Rahrig) · filed 2007-08-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

In summary, the weight of the evidence in this case cannot sustain a finding that, with respect to any debt owed the Plaintiff, the Defendant acted with the requisite scienter to hold that debt nondischargeable under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(6).

Section 523 excepts debts from discharge when they arise from a debtor’s knowing misrepresentation made with intent to deceive and justifiably relied on by a creditor, or from embezzlement of entrusted money under circumstances indicating fraud.

Thoroughman v. Savittieri · filed 2009-04-21(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Summary judgment was proper on the issue of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the only reasonable inference that could be drawn from the evidence is that Thoroughman misrepresented to the Savittieris the liquidity of their money and how their money would be used; that Thoroughman knew, at the time he made the representations, that they were false; that Thorough-man made the representations with the intent to deceive the Savittieris; and that, in investing their money with Thorough-man, the Savittieris justifiably relied on Thoroughman’s representations. ... Summary judgment also was proper on the issue of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) for embezzlement because the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that Thor-oughman appropriated the Savittieris’ money for a use other than the use for which it was entrusted to him under circumstances indicating fraud.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for fiduciary fraud, defalcation, or embezzlement from discharge, while § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury, including wrongful conversion.

Hasalia v. Walker (In Re Walker) · filed 2009-06-26(a)(4), (a)(6)

Consequently, the State Judgment debt of $60,000.00, plus Plaintiffs’ costs is non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(4) and (6).

A debt found to fall under both § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) was declared nondischargeable.

Bluegrass Stockyards of Campbellsville, LLC v. Smith (In Re Smith) · filed 2010-05-10(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff Bluegrass Stockyards of Campbellsville, LLC against Defendant/Debtor Chris Henry Smith and that the debt in the amount of $45,074.60 is declared nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debt for something the debtor obtained by fraud, while § 523(a)(6) requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor willfully and maliciously caused injury.

Schweitzer v. Kartman (In Re Kartman) · filed 2010-08-25(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

In order for a debt to be nondis-chargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), such debt, by virtue of such statutory provision’s plain language, must be “for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,” that the Debtor obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” ... In order for the Schweitzers’ State Court Judgment Claim to be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(6), the Schweitzers must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Debtor willfully and maliciously caused at least one of the two aforesaid injuries that were incurred by the Schweitzers.

Section 523 requires proof of a discharge exception by a preponderance of the evidence; a possible breach of contract alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

JGR Associates, LLC v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 2011-01-04

However, the issue here isn’t whether Brown breached the operating agreements, either by the manner in which he took the funds or the amounts that he took, but rather whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a non-dischargeable debt under one of the statutory exceptions to discharge contained in § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Plaintiffs make persuasive arguments that what Brown did was not reasonable or permissible under the operating agreements. But that does not make a non-dischargeable debt.

Section 523 does not except the inherited judgment debt at issue from the debtors’ Chapter 7 discharge.

Cotto-Rivera v. Morales-Sanchez · filed 2011-08-15

The exceptions the statute makes reference to are inapplicable to their case, according to the Debtors’ assertions during their turn at oral argument in the hearing, and after careful review of the applicable law, the Court agrees.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor obtained money by fraud, while § 523(a)(6) requires proof of willful and malicious injury.

Associated Bank, N.A. v. Graham (In re Graham) · filed 2012-02-16(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

For these reasons, the Bank has failed to prove all required elements for nondis-chargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A). The Bank has not met its burden of proof to establish a claim for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6). Therefore, the Bank is not entitled to a judgment of nondis-changeability in any amount.

Section 523 does not except mistaken wage overpayments from discharge under these provisions when the creditor fails to prove actual fraud, a qualifying fiduciary relationship, or willful and malicious injury.

Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Sterling (In re Sterling) · filed 2012-08-06(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Plaintiff did not establish that the debt owed to it was excepted from discharge by a preponderance of the evidence under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) or (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false representations from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury to another’s property.

Bartley v. Jacobson (In re Jacobson) · filed 2013-01-10(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that the debt owed to Plaintiffs by Defendant Jacobson is a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false pretenses from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts arising from willful and malicious injury.

Old Republic National Title v. Levasseur · filed 2013-12-16(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

We affirm the bankruptcy court's finding that the debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). This alone is sufficient to sustain the outcome below, but we also affirm the bankruptcy court's alternative holding that the debt is not dischargeable on the basis of § 523(a)(6).

Section 523 excepts debts arising from actual fraud, fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Tennier Industries, Inc. v. Van Bible (In re Van Bible) · filed 2014-01-13(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

The judgment in the amount of $2,310,629.50 entered by the Circuit Court of Scott County, Tennessee on July 23, 2013, in favor of Tennier Industries, Inc. and against Michael Van Bible is excepted from discharge pursuant to sections 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523 makes debts caused by a debtor’s fraud or willful and malicious injury nondischargeable.

Pugh v. Ennis (In re Ennis) · filed 2014-06-17(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

As a result, the debt for damage caused by the dogs is nondischargeable as to both of the Debtors pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) for actual fraud. ... As a result, any damages caused by the defamatory statements are nondischargeable as to Elizabeth En-nis under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts involving intentional false representations and justifiable reliance from discharge, while § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Krause (In re Krause) · filed 2014-09-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion that National Union established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Krauses’ failure to disclose the sale of the Itasca Property was a material misrepresentation and the cause of Washington Mutual’s extension of credit and continuance of the financing arrangement, along with Washington Mutual’s justifiable reliance that the Note was secured by the Itasca Property, was not clearly erroneous. ... Finding no error of fact or law, the Court affirms the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment as to National Union’s claim brought pursuant to § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2) requires evidence of fraud or a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition to except a debt from discharge.

Baranek v. Baranek (In Re Baranek) · filed 2014-10-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Baranek’s opposition papers to the debtor’s summary judgment motion are devoid of any evidence of “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), or of “use of a statement in writing . . . that is materially false . . . respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition,” id. § 523(a)(2)(B), that would prevent a discharge of the debt.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) can except debts for larceny or willful and malicious injury from discharge when the debtor’s liability arises through a civil conspiracy.

Cowin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Cowin) · filed 2015-09-29(a)(4), (a)(6)

The liability stemming from these acts can be “larceny” or a “willful and malicious injury” even if it arises from Cowin’s participation in a plan he devised and then executed with the Groveses and Matherne.

Section 523 excepts a judgment debt from discharge when it arises from fraud or defalcation while acting as a fiduciary and from willful and malicious injury.

Galloni v. Barry (In re Barry) · filed 2015-10-09(a)(4), (a)(6)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and holds that the judgment debt owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendants in the amount of $590,221.87, plus interest of 9% per year which has been accruing since April 24, 2013, is non-dischargeable under both §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from actual fraud from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts arising from willful and malicious injury.

Murphy v. Spencer (In re Spencer) · filed 2015-11-19

Plaintiffs’ claims arising from the false Lien Claims are excepted from discharge under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for fraud committed in a fiduciary relationship from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury.

Barry v. Galloni · filed 2016-01-19(a)(4), (a)(6)

This Court affirms the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court, and it too holds that Barry’s judgment indebtedness to Galloni is nondis-chargeable in his Chapter 7 proceedings under both 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a qualifying fiduciary relationship or intent for embezzlement, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury.

Beacon Talent Agency, Inc. v. Bass · filed 2016-06-17(a)(4), (a)(6)

Without the punitive damages award, the default judgment did not satisfy the requirements for non-dischargeability under either 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) or (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the debtor’s fraudulent intent; under § 523(a)(7), a governmental penalty can be excepted from discharge without relitigating the conduct that led to it.

State of Indiana Dept of Workforce Development v. Beckley · filed 2019-09-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(7)

DWD failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Beckley acted with the state of mind or scienter required by § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The Court concludes that the penalty portion of the Debts is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud-based punitive damages award from discharge, and § 523(a)(4) excepts a debt arising from embezzlement.

Contreras v. Arguelles · filed 2019-10-09(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

For all of the above-stated reasons, the Court finds that the $60,000 punitive damage award obtained by the plaintiff in state court is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The Court also finds that the remainder of the state court judgment is dischargeable. In addition, the Court finds that the debt arising from the debtor’s embezzlement of the plaintiff's vehicle is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance even when an insufficient funds check constitutes false pretenses, while § 523(a)(6) requires intentional and malicious injury.

DeLaiarro v. Melhem · filed 2020-05-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Intent to injure and maliciousness are prerequisites to establishing a claim for non-dischargeability under Code § 523(a)(6). ... For this reason, I find that Mr. Melhem’s conduct in issuing the two insufficient funds checks constituted acting under false pretenses within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Having failed to establish each and every element of the test for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), Mr. DeLaiarro’s claim cannot succeed.

Claims under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) survive a motion to dismiss when the alleged facts plausibly show fraud, fiduciary fraud or embezzlement, or willful and malicious injury.

Ardent Harmony Fund Inc. v. Barrick · filed 2020-08-17

Accepting as true all factual allegations in the Complaint and drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court determines that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts which, if true, state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, on Counts I – VI, in which Plaintiffs seek a determination of exception from discharge: (i) under § 523(a)(2), because the debts are for money, property, services or credit obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; (ii) under § 523(a)(4), because the debts are for fraud or defalcation while Debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity, or embezzlement; and (iii) under § 523(a)(6), because the debts are for willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent appropriation for embezzlement, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury beyond an ordinary breach of contract.

MOUNTAIN AIRE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. Cinney · filed 2021-08-16(a)(4), (a)(6)

Thus, the Plaintiff’s embezzlement claim cannot stand because no fraudulent appropriation of the property occurred. ... As previously stated, ordinary breaches of contract do not fall within the parameters of Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a defalcation claim; section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for conversion that causes willful and malicious injury.

Dry v. ONeil · filed 2022-01-20(a)(4), (a)(6)

These elements are clearly lacking in this case. Thus, Dry’s claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), fail as a matter of law. ... Here, the Judgment in Jefferson Circuit Court establishes that the damages awarded to Dry of $25,000 were based on misappropriation and conversion which satisfy the elements of a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523 excepts from discharge debts arising from false pretenses, defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and qualifying governmental penalties.

Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security v. McKee · filed 2023-01-30

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Fund’s claim for Ms. Watkins is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A); that the Fund’s claim for Ms. Gregg is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(4); and that the Fund’s claim for Mr. Joseph, plus 10% interest per annum, is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), §523(a)(4), and § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) except debts arising from false representation, embezzlement, and willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. Paige, III · filed 2024-04-17(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has met its burden to ... establish its entitlement to have the debt owed to it deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... The Plaintiff has thus shown its entitlement that the debt owed to it be deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Based upon these facts, the Plaintiff has established its entitlement to having the debt owed deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts child support obligations from discharge, and § 523(a)(6) covers claims arising from the debtor’s murder of his spouse.

David Samuel Lechner · filed 2025-09-26(a)(5), (a)(6)

The Bloch Parties’ claims against the Debtor consist of child support obligations that are per se not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) and claims resulting from the wrongful death of Tracy Lee Lechner, which fall squarely within the confines of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) can cover the same conduct as the fraud and embezzlement exceptions when that conduct causes a willful and malicious injury.

Groom v. Krook · filed 2020-06-01(a)(6)

That Groom’s section 523(a)(6) claim overlaps with his other claims, then, is not a reason to dismiss it.

Section 523 does not expressly preserve a debtor’s Fifth Amendment privilege when the debtor defends a dischargeability proceeding.

In Re Lederman · filed 1992-05-18

Moreover, in § 727(a)(6)(B) Congress specifically preserved a debtor's rights to raise the privilege against self-incrimination, absent a grant of immunity, with respect to oral examination and testimony without prejudice to the right to a discharge. The lack of a similar provision in § 523 leads to the inescapable conclusion that none was intended.

Section 523 requires a voluntary Chapter 7 debtor seeking to discharge a particular debt to produce documents needed to try an objection to that debt’s discharge, despite any incidental incriminating effect.

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bartlett (In Re Bartlett) · filed 1993-11-02

In accordance with the foregoing, this Court concludes that a voluntary chapter 7 debtor is required to produce documents necessary to the trial of an objection to the discharge of a particular debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, notwithstanding any incidental incriminating effect of such production, if said debtor wishes to pursue and obtain the discharge of the debt in question by virtue of his bankruptcy filing.

A debtor’s refusal to provide discovery in a § 523(a)(2)(A) fraud proceeding may support an adverse inference that results in the debt being excepted from discharge.

Banknorth, N.A. v. Vrusho (In Re Vrusho) · filed 2005-02-23(a)(2)(A)

Taking an adverse inference from the Defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege, the Court deems all matters to which the Defendant claims the privilege as admitted for purpose of summary disposition. ... Therefore, the debt is excepted from discharge, and the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) does not govern the discharge of Health Education Assistance Loans; 42 U.S.C. § 292f(g) governs those loans.

United States v. Rice · filed 1994-08-31(a)(8)(B)

Appellee urged the bankruptcy court to apply 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), the bankruptcy provision relating to student loans in general, to determine the dischargeability of the HEAL obligation at issue in this case. The bankruptcy court properly determined, however, that the dischargeability of these loans is governed by 42 U.S.C. 292f(g) ... which specifically addresses health profession loans.

Section 523(a)(8)'s discharge standard does not govern HEAL loans; the more stringent HEAL standard applies.

Joyner v. United States (In Re Joyner) · filed 1992-09-23(a)(8)

Nevertheless, courts have unanimously held that the HEAL statute rather than the Bankruptcy Code governs the dischargeability of a HEAL loan. ... It, therefore seems clear at least to this Court, that the more stringent standard of the HEAL loan is to be applied to the facts in each case to determine whether said loan is dischargeable vel non.

Section 523(a)(8) does not govern the discharge of HEAL loans; 42 U.S.C. 294f(g) governs them.

Rice v. U.S.A., Dept. of Health & Human Services (In Re Rice) · filed 1993-08-19(a)(8)

Applying these maxims to the two (2) statutes at issue, it is clear that 42 U.S.C. 294f(g) is the controlling law. ... Section 523 addresses educational grants and loans in general, and does not provide for as stringent requirements for discharge as Section 294.

Section 523(a)(8)'s general rule for educational loans does not govern the dischargeability of HEAL loans; 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g) governs instead.

In Re Nelson · filed 1995-06-10(a)(8)

Dischargeability of HEAL student loans is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 294f(g) rather than the general provision of the Bankruptcy Code governing dischargeability of most types of educational loans, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) does not govern discharge of federally insured HEAL loans when 42 U.S.C. § 292f(g) applies.

United States Department of Health & Human Services v. Britt (In Re Britt) · filed 2006-11-07(a)(8)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court erred in basing its dischargeability analysis on Section 523(a)(8) of the Code, and its Opinion and Order must be reversed.

Section 523 does not bar confirmation of a plan with an injunction affecting potential fraud claims when there is no factual basis for alleging fraud.

In Re Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell · filed 1992-11-17

The Scud-der-Taptich matter has settled and there is no indication that there is any basis for otherwise alleging fraud. ... On these facts, it is inappropriate to deny confirmation of the plan because it is inconsistent with § 523.

Section 523(a) discharge exceptions do not support claims against a corporate Subchapter V debtor whose plan was confirmed under § 1191(a).

Halo Human Resources, LLC v. American Dental of LaGrange LLC · filed 2025-02-03(a)

The Court agrees with the Debtor that the discharge provisions of § 1192 (and thus the discharge exceptions on which Plaintiff relies) do not apply to a debtor whose plan was confirmed under § 1191(a). As such, because the Debtor’s plan was confirmed under § 1191(a), Plaintiff fails to state any claim under § 523(a)(2), (3), or (6) upon which relief may be granted.

Section 523(a)(10) can except a contingent debt from discharge if the debt could have been listed in a prior bankruptcy case in which discharge was waived or denied.

Martin v. Martin · filed 2008-04-25(a)(10)

However, we have previously concluded that “Congress has adopted the broadest possible definition of ‘debt’ ” to render it “sufficiently broad to cover any possible obligation to make payment, whether that obligation is liquidated or unliquidated, fixed or contingent, disputed or undisputed, and whether or not it is embodied in a judgment.” ... The debt at issue is therefore subject to the exception to discharge set forth at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(10).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) except a debt from discharge only if the debt arises from the debtor’s wrongdoing.

Norwood v. Hicks (In Re Hicks) · filed 2008-02-20

To except a debt from discharge under section 523 of the Code, the debt itself must, for purposes of subsections (a)(2)(A) or (a)(4), arise from the wrongdoing.

Section 523(a)(5) does not apply to a spouse’s vested interest in a pension plan when that interest is not a claim against the debtor.

Bennett v. Bennett (In Re Bennett) · filed 1994-12-13(a)(5)

Given this conclusion, Plaintiffs requested disposition under § 523(a)(5) is misplaced because § 523(a)(5) deals with claims arising under an agreement, order, or other property settlement document.

Section 523 cannot make an obligation nondischargeable when no underlying debt remains.

State Bank of Hallsville v. Hull (In Re Hull) · filed 1993-01-04

In view of this the Court holds that there was no deficiency and, therefore, it matters not if this obligation was incurred in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 523 or not. If there is no deficiency there can be no non dischargea-ble debt because there is no debt whether it is dischargeable or non dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) requires an established debt before a court can determine whether it is nondischargeable.

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel) · filed 1993-02-17(a)(6)

In order to determine if Bonnie Roberts’s claim is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), it must be established that the debtors owe a debt to her because section 523(a) deals with the nondischargeability of “any debt.”

Section 523 does not apply when a former spouse owns the pension interest at issue and no debt exists between the former spouses.

Bigelow v. Brown (In Re Brown) · filed 1994-05-27

Similarly, since a debtor/creditor relationship was never established between the Plaintiff and the Debtor, there is no debt for this court to discharge.

Section 523 requires an existing debt before a court can except it from discharge.

Illinois Department of Public Aid v. Wilder (In Re Wilder) · filed 1995-02-15

Because Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code lists the types of debts that are excepted from discharge, the Court must first find that a “debt” exists before it may find the debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a) requires a debt for which the debtor is liable before an exception to discharge can apply.

Geisler v. Pansegrau (In Re Pansegrau) · filed 1995-03-08(a)

Section 523(a) eliminates dischargeability only upon a ‘debt.’ The Bankruptcy Code defines ‘debt’ as liability on a claim. 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). Therefore, to be successful under § 523(a), Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendant Donald Pansegrau is liable on his claim for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a debt to exist before it can be excepted from discharge.

Steed v. Shapiro (In Re Shapiro) · filed 1995-03-31(a)(6)

Consequently, the Plaintiff does not have a “claim” based on the 1988 Incident which is enforceable in state court and therefore, she has neither a “claim” against the Debtor-Defendant, nor is there a “debt” for purposes of this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) proceeding.

Section 523(a)(6) does not require a debt to be reduced to judgment before it can be held nondischargeable.

Riddle v. Knapp (In Re Knapp) · filed 1995-03-17(a)(6)

The statute clearly provides that a debt need not be reduced to judgment to be held nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), and defendant’s argument to the contrary has no merit.

Section 523 requires a valid underlying claim; a claim barred by the applicable statute of limitations cannot support a nondischargeability count.

Bane v. LeRoux (In re Curran) · filed 1995-05-25

Of course, grounds for non-dischargeability must rest upon a valid cause of action. As I have held that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, there is nothing upon which these counts could operate, and summary judgment is an appropriate disposition of them.

Section 523 does not discharge a former spouse’s vested interest in a debtor’s pension awarded before bankruptcy because that interest is not a debt.

Holland v. Knoll · filed 1996-11-27

In granting summary judgment for Husband, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that, although payment of pension proceeds would occur in the future (at retirement), a property interest was transferred by force of the August, 1992 Order and, as such, Husband’s interest was not a “debt” subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C.A. § 523. The case-law cited above, although not controlling on this Court, is persuasive, and, given the absence of contrary law in the First Circuit, this Court concludes that the award of $8,000 of Wife’s pension to Husband did not create a dischargeable debt.

Section 523 requires an underlying debt before a creditor can obtain a judgment that it is nondischargeable.

Haemonetics Corp. v. Dupre (In re Theresa Dupre) · filed 1997-05-22

For the Plaintiffs to prevail, it is necessary that they established a “debt”, within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, in some other way. ... Lacking a tort the Plaintiffs lack a debt, and hence judgment must enter for the Theresa on the complaint.

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof that the debtor owes the creditor a debt before it can be declared nondischargeable for fiduciary defalcation.

Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Insurance v. Desiderio (In Re Desiderio) · filed 1997-10-02(a)(4)

Nevertheless, a necessary element of any claim under § 523(a) is a showing that the debtor is obligated to the creditor for a “debt.”

Section 523(a) excepts a debt from an individual debtor’s discharge only if the individual is liable for that debt.

Mega Enterprises, Inc. v. Lahiri (In Re Lahiri) · filed 1998-10-14(a)

Unless the liability is Debtor’s, § 523 does not apply to render the obligation nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to hold a valid debt; a claim timely under the applicable limitations law can meet that requirement.

Andre Emmerich Gallery, Inc. v. Segretario (In Re Segretario) · filed 2001-03-02(a)(6)

Plainly then, unless the Plaintiff is the holder of a “debt”, ... it may not successfully prosecute a non-discharge-ability action under Section 523(a)(6).

Section 523 permits a dischargeability complaint based on a claim that has not been reduced to a final judgment.

Garzoni v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2002-05-08

Thus, Garzoni’s argument that, because there has been no final judgment in the Oakland County Action, K-Mart had no right to file an adversary complaint lacks merit. K-Mart has a claim within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code sufficient to support the filing of an adversary complaint.

Section 523 requires a plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor owes a debt before seeking to establish that it is nondischargeable.

Hollingsworth & Co. v. Nored (In Re Nored) · filed 2003-05-08

Before the plaintiff can even begin to proceed to § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code to establish the nondischargeability of a debt, the plaintiff must first convince the court that a debt is actually owed. The burden of proof on this issue rests squarely on the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a) can except a debt from discharge only if the creditor has an enforceable right to payment under non-bankruptcy law.

Thompson v. Roland (In Re Roland) · filed 2003-06-24(a)

Accordingly, every dischargeability proceeding involves two separate inquiries. First, does the creditor hold an enforceable obligation under non-bankruptcy law. Second, is the debt non-dischargeable under bankruptcy law, specifically § 523(a). ... In the absence of an enforceable obligation, there is no “debt” that can be non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a) addresses the dischargeability of a specific debt, rather than all of a debtor’s debts.

Day v. Klingler (In Re Klingler) · filed 2003-11-14(a)

Section 523(a) is addressed to the dischargeability of a specific debt, not all debts.

Section 523(a)(5) does not apply to a former spouse’s ownership interest in a military pension when that interest is not a debt owed by the debtor.

Nichols v. Nichols (In Re Nichols) · filed 2004-02-03(a)(5)

Debtor argues that Jonna’s interest in Debtor’s pension is a claim for “division of marital property” that is dischargeable in bankruptcy and not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). However, it is clear that under Kansas law, at the time decree was entered establishing Jonna’s rights in Debtor’s pension, Jonna obtained an ownership interest in the pension and not merely a right to payment. On the date the petition was filed no debt existed that could be discharged by Debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to be owed a debt before it can seek to have that debt declared nondischargeable.

First Union National Bank v. Ekuban · filed 2006-04-19(a)(2)(A)

The bank must first have a “debt” owed to it before it can make a case for nondischargeability under § 523, and once the issue of the guaranty agreements had been resolved, no such debt existed.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a debt owed by the debtor before the court can determine whether it is nondischargeable.

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla) · filed 2007-04-19(a)(6)

The Plaintiff and the Debtor have not identified any residual claim that the Plaintiff holds against the Debtor as a result of the Decision and corresponding judgment. Therefore, the Debtor is correct that there is no debt from that judgment for which 1 can make a discharge-ability determination.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) require an enforceable debt to except it from discharge.

Structured Investments Co. v. Webb (In Re Webb) · filed 2007-07-03(a)(4), (a)(6)

If the contract is unenforceable, then there is no debt upon which the Plaintiff may maintain its complaint for an exception to the discharge. ... Based upon the plain language of § 701(c), the Court holds that the contract is unenforceable, and this comports with numerous other courts.

Section 523(a)(3) applies only when an underlying debt exists.

Mitchell v. Bigelow (In Re Bigelow) · filed 2008-09-16(a)(3)

The statute is predicated on the existence of a debt; in the absence of an underlying debt, § 523(a)(3) is simply not applicable.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a debt between the debtor and the creditor seeking to except it from discharge.

PNK(Lake Charles), LLC v. Guevara (In Re Guevara) · filed 2009-07-08(a)(2)

In short, the whole of § 523(a)(2) depends upon the existence of a debt between the debtor and the party objecting to the debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a) requires an underlying debt before a court can determine that the debt is nondischargeable; a state law limitations bar to the claim defeats that request.

Estate of Smith v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2013-07-09(a)

A mandatory preface to a suit for nondis-ehargeability of a debt under § 523(a) is the establishment of an underlying debt. ... The underlying claim is subject to the normal statute of limitation requirements as imposed by the relevant state law.

Section 523 requires a debt owed by the debtor before a court can determine whether it is excepted from discharge under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(4).

Black v. Gigliotti (In re Gigliotti) · filed 2014-03-26

The Court may not make a determination of nondischargeability until it has decided that a debt is owed by the Debtors to the Plaintiffs.

Section 523(a) requires a debt against the debtor under applicable state law before the court decides whether it is excepted from discharge.

Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. Sammons (In re Sammons) · filed 2014-03-27(a)

Because Steven’s liability was not liquidated prepetition, the dischargeability analysis requires two steps: first, whether a debt exists as to Steven under applicable state law, and second, whether the debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an enforceable debt; a state law fraud claim barred before bankruptcy cannot support a nondischargeability action.

Frank & Barbara Broyles Legacy Foundation v. Nichols (In re Nichols) · filed 2014-04-24(a)(2)(A)

Where there is no claim under state law, there is no debt subject to discharge, and, ergo, no justiciable claim for non-dischargeability.

Section 523 requires an underlying debt before it can be declared nondischargeable.

Wilson v. Walker (In re Walker) · filed 2014-07-25

Having found that the 2007 and 2008 AMAs, upon which the claim of nondis-chargeability is based, are void, I hold that the Debtor owes Wilson no debt which can be declared nondischargeable under any provision of § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a) requires a debt attributable to the debtor before that debt can be excepted from discharge.

Black v. Gigliotti · filed 2014-08-06(a)

Without first piercing the corporate veil, the debt Plaintiffs assert cannot be attributed to Defendants. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court correctly held that Plaintiffs must first show that the debt is attributable to Defendants by piercing the corporate veil in order to assert nondischargeability of the debt against them.

Section 523 requires an underlying claim recognized under applicable state law before a court can decide dischargeability.

Pollock v. Phillips (In re Phillips) · filed 2014-12-23

If there is not a claim that can be recognized as a matter of state law, there is not a claim that can be the subject of a dis-chargeability action.

Section 523(a) requires an enforceable debt under applicable state law before the debt can be excepted from discharge.

Stinson v. Robinson (In re Robinson) · filed 2015-01-21(a)

In order to establish a prima facie ease under 523(a) of the Code, a creditor must first demonstrate an enforceable debt under applicable state law.

Section 523(a) applies only if the debtor owes a debt.

Wilson v. Walker · filed 2015-04-07(a)

For § 523(a) to apply in the first instance, there must be a debt.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a creditor to establish that the debtor owes a debt before it can be excepted from discharge.

Piotrowski v. Boulard (In re Boulard) · filed 2015-07-20(a)(6)

Because Piotrowski has not established the preliminary element under § 523(a)(6), i.e., that she is owed a debt by the Debtor, there is no debt to except from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(4) require an enforceable obligation against the debtor before a creditor can seek to except it from discharge.

Gigliotti v. Gigliotti · filed 2015-10-16(a)(2), (a)(4)

Without such claims, there is no question that the Blacks’ causes of action for nondischargeability are moot because they do not have any ... enforceable obligations against Ronald and John Gigliotti that could be non- dischargeable. (11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4)).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires an underlying debt; a genuine factual dispute over whether that debt exists precludes summary judgment on the nondischargeability claim.

Greenpoint AG, LLC v. Kent (In re Kent) · filed 2016-07-18(a)(2)(B)

Additionally, this fact is material because, under § 523, if the underlying debt does not exist, Greenpoint does not have a claim under § 523. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the underlying debt, and, therefore, summary judgment would be inappropriate.

Section 523(a)(8) requires a court to determine whether a student loan debt exists before deciding whether it is nondischargeable.

Reed v. Zwick (In re Reed) · filed 2016-09-30(a)(8)

However, before a Court may determine whether a claim is nondischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a), including Section 523(a)(8) govern-ing student loan debts, the Court must first determine whether there even is a debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) cannot make a debtor personally liable for a debt owed by an LLC to a creditor.

Zacharakis v. Melo (In re Melo) · filed 2016-09-20(a)(2)(A)

In short, the Loans do not represent a debt of the Debtor, and § 523(a)(2)(A) cannot serve as a basis to impose liability on him for a debt owed by the LLCs to Zacharakis.

Section 523 requires a court to determine whether a debt exists before deciding whether it is excepted from discharge.

Westlake Flooring Co. v. Staggs (In re Staggs) · filed 2016-12-13

The Court must first determine whether a debt exists before the Court is able to determine whether such debt should be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a) requires a claimant to establish that a debt exists before deciding whether it is excepted from discharge.

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl) · filed 2017-09-29(a)

The first step in any analysis under § 523(a), however, is not whether a debt is non-dischargeable, it is whether a debt even exists—a “threshold condition” to whether § 523(a) applies.

Section 523(a) requires a valid claim against the debtor before a debt can be excepted from discharge.

Salzman v. Moll · filed 2019-12-20(a)

Thus, as a threshold matter, if Salzman does not hold a valid claim against Moll, meaning Moll owes no debt to Salzman, then Salzman cannot prevail on his claims under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4) or (a)(6).

Section 523 requires a creditor to establish the existence and amount of a debt before the court can declare it nondischargeable.

Beher Holdings Trust v. Frascogna · filed 2019-12-20

A bankruptcy court cannot declare a debt nondischargeable until the creditor establishes the existence and amount of that debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an enforceable underlying obligation for a claim that a debt is nondischargeable because of actual fraud.

The Barbknecht Firm, P.C. v. Keese · filed 2020-07-27(a)(2)(A)

Additionally, without the establishment of the enforceability of the SFA, the Plaintiff is precluded from establishing its § 523(a)(2)(A) claim for actual fraud based upon alleged misrepresentations leading to that agreement.

Section 523(a) requires an existing debt before a court can determine whether that debt is dischargeable.

The Jefferson Bank v. Hollins · filed 2020-12-03(a)

Because § 523(a) applies to the dischargeability of a “debt,” a debt must exist before the statute may be invoked.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under these provisions must establish a specific debt.

Jasper Fanning, as Personal Representative of the v. Brooks · filed 2020-10-15(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

First, Freehlings have failed to establish a specific debt owed to them by Brooks that should be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) cannot except a debt from discharge when the debtor owes no debt to the creditor.

Sherrod & Brooks, LLC v. Taylor · filed 2020-10-19(a)(2)(A)

Thus, there is no claim or debt owing by the Taylors to the Seller upon which Code § 523(a)(2)(A) could operate.

Section 523(a) requires allegations of the nondebtor spouse’s own qualifying conduct to except her obligation from discharge.

Kelly v. Andersen · filed 2020-10-28(a)

There are no allegations of any conduct of Defendant-Bridgette that would be the basis for determining that her obligation would be nondischargeable as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to establish that the debtor owes an enforceable debt before it can be excepted from discharge.

Lund-Ross Constructors, Inc. v. Buchanan · filed 2020-11-12(a)(2)(A)

The plaintiff here has not established that the debtors are liable on an enforceable obligation under applicable law, which is the first element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523 allows a timely breach of contract claim to support nondischargeability without a separate tort cause of action.

Malon v. Mitola · filed 2021-10-07

A timely filed breach of contract claim can establish a non-dischargeable debt for the purposes of section 523; claims under section 523 do not need to be based on a specific tort cause of action.

Section 523 permits a nondischargeability claim only for a debt owed to the claimant.

Strategic Partners, Inc. v. Steuernagel · filed 2021-12-13

There is thus no evidence that Defendant is indebted to Singer in any way. And because section 523 requires there be a right to payment, Singer cannot make a successful claim under this section. There is no debt to Singer. Based on these undisputed facts, the Court grants partial summary judgment for Defendant, dismissing all of Singer’s section 523 claims against Defendant.

Section 523(a) requires a creditor to prove the existence and amount of a debt and that it falls within a nondischargeability provision.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2022-01-28(a)

Section 523(a) requires the creditor to prove the existence and amount of a debt and that the debt comes within one of the nondischargeability provisions of § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). Thus, proof of liability and amount of damages are elements of § 523(a) claim, just as much as proof of the nondischargeable nature of the debt.

Section 523 requires a court to establish that a debt exists before deciding whether it falls within an exception to discharge.

Mahmood v. Odinma CA1/3 · filed 2022-03-24

Indeed, the bankruptcy court was required to make the first-step determination of whether a debt was established before and in order to determine whether it was dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to establish that the debtor is liable on its claim before a court can decide whether the debt is nondischargeable.

Lund-Ross Constructors, Inc. v. Buchanan · filed 2022-04-22(a)(2)(A)

Thus, a creditor must show that the debtor is liable on its claim before a court can determine if the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523 cannot except a debt from discharge when no debt is owed.

Datex Inc. v. Cooley · filed 2024-03-26

However, having disallowed Datex’s Claim 10-1, there is no debt owed by Cooley that can be found to be non- dischargeable.

Section 523 cannot except a claim from discharge when the claim has been disallowed and the debtor owes no debt to the creditor.

Samuel Edward Cooley · filed 2024-03-29

However, having disallowed Datex’s Claim 10-1, there is no debt owed by Cooley that can be found to be non- dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a proven injury; willful and malicious conduct alone does not make a debt nondischargeable when no damages resulted.

Gatlin v. Johnson · filed 2025-04-15(a)(6)

The Court finds that the transfers were willful and malicious, but there are no damages to award Ms. Gatlin. ... For the above reasons, the Court grants judgment to Dellita Johnson and allows the discharge of the additional award of $50,000 in the case of Gatlin v. Dellita Johnson aka Delita Johnson, Case No. BC711889 (“Gatlin II”).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to establish a prepetition debt before it can be declared nondischargeable.

Toscano v. Kahle · filed 2025-08-22(a)(2)(A)

A creditor must prove the existence of a prepetition debt as a threshold matter before the debt can be declared nondischargeable.

Section 523(a) requires a creditor to establish that the debtor owes it a debt before the debt can be excepted from discharge.

Indigo Dreams, LLC v. Gasser · filed 2025-09-29(a)

In sum, Indigo has not established that it is owed a debt as required under section 523(a).

A court need not decide whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B) when the creditor has failed to establish an underlying debt.

Ellis · filed 2025-12-11(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Thus, if the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing a debt, the Court need not consider whether Plaintiff established that the elements of §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) are met because there would be no debt to discharge.

Section 523 requires an underlying debt before a court can except it from discharge.

Nouranifar · filed 2026-01-14(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Before determining whether a debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Court must first determine whether a debt exists at all.

Section 523(a) requires a creditor to establish a debt owed by the debtor before that debt can be excepted from discharge.

Groves · filed 2026-05-07(a)

Because the existence of a debt is a threshold requirement to any determination of nondischargeability, the Court need not reach whether any alleged obligation would be excepted from discharge under the asserted nondischargeability theories.

Section 523(a) does not except pre-petition attorneys’ fees for preparing and filing a bankruptcy petition from discharge.

Hessinger & Associates v. United States Trustee (In Re Biggar) · filed 1995-08-08(a)

The exceptions to discharge, found in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), do not include attorneys’ fees for preparing and filing a bankruptcy petition.

Section 523(a)(5) excepts from discharge attorneys' fees incurred to enforce alimony, maintenance, or support obligations.

In Re MacY · filed 1996-03-08(a)(5)

Because the parties do not dispute that the plaintiff incurred the attorneys' fees at issue in connection with the enforcement of alimony, maintenance and support obligations, rather than the enforcement of the terms of a property settlement, this Court finds that the attorneys' fees are "in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support" and are nondischargeable under section 523(a)(5).

Section 523 does not authorize an award of attorneys’ fees merely because a creditor successfully opposes discharge of a debt.

Pierce v. Pyritz · filed 1996-09-09

Section 523 does not authorize the recovery of attorneys’ fees by a creditor who successfully opposes a discharge of his debt.

Section 523 does not except debts for pre-petition attorneys’ fees from discharge.

Hessinger & Associates v. U.S. Trustee · filed 1997-03-31(a)

Section 523 does not except pre-petition attorneys’ fees from discharge.

Section 523 does not except debts for pre-petition legal services from discharge.

Hessinger & Associates v. U.S. Trustee (In re Biggar) · filed 1997-05-06(a)

Section 523's failure to except debts for attorneys' fees from the Code's discharge provisions leads us to conclude that the debts at issue in this case are dischargeable.

Section 523 does not except an attorney-fee award from discharge unless the creditor establishes that the fees fall within an exception to discharge.

Nissan v. Weiss (In Re Weiss) · filed 1999-06-23

The Plaintiffs’ prayer for fees is denied because they have failed to establish that the fees portion of the Texas Judgment falls into one of the exceptions to discharge described in section 523.

Section 523 does not except debts for pre-petition legal services from discharge, even when the debtor pays the bankruptcy filing fee in installments.

In Re: Jerry B. Jastrem, Debtor. American Law Center Pc v. Stanley · filed 2001-06-07

The language does not indicate that fees for pre-petition services are appropriate, let alone that an obligation to pay such fees must be exempt from automatic stay and discharge. Even if such an exemption were an arguable implication of the rule’s language, a Bankruptcy Rule cannot create an exception to the Bankruptcy Code. ... Accordingly, we hold that in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed pursuant to Rule 1006(b), an obligation for pre-petition legal services is subject to automatic stay and discharge.

Section 523(a) does not except unpaid prepetition attorney fees from discharge.

In Re Chandlier · filed 2003-04-16(a)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) sets forth eighteen exceptions to the discharge granted under § 727. Unpaid attorney fees earned prior to the fifing of the petition are not among them.

Section 523(a) does not except debts for prepetition legal services from discharge.

Rittenhouse v. Eisen · filed 2005-04-07(a)

A debt for pre-petition legal services is not one of the non-dischargeable debts enumerated in §523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes reasonable contractual attorneys’ fees nondischargeable when they are part of a debt held nondischargeable for fraud.

Harris, N.A. v. Velarde (In Re Velarde) · filed 2011-11-01(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, as with the underlying debt, Harris’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent they are approved, will be non-dischargea-ble under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a) does not except a pre-petition debt for attorney fees from discharge.

In re Gourlay · filed 2012-10-09(a)

As noted in Rittenhouse, § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code lists the exceptions to discharge. A pre-petition debt to an attorney is not one of them.

Section 523(a) does not except debts for prepetition legal services from discharge.

In re Bonilla · filed 2017-07-25(a)

This is so because Section 523(a) does not contain an exception for pre-petition legal services.

Section 523(a) does not except debts for pre-petition legal services from discharge.

In re Roman · filed 2017-07-25(a)

This is so because Section 523(a) does not contain an exception for pre-petition legal services.

Section 523(a)(6) allows attorneys’ fees in a dischargeability proceeding when applicable law entitles the creditor to those fees outside bankruptcy.

Buffalo Gyn Womenservices, Inc. v. Behn (In Re Behn) · filed 2000-02-14(a)(6)

Cohen v. De La Cruz, therefore, stands for the proposition that where attorneys’ fees are available outside bankruptcy as a matter of law, then they are available inside bankruptcy in a dischargeability proceeding as well.

Section 523(a)(4) can except an established debt from discharge as embezzlement even if the state limitations period for an embezzlement claim has expired.

Winn v. Holdaway (In Re Holdaway) · filed 2008-05-12(a)(4)

Although the state statute of limitations expired, a state law statute of limitations is irrelevant to categorizing a “debt” for dischargeability purposes.

Section 523 does not permit a creditor to pursue nondischargeability based on an intentional tort claim first pleaded in bankruptcy after the state statute of limitations has expired.

Lee-Benner Ex Rel. Mills v. Gergely (In Re Gergely) · filed 1995-08-31

The claim must be of such a nature as to fit within the nondischargeability provisions of § 523. ... If the debt is unenforceable under state law, then the creditor, as discussed above, does not have a claim to pursue.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor to seek a determination that an established debt is nondischargeable for fraud after the state limitations period for a fraud action has expired.

In Re Robert Z. Gergely, Debtor. Jordan Alexander Lee-Benner, a Minor, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Karen Mills v. Gergely · filed 1997-04-09(a)(2)(A)

The state limitations period for fraud actions is irrelevant to the dischargeability of an established debt.

A divorce court fee judgment can be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15) even when it is not a domestic support obligation under § 523(a)(5).

MacMaster v. MacMaster · filed 2023-07-25(a)(5), (a)(15)

Summary judgment on Court I of the Complaint is granted in part insofar as the award in the Florida Money Judgment is nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(15) and denied in part because the award in the Florida Money Judgment does not constitute a domestic support obligation that is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5).

Section 523(a)(15) excepts from discharge a debt owed to a former spouse under a divorce judgment, including a credit for marital funds used to pay the debtor’s separate obligation.

In Re: Levenstein · filed 2023-07-06(a)(15)

Here, the Matrimonial Judgement falls squarely within Section 523(a)(15). First, the debt is owed to a former spouse. Second, the debt—a credit for marital funds used to pay a criminal judgment against Levenstein—is not in the nature of maintenance, alimony, or support (and thus, is not a domestic support obligation under Section 523(a)(5)). Third, the debt obligation arises from the Matrimonial Judgment issued by the Divorce Court, and thus was incurred “in the course of a divorce or separation or in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record.” See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

Section 523(a)(15) excepts from discharge a debt to a former spouse incurred in connection with a divorce decree.

Perry v. Perry · filed 2023-05-12(a)(15)

Because all elements of Ms. Perry’s claim in this case—that the debt reflected in the Judgment is excepted from the Debtor’s discharge under Section 523(a)(15)—have been established in the Small-Claims Litigation or conceded in this proceeding, no disputed issues remain to be tried.

Section 523(a)(15) excepts from chapter 7 discharge a debt to a former spouse incurred in the course of a divorce, even if the debt is not a domestic support obligation.

Rita Katherine Luetkenhaus · filed 2023-04-28(a)(15)

Under 523(a)(15), the circuit court judgment is nondischargeable in a chapter 7 case and was not discharged by her discharge in the 2016 case.

Section 523(a)(15) makes a debtor’s obligation to indemnify a former spouse under a divorce agreement nondischargeable, including costs and fees owed under the agreement.

Bailey v. Judzewitsch · filed 2023-03-29(a)(15)

All three elements thus are satisfied, and the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion to the extent that any amount that defendant owes plaintiff under Paragraphs 5 or 18 of the MDA, including costs and fees, would be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(15) may prevent discharge of joint credit card debt assigned to a spouse in a divorce decree when the assignment creates an enforceable obligation under state law.

Rogers v. Rogers · filed 2008-02-12(a)(15)

Thus, to determine the enforceability of a claim and thereby whether it may qualify under § 523(a)(15), an examination of state law is necessary. ... The obligation thus qualifies as debt for purposes of the bankruptcy statute.

Section 523(a)(15) covers a post-divorce agreement to refinance a marital debt when the new agreement remains connected to the divorce decree.

Beale v. Kurtz (In Re Beale) · filed 2008-02-07(a)(15)

Applying this understanding to the debt in question, the Court concludes that the debt is covered by subsection (a)(15).