11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(16) does not displace the rule that postpetition townhouse assessments arising from a covenant running with the land survive discharge.

WESTBROOKE PATIO HOMES ASS'N v. Goodrich · filed 2000-03-21(a)(16)

Not only does the legislative statement indicate that the language was intended to apply to membership associations; the reality is that Congress, had it intended to do so, clearly could have occupied the field and explicitly and directly overruled Rosenfeld and Rosteck. This Congress did not do.

The 2005 amendment to § 523(a)(16) does not apply to bankruptcy cases filed before October 17, 2005.

In Re Guillebeaux · filed 2007-02-07(a)(16)

However, the instant case was filed on October 16, 2005, and thus is a pre-BAPCPA case. Therefore, the new addition to § 523(a)(16) does not apply.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts postpetition homeowners association dues from discharge while the debtor retains a legal, equitable, or possessory ownership interest, including record title without occupying the home.

Brambleton Community Ass'n v. Than · filed 2009-10-14(a)(16)

However, in the current version of § 523(a)(16), Congress not only excluded from discharge dues arising as a result of a possessory interest, but also those resulting from a legal or equitable interest.

Section 523(a)(16)’s exception for postpetition homeowners’ association assessments does not apply to a Chapter 13 discharge under § 1328(a).

Foster v. Double R Ranch Ass'n (In Re Foster) · filed 2010-07-19(a)(16)

The “does not discharge” language in the statute plainly shows that § 523(a)(16) is inapplicable on its face to this case since debtor does not seek a discharge under any of the enumerated sections listed under subsection (a).

Section 523(a)(16) places responsibility for postpetition association fees on the debtor while the debtor or trustee has an interest in the unit.

In Re Hall · filed 2010-08-25(a)(16)

In making this decision, the court finds it relevant that, under § 523(a)(16), Congress placed the responsibility for payment of post-petition payment of the fees upon debtors for as long as either the debtor or the trustee has an interest in the unit.

Section 523(a)(16) does not except condominium association dues from a Chapter 13 discharge granted after completion of a plan under § 1328(a).

Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer) · filed 2010-10-06(a)(16)

On its face, § 523(a)(16) of the Bankruptcy Code only creates an exception to discharge to the extent that the discharge is granted in a Chapter 7 case, a Chapter 11 case, a Chapter 12 case, or a hardship discharge in a Chapter 13 case under § 1328(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(16) makes postpetition condominium fees nondischargeable while the debtor or trustee has a legal, equitable or possessory ownership interest in the unit.

Pigg v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (In Re Pigg) · filed 2011-06-23(a)(16)

Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(16) provides that a debtor shall not receive a discharge for condominium fees and assessments that become due and payable after the bankruptcy petition is filed as long as the debtor or the trustee “has a legal, equitable or possesory ownership interest” in the unit.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts a condominium assessment from discharge when it becomes due and payable after the bankruptcy petition, even if the debt arose before the petition.

In Re Barr · filed 2011-09-06(a)(16)

Section 523(a)(16) requires only that the assessment come due and payable post-petition, not that the debt arise post-petition.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts post-petition homeowners association attorney’s fee assessments from discharge, but not pre-petition fees.

Oakland Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Braverman (In re Braverman) · filed 2011-12-28(a)(16)

So the Association’s pre-petition attorney’s fees have been discharged, but its post-petition attorney’s fees have not, and Count II plainly alleges that the Association has incurred and is continuing to incur attorney’s fees post-petition. As to the Association’s post-petition attorney’s fees, Count II states a claim.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts condominium association assessments and fees due after the original petition from discharge despite a later conversion to Chapter 7.

In re Hijjawi · filed 2012-05-14(a)(16)

Accordingly, the term “order for relief’ used in § 523(a)(16) is the date Debtor filed her petition in the original Chapter 11 case, i.e., the Petition Date, not the Conversion Date. As a result, such unpaid post-petition association assessments and fees that came due pre-conversion are non-dischargeable and provide sufficient basis for the Association’s Lift Stay Motion.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts condominium assessments and fees due after the initial bankruptcy petition from discharge, even when the case later converts to Chapter 7.

Hijjawi v. Five North Wabash Condominium Ass'n · filed 2013-07-03(a)(16)

This Court holds that the condominium assessments and fees that came due after the filing of Hijjawi’s Chapter 11 petition but before the conversion of the case to one under Chapter 7 are not dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(16). Although pursuant to section 348(b) the Chapter 11 period assessments and fees are to be treated as pre-petition debt for the purposes of section 727(b), that debt is still excepted from discharge under section 523. Because section 348(b) does not apply to section 523(a)(16), the Chapter 11 period assessments and fees became due and payable after the order for relief for the purposes of that section — Hijjawi’s initial petition — and are therefore non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(16) does not except personal liability for condominium assessments from a Chapter 13 discharge after the debtor completes all plan payments.

In re Ramirez · filed 2016-03-07(a)(16)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(16) is not listed as an exception to a Chapter 13 discharge under 1328(a)(2) after completion of all of a debtor’s payments under a Chapter 13 plan. Accordingly, the in personam obligation with respect to condominium fees does not survive as an exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts condominium association fees due or payable after the order for relief from a Chapter 7 discharge while the debtor retains an ownership interest, including post-petition attorney and court fees.

In re: Byron Jackson · filed 2016-08-04(a)(16)

This section resolves any issue as to Carlton House’s fees or assessments being deemed pre-petition as long as those fees or assessments are “due or payable” post-petition regardless of when the claim arose. ... Those charges were not discharged because they were “due or payable” post-petition and cannot be a basis for finding Carlton House violated Jackson’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts postpetition homeowners association assessments from discharge while the debtor or trustee retains a legal, equitable, or possessory interest in the property.

Skytop Meadow Community Association, Inc. v. C. Paige and M.A. Paige · filed 2017-11-07(a)(16)

Section 523(a)(16) explicitly makes homeowners association fees nondischargeable so long as the debtor or the trustee, i.e., the debtor’s bankruptcy estate, holds a legal, equitable, or possessory interest in the property.

Section 523(a)(16) allows discharge of personal liability for HOA fees and assessments that arose before the bankruptcy order for relief.

PROPERTY PLUS INV.'S, LLC VS. MORTG. ELEC. REGISTRATION SYS., INC. · filed 2017-09-14(a)(16)

Accordingly, while Sulliban's ... personal liability on the 2012 lien was extinguished under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(16) (providing that HOA fees and assessments are dischargeable if the debt arose "before entry of the order for relief in a pending or subsequent bankruptcy case"), the 2012 lien survived.

Section 523(a)(16) governs discharge of personal liability for condominium fees and assessments, not the validity of a lien securing them.

Doss v. Norhardt Crossing Condo. Ass'n (In re Doss) · filed 2018-06-28(a)(16)

More fundamentally, section 523(a)(16) governs the discharge of personal liability, not liens.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts association fees and assessments due after a bankruptcy filing from discharge when they arise from an ownership interest in the association.

North Canyon v. Allen · filed 2018-08-23(a)(16)

Section 523 lists debts that may not be discharged, including fees and assessments that are based upon an ownership interest in an owners' association that come due after the commencement of the bankruptcy action, and clarifies that it does not prevent the discharge of association fees or assessments due before the bankruptcy was filed.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts post-petition association assessments from specified discharges, but not from a Chapter 13 discharge after the debtor completes the plan.

Penny Goudelock v. Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apt. Owners · filed 2018-07-10(a)(16)

Notably absent from the list of discharge exceptions in Section 1328(a) is a reference to Section 523(a)(16), the only provision which excepts post-petition association assessments from discharge.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts condominium assessments that come due after bankruptcy from discharge when the debtor retains an ownership interest in the unit.

Owoh v. Sena · filed 2019-10-23(a)(16)

Despite Owoh’s arguments to the contrary, the most natural characterization of the monthly payment is as a fee or assessment, particularly since the loan in question was obtained by the association without any input or assent from him. As a result, we conclude that § 523(a)(16) directly applies to the post-discharge payments at issue here.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts condominium association assessments and related fees that become due after a bankruptcy petition from discharge while the debtor retains an ownership interest.

Chandler v. McClain DeWees, PLLC · filed 2020-03-11(a)(16)

Consistent with the policy behind § 523(a)(16) and the weight of authority, however, the assessment, which was to be paid in monthly installments of $245, is post-petition debt and is thus not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(16) excepts postpetition condominium assessments from discharge; it does not preserve personal liability for prepetition assessments.

Ann Terrell · filed 2020-04-08(a)(16)

Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(16) specifically excepts from discharge postpetition condominium assessments and thereby implies that prepetition condominium assessments are discharged.2 In this case, the debtor’s personal liability for the prepetition condominium assessments was discharged.

Section 523(a)(16) prevents discharge of post-petition condominium association fees while the debtor or trustee has a legal, equitable, or possessory ownership interest in the unit.

RIALTO-CAPITOL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. SANDI KWON (L-0308-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2021-05-05(a)(16)

After this statute was amended in 2005, post-petition association fees are not dischargeable in bankruptcy "as long as the debtor or the trustee has a legal, equitable, or possessory ownership interest" in the property.

Section 523(b) allows a debt excepted from discharge in an earlier bankruptcy to be discharged in a later case if it is dischargeable under the rules applicable to that later case.

In Re Kapsin · filed 2001-05-29(b)

The purpose of § 523(b) is to make dis-chargeable those debts that were not discharged in a prior case, but which would have been discharged had the prior case been filed at a later time.

Section 523(b) applies when a debt was actually excepted from a prior discharge; merely being nondischargeable in the prior case is insufficient.

Young v. United States · filed 2002-03-04(b)

The phrase “excepted from discharge” in this provision is not synonymous (as petitioners would have it) with “nondis-chargeable.”

Section 523(a)(10) bars discharge in a later Chapter 7 case of a debt scheduled in an earlier case in which the debtor was denied discharge under § 727(a)(4).

Rasmussen v. Unruh (In Re Unruh) · filed 2002-05-08(a)(10)

Accordingly, a second immediate result of the Court’s decision and order for judgment herein on the § 727(a)(4)(A) question is that Unruh’s debt to Rasmussen is non-dischargeable, in a future Chapter 7 case that could be filed by Unruh, by virtue of § 523(a)(10).

Section 523(a)(10) requires a prior waiver or denial of discharge before a debt from that bankruptcy can be excepted from a later discharge.

Osenkowski v. Moretti (In re Moretti) · filed 2002-05-22(a)(10)

Osenkowski does not argue that the Debtor formally waved his discharge under Section 727(a)(10), or that he was denied a discharge in the prior bankruptcy— either of which would be necessary to bring this matter within the purview of Section 523(a)(10).

Section 523(b) gives a prior nondischargeability judgment preclusive effect in a later bankruptcy, except for judgments under subsections (a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(8).

Arneson v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (In Re Arneson) · filed 2002-08-30(b)

As recognized in § 523(b), a § 523 judgment (other than a judgment under § 523(a)(1), (a)(3), or (a)(8)) has claim preclusive value in subsequent bankruptcy cases.

Section 523(b) permits a tax debt excepted from discharge in an earlier bankruptcy to be discharged in a later case if no exception applies in the later case.

Cates v. Arkansas Dept. of Finance & Administration (In Re Cates) · filed 2003-02-24(b)

This Court concurs in the logic of the above-cited bankruptcy courts and commentators. Therefore, the tax debt for the years 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 are dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523.

A prior determination of nondischargeability generally bars redetermination in a later bankruptcy case.

Bankruptcy Recovery Network v. Garcia (In Re Garcia) · filed 2004-08-23(b)

In general, a determination of nondischargeability in one bankruptcy case bars redetermination of that issue in a subsequent bankruptcy ease.

Section 523(c)(1) does not require a new dischargeability determination in each bankruptcy case when a prior bankruptcy court entered a valid, final judgment that the debt was nondischargeable.

Moncur v. Agricredit Acceptance Co. (In Re Moncur) · filed 2005-06-06(c)(1)

Section 523(c)(1) does not, however, necessarily mean that a separate determination must be made each time the debtor is the subject of a bankruptcy case in which a discharge is permitted.

Section 523 permits a creditor to pursue an embezzlement debt against the individual debtor if a trustee’s recovery reinstates the claim and the debt is determined to be nondischargeable.

Laizure v. Bussetto Foods, Inc. · filed 2008-11-17(a)(4)

Thus, if a § 550 claim is determined to be nondischargeable under § 502(h), § 523 permits that rein- stated claim to be brought against the debtor personally.

Section 523(b) allows certain debts held nondischargeable in an earlier bankruptcy to be discharged in a later case, but the debtor bears the burden of showing that the debt qualifies.

In re Pacher · filed 2016-07-11(b)

In fact, Section 523(b) addresses what types of debts found nondischargeable in a prior case may be discharged in a later case. 11 U.S.C. § 523(b) (2010) (listing debts under 523(a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(8) and other exceptions to discharge outside Section 523). ... And the burden is on the debtor to show that these debts may become dischargea-ble in the later case. Pacher has not met that burden.

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

Allen v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2017-04-18(a)(10)

Mr. Smith listed Mr. Allen’s claim in his first petition, and the Court has found that Mr. Allen has a right to payment. Therefore, Mr. Allen’s claim is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(10).

Section 523(b) does not automatically except a debt from discharge in a later case when the prior case ended without a discharge.

TIA Corp. v. Bridges (In re Bridges) · filed 2018-03-24(b)

The court understands the Plaintiff's reluctance to rely solely on § 523(b) without filing a second action because, in the present case, § 523(b) as interpreted by United States Supreme Court, does not expressly provide an automatic exception to the discharge that may be entered in the current case.

Section 523(b) requires a new dischargeability determination when a debt previously excepted under § 523(a)(1) is at issue in a later bankruptcy case.

Linda Hays McCoy · filed 2020-02-03(b)

Accordingly, a debt excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1) in the first bankruptcy case requires proof of dischargeability in the second bankruptcy case.

Section 523(b) preserves a prior judgment that a debt is nondischargeable in a later bankruptcy case, unless the debt falls within one of its listed exceptions.

New Falls Corporation v. Gross · filed 2024-04-04(b)

The rule is that res judicata principles apply in bankruptcy so that once a debt is “excepted from discharge” in a judgment that meets the requirements for preclusion, it is, except for the eight exceptions named in § 523(b), “excepted from discharge” in all subsequent chapter 7 cases without need for an independent basis for excepting the debt from discharge in the later case.

Section 523(a)(8) affects the dischargeability of certain debts without altering the debtor’s contractual rights or obligations to lenders.

McClain v. American Student Assistance (In Re McClain) · filed 2001-06-06(a)(8)

Finally, Plaintiffs claim that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) impairs his contractual rights cannot be sustained. ... Here, the contractual rights and obligations between the Plaintiff and the various lending authorities were in no way altered by legislation affecting the dis-chargeability of certain debts in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt arising from breach of an oral promise from discharge merely because the promise was broken.

Sandow v. Burke (In Re Burke) · filed 2009-03-06(a)(6)

I need only conclude that any claims arising from the breach of such a contested promise would not fall within the scope of section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(6) generally does not except an intentional breach of contract from discharge unless accompanying tortious conduct causes willful and malicious injury.

Barnett v. Rich (In Re Rich) · filed 2009-03-25(a)(6)

The remedy afforded by § 523(a)(6) generally applies to torts rather than to contracts. An intentional breach of contract generally will not give rise to a nondischargeable debt, unless it is accompanied by tortious conduct which results in willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(5) makes domestic support obligations nondischargeable, but that classification does not make the obligations modifiable.

In re Marriage of Wilhelmsen · filed 2019-10-24(a)(5)

Naturally, labeling a debt nondischargeable does not expose the obligation to some new form of modification.

Section 523 governs nondischargeability by statute; the contract need not mention it.

Deere & Company v. Santini · filed 2025-10-03

Nondischargeability arises by statute under 11 U.S.C. § 523, not by contract.

Section 523(a)(17) excepts court filing fees and related costs from discharge only for prisoner filings.

Spitz v. Tepfer (In Re Tepfer) · filed 2002-07-17(a)(17)

The plaintiffs argue that the bankruptcy court commits this sin in rendering the term “regardless” superfluous, which I do not see, but their own interpretation renders the whole subordinate clause superfluous. The plaintiffs would have it that, under the dominant clause of § 523(a)(17) no court-imposed fees or costs related to a filing are dis-chargeable in bankruptcy, whether imposed on a prisoner or otherwise. In that case the subordinate clause, specifically referring to prisoner filings, would be superfluous.

Section 523(a)(17) excepts from discharge filing fees, court costs, and related expenses incurred by prisoner litigants.

Tennessee Department of Corrections v. Farnsworth (In Re Farnsworth) · filed 2002-09-16(a)(17)

Accordingly, this court holds that the subordinate clause must be read as qualifying the particular type of debt that the Congress intended to except from discharge — costs, fees, and expenses incurred by prisoner litigants.

Sections 523(a)(7) and (a)(17) can both except prisoner litigation costs and attorney fees imposed under state law from discharge.

Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office v. Searcy (In Re SEARCY) · filed 2011-01-12(a)(7), (a)(17)

Based on the rationale set forth above, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Ada County declaring the costs and attorney’s fees awarded against Debtor under Idaho Code § 31-3220A(16) in the amount of $13,172 nondischargeable under both § 523(a)(7) and § 523(a)(17).

Section 523(a)(17) excepts from discharge attorney’s fees assessed against a prisoner for filing a case under a state law similar to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2).

Searcy v. Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office · filed 2014-03-12(a)(17)

Attorney’s fees awards imposed under section 31-3220A are properly considered “expenses assessed with respect to” the filing of Searcy’s case. Because they were imposed under a non-federal law similar to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2), they are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(17).

Section 523 does not authorize attorney fees for a creditor’s work solely on the dischargeability of an already adjudicated debt.

Randy P. Coley - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-01-16

Because no other law controls, without an expression of Congressional intent to the contrary in § 523 or elsewhere in the Bankruptcy Code, this court cannot grant an award of attorney fees to DTV as the prevailing party.

A debtor cannot discharge post-petition interest on a student loan through a Chapter 13 plan without proving undue hardship in an adversary proceeding.

Banks v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. · filed 2002-08-05(a)(8)

Student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the Debtor can prove excepting the debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship. ... A Chapter 13 plan provision mandating that interest does not accrue clearly acts as a discharge of the post-petition interest ... the creditor is entitled to receive. ... The district court correctly concluded the plan provision mandating the non-accrual of post-petition interest required an adversary hearing.

Section 523(a)(8) excepts post-petition interest and penalties on a nondischargeable student loan from discharge.

Gable v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Gable) · filed 2003-07-21(a)(8)

Thus, the debt remaining at the close of the case, consisting of post petition interest and penalties, was expressly excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8) and the language of the discharge order.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves interest accruing on student loans during a Chapter 13 plan nondischargeable even when the plan pays the filed claims in full.

In Re Sprolito · filed 2006-09-15(a)(8)

This Court concludes that although Sprolito proposed to pay Educap’s claim in full, this proposal did not include the payment of post-petition interest, which continued to accrue during the life of the plan. Interest accruing over the life of the plan is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) does not except a fraudulent transfer debt from discharge based on a third party’s securities violation when the debtor was not a party to the judgment against that third party.

Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. v. Reefe · filed 2022-04-29(a)(19)

The Defendant is not a party to the applicable judgment here, requiring dismissal of the § 523(a)(19) count.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) allows a bankruptcy court’s judgment to satisfy the requirement that a debt arising from a securities violation be memorialized in a judicial proceeding.

Robert Pidcock, as Personal Representative of the v. McCune · filed 2023-04-10(a)(19)(B)

Since the temporal limitation has been removed, judgments entered by bankruptcy courts would be made in a “federal judicial proceeding” and fall squarely within § 523(a)(19)(B).

Section 523(a)(19) makes an agreed state court judgment nondischargeable when the underlying claims concern only securities law violations or related fraud.

Brian Keith Hardwick · filed 2023-01-27(a)(19)

No claims alleged in the state court case are attributable to any theories other than violations of securities law, or fraud in connection with the sale or purchase of securities. ... Thus, following the two-step Minardi analysis under this Court’s precedent, the agreed state court judgment in this case meets the requirements under § 523(a)(19) to be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a creditor to seek a discharge exception even if the claim has not been reduced to judgment.

Prime Equity Fund, LP. v. Lichtman (In Re Lichtman) · filed 2008-03-14(a)(19)

However, in 2005, Congress added the phrase, "before, on, or after the date on which the petition was filed,” clarifying that a plaintiff whose claim had not been reduced to judgment may still seek an exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(19) applies in pending bankruptcy cases and excepts from discharge a judgment for common law fraud connected with securities trading.

Smith v. Gibbons (In Re Gibbons) · filed 2003-03-07(a)(19)

The Plaintiff has an arbitral award issued in her favor and against the Debtor, which specifically states the Debtor committed fraud in connection with trading in her securities account. For the reasons stated above, § 523(a)(19) is applicable, the debt based on the Award is nondischargeable, the amended complaint is deemed amended accordingly, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debts for money obtained through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud nondischargeable.

Zois v. Cooper · filed 2003-09-04(a)(2)(A)

We need not decide whether the facts found in the state proceedings establish embezzlement or a violation of fiduciary duty for the purposes of non-dischargeability under Section 523(a)(4),... because the non-dischargeability provisions of Section 523(a)(2)(A)... undeniably apply to Zois’s behavior.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from securities law violations or fraud connected to a securities transaction and results from a qualifying judgment, order, or settlement.

Peterman v. Whitcomb (In Re Whitcomb) · filed 2004-01-20(a)(19)

The Court finds the debt owed by Christopher J. Whitcomb to John and Sara Peterman and Reactence, Inc. nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts debts arising from securities law violations from discharge and satisfies the constitutional uniformity requirement even though state securities laws vary.

Fishbach v. Simon (In Re Simon) · filed 2004-06-22(a)(19)

Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code does not violate the constitutional requirement for uniformity in bankruptcy laws.

Section 523(a)(19) applies to a securities fraud arbitration debt when the provision is in force at the time the court decides discharge, even if the debtor filed for bankruptcy before its enactment.

In Re Gibbons · filed 2004-07-16(a)(19)

Although Mr. Gibbons makes a half-hearted attempt to argue otherwise, it is facially apparent that the arbitration award against him falls four-square within the scope of this provision. ... Here, the Bankruptcy Court did not rule on the discharge of the debt here at issue until well after the enactment of the Sar-banes-Oxley Act. Thus, no problem of ret-roactivity is here involved.

Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) permits discharge exceptions for securities law violation claims, but related breach of contract and conversion claims do not qualify.

Bricker v. Martin (In Re Martin) · filed 2004-09-02(a)(19)(A)(i)

However, only claims for violations of securities laws may be excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(19)(A)(i).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a securities debt from discharge only if the judgment, order or settlement agreement arose before the bankruptcy filing.

In Re Weilein · filed 2004-12-29(a)(19)(B)

It is this Court’s conclusion that a judgment, order or settlement agreement must have arisen prior to the bankruptcy filing in order for § 523(a)(19) to except a debt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(19) applies to bankruptcy cases that were pending when it was enacted.

Harvey Ex Rel. Widmann v. Lewandowski (In Re Lewandowski) · filed 2005-01-27(a)(19)

Moreover, there is clear evidence in the statute’s legislative history of a congressional intent to apply § 523(a)(19) to all pending bankruptcy case. This includes Mr. Lewandowski’s bankruptcy. This Court therefore finds, as a matter of law, that § 523(A)(19) is applicable in Mr. Le-wandowski’s bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make an award nondischargeable unless the debtor obtained money or property through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Gattalaro v. Pulver (In Re Pulver) · filed 2005-07-25(a)(2)(A)

After reviewing the Findings and Judgement of Divorce entered by the State Court, this Court finds that the Debtor had a full and fair opportunity at the State Court trial to be heard on the issues of liability and damages with respect to the Restraining Order Awards included within the Matrimonial Judgment, but that those Awards are not nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A), because the Debtor’s actions did not result in his obtaining money or property from Gattalaro as a result of false representations, false pretenses or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a nonbankruptcy forum to determine liability for securities law violations or securities-related fraud after a bankruptcy petition is filed.

Holland v. Zimmerman (In Re Zimmerman) · filed 2006-04-19(a)(19)

Section 523(a)(19) expressly contemplates a postpetition determination of liability by a nonbankruptcy forum for debts resulting from securities law violations as well as common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from a securities law violation and results from a qualifying judgment or order.

Frost v. Civiello (In Re Civiello) · filed 2006-08-15(a)(19)

The violations are of Ohio securities law, thereby satisfying 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)(A). As a result of the violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The judgment “results from” Defendant’s violation of the securities law identified in the cease and desist order, thereby satisfying the requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)(B). Both prongs having been satisfied, the court finds that the debt owing Plaintiffs is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a securities-related debt to be excepted from discharge even if liability was not fixed before the bankruptcy filing.

In Re Chan · filed 2006-10-23(a)(19)

Rather, the phrase was intended to make it clear that a debt arising under the federal securities laws or as a result of fraud in connection with the sale of a security may be determined nondischargeable under § 523(a)(19) even if the liability was not fixed prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from fraud connected to a securities sale and results from a judgment or settlement; the court may examine the facts underlying the settlement.

Hodges Ex Rel. Musolino v. Buzzeo (In Re Buzzeo) · filed 2007-05-15(a)(19)

The Settlement Agreement does not preclude our examination into the underlying facts to determine whether Plaintiffs’ claims are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(19). The underlying facts reflect that the obligation arises from common law fraud in connection with the sale of a security and the debt results from a settlement agreement entered by Buzzeo and a judgment order in the District Court.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt for a state securities law violation from discharge when the debt results from a judgment or a settlement agreement entered into by the debtor.

Trucks v. Williams (In re Williams) · filed 2007-06-25(a)(19)

Either of these facts satisfies the requirement of § 523(a)(19). As a result, because Debtor violated § 517.07, Florida Statutes, a state securities law, and because Plaintiff obtained a Final Judgment from or entered into a Settlement Agreement with Debtor, the Debt is excepted from Debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) requires an order, decree, or settlement establishing securities liability before a debt can be held nondischargeable; absent a settlement, the liability determination must occur outside the bankruptcy court.

Faris v. Jafari (In Re Jafari) · filed 2009-02-03(a)(19)

Thus, the Court concludes that, absent a settlement agreement or other consensual determination of liability, Subsection B evidences a conscious choice to have the liability determination occur outside of the bankruptcy forum, whether it occurs pre- or post-bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(19) can except a securities-law disgorgement debt from discharge even when the debtor did not personally violate the securities laws.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Sherman · filed 2009-05-14(a)(19)

The Court notes that the language of § 523(a)(19) does not by its terms limit its application to persons who have been accused or found guilty of violations of the securities laws.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud from discharge.

Watkins v. Market Express Transportation · filed 2009-08-21(a)(2)(A)

Finally, the judgment debt was nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (providing a debt obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” is not dischargeable).

Section 523(a)(2) makes a debt for credit obtained by fraud nondischargeable.

Ultra Litho Pyt, Limited v. Moore · filed 2009-10-15(a)(2)

The bankruptcy court determined that Moore’s $127,031.25 debt to Ultra was an extension of credit obtained by fraudulent means and thus non-dischargeable. ... After careful consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm on the basis of the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned opinion.

Section 523(a)(19) requires an actual securities violation and a completed settlement or other final resolution; a settlement expressly denying fault does not alone establish the violation.

Mollasgo v. Tills (In Re Tills) · filed 2009-11-05(a)(19)

Section 523(a)(19) has two separate conditions for non-dischargeability separated by a semicolon and the word “and.” The statute, thus, plainly indicates that the conditions must be independently satisfied-securities violations must have occurred and a settlement (or other final resolution of the claim) must be completed.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a securities law disgorgement debt from discharge even when the debtor did not personally violate the securities law.

Oklahoma Department of Securities Ex Rel. Faught v. Mathews · filed 2010-02-10(a)(19)

The statute does not expressly state that the payment owed must result from the direct violation of the state law by the debtor, so long as it is owed by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) leave a debt dischargeable when the creditor fails to prove either exception.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams (In Re Williams) · filed 2010-07-07(a)(2)(A) and (B)

Tower Credit failed to prove that Kelli Williams’s debt to it is nondischargeable under both 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, the debt is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through intentional false representations nondischargeable when the creditor proves the fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Rinaudo v. Genesee Regional Bank (In Re Rinaudo) · filed 2010-12-22(a)(2)(A)

The facts support Judge Ninfo’s determination that the Bank had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the debtor had made false representations with the intent to deceive the creditor and, therefore, under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a), the debt, having been attained by fraud and false statements, was non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts from discharge a debt for a securities law violation that results from a settlement agreement or consent order.

Allen v. Loughery (In Re Loughery) · filed 2011-07-08(a)(19)

Because the Plaintiffs have established, based on the undisputed material facts, that the Debtor owes a debt for a violation of a securities law that results from the settlement agreement and consent order based on that violation, the Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the debt is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) bars discharge of a debt for a securities violation only when the debtor is responsible for that violation.

Sherman v. Securities & Exchange Commission (In Re Sherman) · filed 2011-09-19(a)(19)

Although the question is a close one, we agree with the bankruptcy court and hold that § 523(a)(19) only prevents the discharge of a debt for a securities violation when the debtor is responsi- ble for that violation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when the debtor knowingly concealed material defects and obtained money as a result.

Nehasil v. Grenier · filed 2012-01-31(a)(2)(A)

The Nehasils argue, and the courts below held, that this provision applies to the state-court judgment against the Greniers. We agree. ... The Nehasils have shown all four, and accordingly the jury’s finding that the Greniers knew of the defects in their home prevents them from relitigating the issue now. ... There is no question that the Greniers obtained money from the Nehasils as a result of their fraud.

Section 523(a)(19) requires a tribunal other than the bankruptcy court to determine a securities law violation before the bankruptcy court may decide whether the resulting debt is dischargeable.

Terek v. Bundy · filed 2012-04-18(a)(19)(B)

The BAPCPA amendments to § 523(a)(19) only effectuate a change in the time period in which a determination may be reached that a violation of state or federal securities laws has occurred. That determination may be made pre-petition or post-petition, but it must be made by a tribunal other than the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(19) does not except an unjust-enrichment judgment from discharge when the debtors were not found to have violated securities laws, even if their profits resulted from another person’s violation.

Oklahoma Department of Securities Ex Rel. Faught v. Wilcox · filed 2012-08-20(a)(19)(A)(i)

These debts do not fall under the 523(a)(19) exception according to the plain language of the statute. The judgments at issue are not “for a violation” of securities laws but for unjust enrichment resulting from someone else’s violation of those statutes.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) applies only if the debt is grounded in a securities violation under subsection (A).

Carter v. Patterson (In re Patterson) · filed 2013-01-24(a)(19)(B)

The Objection only cites to subsection (B), but subsection (B) must be read in conjunction with subsection (A), as evidenced by the use of the word “and.” Thus, for this section to apply, Carter must first prove that the debt is grounded in a securities violation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a judgment debt from discharge when the creditor proves fraud, reliance on the fraud, and resulting damages.

SG Homes Associates, LP v. Marinucci · filed 2013-06-04(a)(2)(A)

Finally, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the judgment debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which disallows the discharge of a debt obtained by fraud. SG Homes obtained a judgment based on Marinucci’s fraud after having shown the fraud, reliance on the fraud, and damages attributable to the fraud. Section 523(a)(2)(A) was, therefore, the appropriate exception to discharge in bankruptcy for SG Homes’ judgment claim against Marinucci.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) requires an existing, memorialized administrative or court determination or settlement agreement for a securities-related debt to be nondischargeable.

McGraw v. Collier (In re Collier) · filed 2013-09-03(a)(19)(B)

The statute, however, requires an extant memorialized administrative or court determination or settlement agreement to satisfy the second condition of Section 523(19), and the Plaintiffs did not introduce such a document into evidence at trial.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to determine liability and damages for securities fraud and enter its own judgment satisfying the provision.

Williams v. Sato (In re Sato) · filed 2014-06-18(a)(19)(B)

The more expanded view holds that the bankruptcy court can determine the liability, damages, and dischargeability of the debt for securities violations and securities fraud and issue its own judgment to satisfy § 523(a)(19)(B). ... This Court concludes that the language of the provision, as well as the legislative history and policy considerations, warrants the more expanded view.

Section 523(a)(19) permits a bankruptcy court to determine the underlying securities fraud liability when deciding whether a debt is excepted from discharge.

One Longhorn Land I, L.P. v. Presley · filed 2015-04-13(a)(19)(B)(i)

First, the statute’s reference to “any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered in any Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding,” and the fact that the statute was amended to remove a previous condition that the judgment or order be entered pre-petition, suggest that the bankruptcy court can make the liability determination itself.

Section 523(a)(19) gives preclusive effect to a state administrative default order when determining whether a debt arising from securities fraud is dischargeable.

Frankfurt v. Friedman (In re Friedman) · filed 2015-07-01(a)(19)

Accordingly, preclusive effect must now be given to default judgments before administrative tribunals subject to § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of a debt arising from intentional overbilling through false invoices and timesheets.

Burse v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2015-09-09(a)(2)(A)

But the non-dischargeable debt stems from the intentional overbilling, not the DBE certification.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt for a securities law violation or securities-related fraud from discharge when the debt is memorialized in a judicial judgment.

Wright v. Minardi (In re Minardi) · filed 2015-08-27(a)(19)

Because the indebtedness owed to the Plaintiffs by Minardi is based upon the violation of federal securities laws and common law fraud in connection with the purchase of a security, and because the indebtedness has been previously memorialized through the entry of a judgment in a federal judicial proceeding, the Federal Court Judgment is rendered nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) does not except a shareholder oppression judgment from discharge merely because the remedy requires a purchase of shares.

Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes) · filed 2015-09-03(a)(19)(A)(i)

The judicial dissolution statute that provides for the purchase of securities as a remedy to Thoennes’ oppression does not produce a debt for violations of state securities laws or regulations. Accordingly, the debt owed to Ballard is not an exception to Thoennes’ discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(19)(A)(i).

A settlement does not establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(19) through issue preclusion unless it necessarily decided that the debt arose from a securities law violation.

Paik v. Lee (In re Lee) · filed 2015-09-08(a)(19)

While the state court’s summary adjudication order apparently ruled on the issue of whether Paik’s loan is a security, among other issues, the evidence does not show that the settlement agreement between the parties “necessarily decided” whether the debt is for the violation of securities laws. ... As such, Paik’s § 523(a)(19) claim is denied.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) permits a bankruptcy court’s judgment to satisfy its judgment requirement.

Tradex Global Master Fund SPC, Ltd. v. Chui (In re Chui) · filed 2015-09-24(a)(19)(B)

Given that current Ninth Circuit authority authorizes this court to liquidate claims in conjunction with determining their nondischargeability, and the fact that the plain language of the statute contemplates entry of judgment after the filing of the petition, the more reasonable interpretation of section 523(a)(19)(B) is that this Court may enter a judgment in satisfaction of that section.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt for a securities law violation nondischargeable when the debt is memorialized in a judgment, order, or settlement agreement, including a default judgment.

Tripodi v. Welch · filed 2016-01-13(a)(19)

The district court properly found that Welch’s default judgment is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) requires both a securities law violation or fraud connected to the sale of a security and a judicial or administrative determination or settlement agreement.

Warren v. Cybulski · filed 2016-03-28(a)(19)

To succeed on a claim for nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(19), a creditor must show that two requirements are met, namely that the debt: (1) “is for a securities law violation or fraud in connection with the sale of a security,” and (2) “results from some form of judicial or administrative determination, or from a settlement agreement.”

Section 523(a)(19) permits a judgment finding a securities violation to support nondischargeability without proof that the violation was actually litigated.

In re: Behrends · filed 2016-11-14(a)(19)(B)(i)

But the argument fails here because, to satisfy § 523(a)(19), it is not necessary to show that the securities violation was “actually litigated” as understood in state issue preclusion cases.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) requires a securities-related debt to result from a judgment, settlement, or order; the bankruptcy court cannot determine liability to satisfy that requirement.

In re Robben · filed 2017-01-04(a)(19)(B)

But, as examined below, the Court finds that it does not have similar jurisdiction with respect to the § 523(a)(19) exception from discharge. ... Subsection (B) requires that the debt be the subject of a judgment, settlement, or order. ... This Court finds Judge Brown’s analysis to be convincing. Therefore, if modification of the discharge injunction were denied, this Court could not adjudicate all the allegations of the Bartlett Parties’ objection to discharge.

Section 523(a)(19)(A) bars discharge of a debt caused by a securities violation even if the debtor did not commit the violation.

Jon E. Lunsford, Sr. v. Process Technologies Services, LLC · filed 2017-02-15(a)(19)(A)

The whole text establishes that ... section 523(a)(19)(A) precludes discharge regardless of whether the debtor violated securities laws as long as the securities violation caused the debt.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) permits a court to examine the conduct underlying a settlement debt even when the settlement contains no admission of liability.

Winkler v. Pierce (In re Pierce) · filed 2017-02-15(a)(19)(B)

This Court agrees that in section 523 proceedings, bankruptcy courts must focus on the conduct from which the debt at issue originally arose, even though the debt may subsequently have taken on other documentary forms as a result of litigation, administrative proceedings or settlement negotiations.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to decide securities law liability and enter a judgment in a nondischargeability proceeding.

Holzhueter v. Groth (In re Holzhueter) · filed 2017-07-18(a)(19)(B)

This Court finds that section 523(a)(19)(B) permits it to hear the controversy and enter a judgment.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt for securities law violations nondischargeable when a judgment memorializes the debt, including a default judgment.

Bryant v. Clements (In re Clements) · filed 2017-07-27(a)(19)

The requirements of the statute are satisfied in this case. The debt stems from a violation of Wisconsin securities laws as set forth—and deemed true—in the state court complaint and judgment as incorporated in the complaint in this adversary. Second, the debt is memorialized in two judgments that confirm violation of securities law, among other grounds, as the basis for the judgments.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor obtained the money, property, services, or credit through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

McInnis v. Phillips (In re Phillips) · filed 2017-09-20(a)(2)(A)

These are not allegations that Phillips’ debt to Mclnnis was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; that the debt arose while Phillips were acting in a fiduciary capacity; or that the debt arose from fraud or defalcation by Phillips.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) requires the debt to result from a qualifying order; an SEC order creating liability only to the SEC does not establish a private creditor’s exception to discharge.

Tradex Global Master Fund Spc v. Chui · filed 2017-11-17(a)(19)(B)

The Order thus plainly does not create liability against Chui in favor of Tradex; at most, it creates liability against Chui in favor of the SEC. The district and bankruptcy courts properly concluded that the Order did not satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)(B).

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt for a state securities law violation nondischargeable when it results from a final default judgment.

Boccarsi v. Simon · filed 2018-09-20(a)(19)

In sum, the state court default judgment was a final judgment for purposes of § 523(a)(19) and the complaint’s allegations support a claim for securities fraud under Arizona Revised Statutes § 44-1991. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in holding that the debt arising out of that default judgment is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt for state securities fraud from discharge when it results from a final default judgment.

Simon v. Boccarsi · filed 2018-09-20(a)(19)

In sum, the state court default judgment was a final judgment for purposes of § 523(a)(19) and the complaint's allegations support a claim for securities fraud under Arizona Revised Statutes § 44-1991.

Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) does not treat FINRA rules as federal securities laws or regulations issued under them.

Schouten v. Jakubiak (In re Jakubiak) · filed 2018-10-01(a)(19)(A)(i)

The SEC's oversight of FINRA does not transform private-party rules into "regulations" as that term is used in § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19)(B) requires the debt to actually result from the judgment, settlement, or order relied upon.

Conway v. Heyl · filed 2018-10-18(a)(19)(B)

We agree with the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Tradex that the debt must actually result from the order the plaintiff is relying upon. We also agree with the Bankruptcy Court that the Consent Order—which is the order Appellants are relying upon--does not result in a debt owed to Appellants.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt for securities law violations from discharge when the debt is memorialized in a qualifying order or settlement.

Jenkins v. Jones (In re Jones) · filed 2019-04-24(a)(19)

The outstanding indebtedness owed by Defendant, Clyde Jones, to Plaintiff Nola Lanell Jenkins, Trustee of the Kathryn Childress Irrevocable Trust, comprised of compensatory damages in the sum of $ 625,000.00, costs in the sum of $ 30,000.00, and attorneys' fees in the sum of $ 250,000.00, all as established by the Agreed Order Granting Plaintiff's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award that was entered by the 166th Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas in cause number 2018CI07697 on September 25, 2019, are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable, including related treble damages, attorney fees, and punitive damages.

Apel v. Campbell, Jr. · filed 2019-06-13(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds a sufficient basis in the pleadings to conclude Plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment on her claim under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... That amount was trebled for intentional violations of the GFBPA, raising the total damages by $45,046, which amount is nondischargeable as having been incurred by fraud. In addition, the state court awarded attorney fees of $20,417.07 for the intentional violation of GFBPA, which is also nondischargeable as having being incurred by fraud. ... Because punitive damages are only available in tort actions—in this case fraud—they are also nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt for a securities law violation or fraud connected to a securities transaction nondischargeable when the debt is memorialized in a judicial or administrative order or settlement agreement.

Creech v. Viruet · filed 2019-08-07(a)(19)

Essentially, the statute has two requirements: first, the debt must be for the violation of securities laws or a fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a security; second, the debt must be memorialized in a judicial or administrative order or settlement agreement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Stephen C Jenkins - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-09-04(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court further concludes that the Judgment Debt is a debt of Jenkins for money obtained by false pretenses, by a false representation, and by actual fraud, in each case which is nondischargeable pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt for a securities law violation nondischargeable when an administrative decision establishes the violation, even if a later settlement disclaims liability.

Epsha v. People of the State of Calif. · filed 2020-01-15(a)(19)

Here, the Administrative Decision upholding the D&R Order satisfies the § 523(a)(19) provision that a debt for securities law violation cannot be discharged.

Section 523(a)(2) permits a Texas statutory-fraud claim arising from a real estate transaction to support a judgment of nondischargeability.

Gassaway v. TMGN 121, LLC, A Texas limited liability company · filed 2020-02-18(a)(2)

Moreover, a statutory-fraud claim under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 27.01 may support a judgment of non-dischargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debt traceable to fraudulent transfers from discharge, but the creditor must prove the amount traceable to them.

Hodess v. Wong · filed 2020-03-31(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiffs failed to show, and the state court judgment itself does not specify, which portion of the state court judgment was traceable to Wong’s fraudulent transfers, the judgment amount is dischargeable debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by fraud from discharge; misuse of funds after a loan is made does not satisfy that requirement.

Tavadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Mitchell · filed 2020-06-01(a)(2)(A)

Because the commingling and improper spending occurred after the loans were extended, this conduct does not fall under § 523(a)(2)(A), and hence the State Courts’ finding that Mitchell was liable for it was not a finding of the “same issue” as nondischargeable fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts the amount owed on a fraud debt from discharge.

Johnson v. Fayazi · filed 2020-07-16(a)(2)(A)

For the above reasons, a judgment will be entered in favor of Johnson and against Fayazi in the amount of $15,020.00, which amount is (for the reasons determined by Judge Gordon) excepted from Fayazi’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge only if it is for a qualifying securities violation or fraud and results from a qualifying judgment, agreement, or order.

Palczuk v. Conway · filed 2020-09-25(a)(19)

In addition, because both subsections (A) and (B) must be satisfied, such a debt must result from a judgment, agreement, or other order (collectively herein, for ease of reference, a “securities judgment”) as articulated in subsections (B)(i-iii).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when money or credit was obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

University First Federal Credit Union v. Cornwall · filed 2020-10-07(a)(2)(A)

In this case, the court finds that, when applying the foregoing standards to the facts of this case, Plaintiffs’ complaint adequately alleges a cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) for false pretenses, false representation, and actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes debt obtained through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud nondischargeable.

Lawrence v. Frost Bank · filed 2021-01-04(a)(2)(A)

The Court considers this a question of fact, because the plain text of section 523 makes debt obtained through false representation nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a securities law debt from discharge when the violation is memorialized in a judgment, order, decree, or settlement agreement.

Berry v. Pentecost, Jr. · filed 2021-03-01(a)(19)

To state a claim that a debt is excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(19), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to demonstrate that the debt is for a violation of securities laws that is memorialized in a judgment, order, consent order, decree or settlement agreement.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) does not make a securities debt nondischargeable on the basis of a consent order that revokes an adviser’s registration without establishing a debt to the creditor.

Berry v. Pentecost, Jr. · filed 2021-08-05(a)(19)(B)

The record herein fails to establish the first element. The debt Plaintiff claims Pentecost owes her resulting from violations of securities laws is not memorialized in a final judgment or order.

Section 523(a)(19) requires the debtor herself to have committed a securities law violation or securities fraud for the debt to be nondischargeable.

Nationwide Judgment Recovery Inc. v. Geredine · filed 2021-09-28(a)(19)

Other cases disagree, and hold that nondischargeability under § 523(a)(19) requires the debtor herself to have committed a securities law violation or securities fraud. ... The Court adopts that view now.

Section 523(a)(19)(A)(i) excepts a debt from discharge for a securities law violation only when the debtor committed the violation.

NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC. v. SIMONS · filed 2021-11-09(a)(19)(A)(i)

The Court finds the reasoning of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits to be persuasive and agrees that only a debt traceable to a securities law violation committed by a debtor is subject to Section 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from deceit connected with a securities transaction and is confirmed by a court judgment.

Ahuja v. Fleming, II · filed 2021-12-09(a)(19)

Therefore, because the debt owed to the Plaintiffs is based upon common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security, and because the debt is confirmed in the Superior Court Decision, the debt is non-dischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) excepts from discharge attorney fees awarded for consumer fraud in connection with a securities sale when the debt is memorialized in a court judgment.

Ward v. Carlson · filed 2022-06-22(a)(19)

Since the Court finds that the arbitration panel assessed attorney fees based on a consumer fraud violation in connection with the sale of securities, the $100,000 attorney fee falls within the scope of section 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove the elements of fraud to except a debt from discharge; cursory allegations of fraud are insufficient.

Mines v. Mines · filed 2022-07-07(a)(2)(A)

Second, the Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellants failed to establish the elements of Section 523(a)(2)(A) necessary to prevent discharge of their claim.

Section 523(a)(19)(B)’s timing language does not permit a private creditor to pursue a qualifying judgment in violation of an existing discharge injunction.

Palczuk v. Conway · filed 2022-07-14(a)(19)(B)

But ifa court or administrative agency does not enter a qualifying judgment, □ consent order, or decree, or a debtor does not enter a qualifying settlement agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)(B) and a court enters a discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2), then the discharge injunction bars a putative private creditor from pursuing litigation to obtain such a qualifying judgment.

Section 523(a)(19)(B) allows a bankruptcy court to enter the judgment supporting nondischargeability without an earlier judgment or settlement from another forum.

Fuller v. Bae · filed 2022-08-29(a)(19)(B)

Other courts have more broadly interpreted the code section and found that the bankruptcy court itself can be the instigator court. ... This court is persuaded by their reasoning.

Section 523(a)(19)(A) excepts a debt for a securities law violation from discharge only if the debtor committed the violation.

Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. v. Sorrells · filed 2022-09-27(a)(19)(A)

Consequently, this Court agrees with the majority and holds that § 523(a)(19)(A) only applies to except from discharge debts owed by debtors who themselves committed a securities violation.

Section 523(a)(19) requires a creditor to connect a securities law violation to the debt it seeks to except from discharge.

Schlosser v. Heinemann · filed 2022-12-02(a)(19)

The Court holds only that the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a connection between any violation and the resulting debt.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a judgment for a securities law violation nondischargeable when the debtor was responsible for the violation.

Wieczorek v. Johnson · filed 2023-12-15(a)(19)

The distinguishing fact between In re Rodriguez and In re Sherman is whether the debtor was the party responsible for the violation of the state or federal securities law. ... Here, the Riverside Judgment makes clear that Debtor was one of the parties, along with GPA ... Enterprises and Anthony Todd Johnson, who engaged in violating California securities laws, and not merely the recipient of proceeds from the violation.

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt from securities law violations or related fraud nondischargeable when an agreed judgment establishes the debt, even without an express finding of liability.

Hardwick v. Anderson · filed 2024-03-28(a)(19)

The Agreed Final Judgment necessarily made an implied finding that Brian Hardwick violated state securities laws or committed fraud in connection with the sale or purchase of a security, satisfying the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19)(A) and (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by fraud from discharge regardless of whether the debtor owned the entity that obtained the money.

In Re: Glenn · filed 2024-09-04(a)(2)(A)

Thus, regardless of whether Glenn had an ownership interest in the Financial Tree entities, the money was obtained by fraud, and that debt is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(19)(B) permits a bankruptcy court’s own judgment or order establishing liability for a securities law violation to satisfy its judgment or order requirement.

In re: Tamio Lucien Stehrenberger AND Anna Christine Stehrenberger · filed 2024-11-25(a)(19)(B)

The bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that § 523(a)(19)(B) requires a judgment or order of a forum other than the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(19)(A) requires evidence of a federal securities law violation; a consent judgment without findings is insufficient on its own, but evidence of the debtor’s conduct can establish the violation.

Corey S. Ribotsky · filed 2025-01-06(a)(19)(A)

While the SEC is not required to relitigate the underlying violations, the Consent Judgment without more did not sustain the SEC’s burden to obtain summary judgment. However, when combined with evidence of Debtor’s underlying conduct, it is enough for the SEC to succeed on its section 523(a)(19)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtained it through fraudulent representations.

Brick Law PLLC v. Sticky's Holdings LLC · filed 2025-06-03(a)(2)

The debt must be “obtained by” fraudulent representations, and the facts do not support a plausible claim that Sticky’s made any fraudulent misrepresentation which would render the debt “obtained by” such falsities.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from a securities law violation or fraud in the purchase or sale of a security and is embodied in a qualifying judgment, order, or settlement.

Larson v. Lucas · filed 2025-09-11(a)(19)

Even construing all facts and inferences in favor of Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff has met his burden under § 523(a)(19) to show his debt is nondischargeable, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(19) allows a securities fraud default judgment to support nondischargeability even if the judgment does not satisfy collateral estoppel’s actually litigated requirement.

Wong · filed 2026-01-26(a)(19)

As such, the Court finds that the Default Judgment may serve as a basis for rendering the debt arising out of the Default Judgment non-dischargeable, regardless of whether the Default Judgment could meet the “actually litigated” prong under the collateral estoppel doctrine.

Section 523(a)(19) excepts from discharge a debt arising from a violation of securities laws.

Stehrenberger · filed 2026-03-25(a)(19)

The Court concludes that Tamio is liable to Michiko for violating the Utah Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code §§ 61-1-1 to 61-1-206, by selling unregistered securities, and that this debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) makes a debt nondischargeable when a consent judgment awards judgment on securities law violations or common-law fraud in a securities sale, even if the judgment also covers other claims.

Papermaster · filed 2026-05-08(a)(19)

It is not necessary for every claim in this case to be a predicate offense for the purposes of § 523(a)(19).

Section 523(a)(19) requires liability for a securities-related debt to be established outside the bankruptcy court before that court determines dischargeability.

Matthes · filed 2026-06-16(a)(19)(B)

Plaintiffs in this case have provided no basis for this Court to depart from its conclusion in James. Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing they can meet the Subsection B requirement, their § 523(a)(19) claim necessarily fails as currently postured.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express trust established by agreement or law for a claim based on fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.

Anderson v. Baker, Jr. · filed 2023-01-30(a)(4)

Without an express trust established in an agreement or by law, the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) must fail.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor claiming fiduciary fraud to prove a fiduciary relationship and fraud or defalcation committed during that relationship.

Awalt v. Addison (In Re Addison) · filed 2008-05-01(a)(4)

In order to prevail under the fiduciary fraud portion of the statute, a creditor must prove that: (1) a fiduciary relationship existed between creditor and debtor; (2) fraud or defalcation was committed by the debtor in the course of that relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a fiduciary relationship, and Colorado’s construction lien statute creates such a trust.

Fowler & Peth, Inc. v. Regan (In Re Regan) · filed 2007-02-27(a)(4)

W hile our circuit ordinarily does not cite unpublished decisions as authoritative precedent, we take this opportunity to adopt and publish the following unpublished opinion. “W hile ‘the existence of a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4) is determined under federal law ,’ state law is relevant to this inquiry. Under applicable federal principles, ‘an express or technical trust must be present for a fiduciary relationship to exist under § 523(a)(4).’ The Colorado construction lien statute creates such a trust.”

Section 523(a)(4)'s fiduciary defalcation exception can apply to a corporate director's duties to shareholders.

Vozella v. Basel Van Aswegen (In Re Basel Van Aswegen) · filed 2007-04-12(a)(4)

Thus, the Court finds that as a director of GWFS, the Debtor was a fiduciary and she owed fiduciary duties to the other shareholders of GWFS. ... Accordingly, the motion must be denied on the fiduciary defalcation prong of § 523(a)(4).

For defalcation under § 523(a)(4), an attorney’s failure to return a retainer paid for legal services does not breach a fiduciary duty when the client did not entrust the fee to the attorney.

Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security v. Baillie (In Re Baillie) · filed 2007-04-24(a)(4)

The retainer fee was partial payment for debtor’s legal services on behalf of Bogar and was not entrusted to debtor by Bogar, in the manner required by § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not except unpaid employer contributions from discharge when the debtor merely breaches a payment contract, without a preexisting trust relationship or embezzlement.

Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund Ex Rel. Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund v. Bucci (In Re Bucci) · filed 2007-07-03(a)(4)

But for a trust relationship to satisfy § 523(a)(4), the alleged fiduciary must have duties that preexist the act creating the debt. ... Therefore, the defalcation provision of § 523(a)(4) does not apply. ... The court further finds that the embezzlement provision of § 523(a)(4) does not apply. ... The court agrees with the bankruptcy court that a breach of contract, without more, is not embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4)’s fiduciary capacity requirement is satisfied when the debtor qualifies as an ERISA fiduciary.

Shephard v. O'Quinn (In Re O'Quinn) · filed 2007-08-09(a)(4)

Therefore, consistent with cases that take the position that a statute may give rise to Section 523(a)(4) fiduciary status if it meets certain conditions, this Court holds that if the debtor meets the definition of an ERISA fiduciary, then the requirements for a finding of fiduciary status under Section 523(a)(4) will be satisfied.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a debt arising from fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity to be excepted from discharge; a state-law fiduciary relationship alone is insufficient.

Wallace v. Davis (In Re Davis) · filed 2007-09-12(a)(4)

In this case, the mere fact that state law places Mr. Davis and Mr. Wallace in relationship that may have some of the characteristics of a fiduciary relationship does not mean that the relationship is a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4), which requires the existence of express or technical trust.

Section 523(a)(4)’s exception for fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity requires an express or technical trust; an agreement to use sale proceeds for remediation does not establish one without an intent to hold those proceeds in trust.

Rowland v. Walls (In Re Walls) · filed 2007-09-12(a)(4)

The Sixth Circuit, for purposes of § 523(a)(4), has defined the term “fiduciary capacity” in a narrow manner, limiting it to situations where an express or technical trust exists. ... In reviewing the Environmental Indemnity Agreement and related sale documents, the court cannot find a single allegation which, if proven, could show an express, or even an implied, intent to require the $87,389.96 purchase price to be held in trust, require the Defendant to act as a trustee for such funds, or make the Plaintiffs the beneficiary.