11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(18) excepts a debt owed to a qualified pension plan from discharge when the debt arises from a qualifying loan.

Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System v. Thomas (In re Thomas) · filed 2015-05-01(a)(18)

Specifically, Section 523(a)(18) excepts from discharge any debts owed to a pension plan on account of “a loan” provided by a qualified pension plan pursuant to certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Since PSERS has not alleged that it has a claim on account of a “loan,” any adjustment sought by PSERS with respect to the Debtor’s pension does not fall within the exception to discharge found at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(18).

Section 523(a)(18) does not prevent discharge of a retirement plan loan when a Chapter 13 debtor completes the payment plan, because § 1328(a) does not include that exception.

Moya v. Administracion Sistemas De Retiro De L. Empleados Del Gobierno Y La Judicatura (In re Vargas Moya) · filed 2019-05-16(a)(18)

Section 1328(a) specifically identifies which debts from 523(a) are excepted from discharge upon the completion of a payment plan. However, section 523(a)(18) is not amongst the exemptions from discharge under Section 1328(a).

Section 523 provides no further relief when the debtor’s discharge has already been denied and the debt cannot be discharged.

Ritter v. Adducci · filed 2023-07-17

Simply stated, an additional finding of nondischargeability under § 523 cannot provide Plaintiff with any more relief against Joseph in this case than Plaintiff has already received through Joseph’s Denial of Discharge Order.

A § 523(a)(2) nondischargeability claim is moot when the debtor is already ineligible for a discharge and the debt therefore cannot be discharged.

Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency v. Perry (In re Perry) · filed 2016-07-11(a)(2)

The Court concludes that the no-discharge order renders the Plaintiffs nondischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2) moot, because Plaintiff has received the dischargeability-related relief it was seeking in this adversary proceeding (namely, that Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff will not be discharged in Defendant’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy case).

A request to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(6) is moot when the debtor is denied a Chapter 7 discharge.

Ruter v. Schryver (In re Schryer) · filed 2016-09-28(a)(6)

Dr. Ruter also sought a determination that the debt he purchased from Forreston State Bank is excepted from the Debtors’ discharge as a debt for a “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). As discussed above, the Debtors are not entitled to receive a Chapter 7 discharge. Therefore, the request to find a specific debt excepted from a discharge that will not be issued will be denied as moot.

Section 523(a) dischargeability issues become moot when the debtor has already been denied a discharge.

Michael T Wan and Xinyan Wan · filed 2019-10-16(a)

That no-discharge order renders the issue of non- dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) moot.

Claims under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) become moot when the debtor’s discharge has already been denied.

MM Education LLC v. Barnhardt · filed 2021-02-26(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6)

The denial of discharge renders the Plaintiffs’ claims under § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) moot.

Section 523 nondischargeability claims become moot when the debtor is denied a discharge and the debts therefore cannot be discharged.

Surgical Capital Solutions, Inc. v. Awaisi · filed 2021-04-27

The Court concludes that the no-discharge order renders moot Plaintiff’s non- dischargeaability claims in this adversary proceeding.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) claim is moot when the debtor’s discharge has been denied under § 727.

Wolf v. Quiroz · filed 2022-02-07(a)(2)(A)

As the court stated in the Letter Ruling, the denial of Debtor’s discharge mooted the § 523 claim.

A § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability claim can be premature when it presents no live controversy during a pending Chapter 13 case.

Racine & Associates, P.C. v. Murphy · filed 2023-04-20(a)(6)

First, with respect to the Court’s ruling that the Plaintiff’s nondischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) is premature and does not present a live case or controversy, the Court now cites the following recent case that further supports its ruling: Medeiros v. Firth (In re Firth), Case No. 21-00213-ELG, 2023 WL 162140 at **2-3 (Bankr. D. D.C. Jan. 11, 2023).

A § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability claim is moot when the debtor’s discharge is denied in its entirety.

Sarikaputar v. Chunton · filed 2023-08-24(a)(6)

Denial of the discharge in its entirety renders the § 523(a)(6) moot and this Court will not consider this claim at this time.

Section 523(a) provides no further dischargeability relief when denial of the debtor’s discharge has already made all debts nondischargeable.

Gelov v. Adducci · filed 2023-09-14(a)

Because Joseph will not receive a discharge, any ruling on whether his debt to Plaintiff could have been excepted from discharge (under various and alternative subsections of § 523(a)) due to Joseph’s prepetition conduct would be merely an advisory ruling on a hypothetical situation that does not exist.

Section 523(a) can provide an exception to discharge only when the debtor receives a discharge; once discharge is denied, a claim for an exception provides no further relief.

Ritter v. Adducci · filed 2023-09-14(a)

By its very language, § 523(a) focuses on the debt and can only have effect if an individual debtor receives a discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of the bankruptcy code.

Section 523 nondischargeability claims are moot when the debtor’s discharge has been denied under section 727.

Coleman County State Bank v. Boyd · filed 2024-02-12

Because the Court has already determined that Mr. Boyd’s discharge must be denied pursuant to § 727, it is unnecessary ... for the Court to consider Coleman’s separately pled § 523 counts.186 Therefore, such claims will be dispensed with as moot.

A § 523 nondischargeability action is moot when denial of the debtor’s entire discharge already prevents the debt from being discharged and leaves no further relief to grant.

Dailey · filed 2026-03-19

Issuing findings or an opinion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 would not change the outcome for ... American Bank.

A § 523 nondischargeability proceeding is moot when denial of the debtor’s discharge under § 727 has already given the creditor all the relief it seeks.

American Bank and Trust Company v. Dailey · filed 2026-03-19

Dailey’s denial of discharge renders this adversary case moot. ... Issuing findings or an opinion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 would not change the outcome for ... American Bank.

Section 523(a) nondischargeability claims cannot be renewed after the filing deadline has passed and the debtor has received a discharge.

Turpen · filed 2026-05-20(a)

The Court agrees – there is no avenue for the Plaintiffs to renew their § 523(a) claims, given the Debtor has received a discharge in his main bankruptcy case (now closed), and the deadline for filing § 523(a) claims has long since passed.

Section 523(a)'s exceptions to discharge do not apply in Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Deocampo v. Potts · filed 2016-09-08(a)

However, the exceptions to dischargeability set forth by 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), including the exception that renders non- dischargeable debt arising from “willful and malicious injury,” id. § 523(a)(6), do not apply in a Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Section 523(a) exceptions to discharge apply to Chapter 11 debtors only when they are individuals.

Ness v. Samson Resources · filed 2019-02-15(a)

Putting that aside, however, the provisions that plaintiffs appear to be relying in § 523 apply only to Chapter 11 debtors who are individuals.

Section 523(a)’s list of exceptions to discharge is not exclusive; another federal statute may make a debt nondischargeable.

Ryan v. Defense Finance & Accounting Service (In re Ryan) · filed 2017-03-31(a)

To adopt the Plaintiffs position that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) provides an exclusive list of non-dischargeable debts “would essentially render 37 U.S.C. § 303(e)(4) superfluous and void, which is something this Court cannot do.”

A bankruptcy court may decline to enforce an arbitration clause when arbitration of a section 523(a)(8) dischargeability claim would conflict with the section’s purposes.

Farmer v. Navient Solutions, LLC (In re Farmer) · filed 2017-05-04(a)(8)

Since the requested arbitration would inherently conflict with the underlying purposes of section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, it is appropriate to decline to enforce the arbitration provision.

Section 523 dischargeability claims may remain in bankruptcy court when arbitration would severely conflict with the bankruptcy process because liability, damages, and dischargeability are intertwined.

Reiner v. Paneth · filed 2025-09-17

The same concern arises in the context of section 523 proceedings. ... The Court finds that compelling arbitration here would create a severe conflict with the Bankruptcy Code. ... While the underlying causes of action may arise under state law and require findings on liability and damages, the dischargeability inquiry cannot be severed from those determinations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the plaintiff to connect alleged misrepresentations to its elements.

Higgs v. Colliau (In re Colliau) · filed 2017-05-24(a)(2)(A)

However, the burden of tying those allegations to the elements of 523(a)(2)(A) is on the plaintiff, not the Court.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) places the burden on the taxing authority to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a tax debt is excepted from discharge, even when the debtor brings the proceeding.

Terrell v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Terrell) · filed 2017-07-19(a)(1)(C)

The burden of proof under Section 523(a)(1)(C) is on the IRS to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the taxes in question are non-dischargea-ble.

Section 523(a)(8) requires the creditor to prove that a debt exists and is the type excepted from discharge before the debtor must prove undue hardship.

Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Rowe) · filed 2018-06-28(a)(8)

Defendant bears the burden of proving a debt exists and that it is of the type excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(8). It is only after this burden is satisfied that the burden shifts to the debtor to prove undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove every element by a preponderance of the evidence.

Cross Cnty. Bank v. Grigsby (In re Grigsby) · filed 2019-04-05(a)(2)(B)

The Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing all of the elements of Section 523(a)(2)(B) by a preponderance of the evidence.

A creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a debt falls within § 523(a)(6) or (a)(9).

Poole v. Donahue · filed 2019-06-13(a)(6), (a)(9)

The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that Donahue failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Poole’s debt to Donahue was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) or (a)(9).

Section 523(a)(8) places the initial burden on the creditor to show that a debt falls within the student loan discharge exception.

Stetson v. Granite State Student Loan · filed 2021-01-11(a)(8)

A creditor has the initial burden to establish that the debt falls within § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8) requires the creditor to prove that a challenged loan falls within a category of debts excepted from discharge.

Love, Jr v. United States Department of Education · filed 2021-04-29(a)(8)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Navient has the burden of proof to demonstrate that § 523(a)(8) applies to the loans that Debtor asserts are dischargeable for the reason that they do not fall within the various categories of debts excepted form discharge by § 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a) dischargeability claims must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

MegaForce LLC v. Beach · filed 2021-05-04(a)

The United States Supreme Court in Grogan v. Garner9 held that the standard of proof in dischargeability litigation under §523(a) is preponderance of the evidence. That standard applies in this proceeding.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) must prove the exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence.

Swiger v. Mansfield · filed 2024-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Like other exceptions to discharge under section 523, persons seeking to except a debt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) must show that the exception is applicable by the preponderance of the evidence.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) must prove the exception applies by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mansfield v. Swiger · filed 2024-03-07(a)(2)(A)

Like other exceptions to discharge under section 523, persons seeking to except a debt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) must show that the exception is applicable by the preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)'s fraud exceptions require a creditor to prove every element, including reliance, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wolfson · filed 2026-03-31(a)(2)

Therefore, here, 1st Colonial must prove by a preponderance of evidence that each element of 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) are satisfied in order to prevail on its claims against Wolfson. If one element is missing, 1st Colonial’s claim fails.

Section 523(a)(2) and (a)(6) require evidence of false statements, fraud, or willful and malicious injury to except a debt from discharge.

Li v. Chavez · filed 2008-08-07(a)(2), (a)(6)

The BAP properly concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for default judgment because Li, Tong, and Goudie failed to present evidence that the debt was incurred by false statements, fraud, or a willful and malicious injury, and failed to present evidence that the debtors knowingly and fraudulently made false statements in their bankruptcy documents.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts penal obligations imposed in a criminal sentence from discharge, including court costs, collection costs, and interest.

Sanders v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. (In re Sanders) · filed 2018-07-06(a)(7)

Therefore, I conclude that all financial obligations imposed in the Superior Court Sentencing Orders - including the Victim Assessment, the Criminal Filing Fee, the DNA Collection Fee, Court Appointed Attorney Fees, Collection Costs and Interest - are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excludes state criminal restitution from discharge regardless of whether the related civil debt was discharged before the restitution order was imposed.

Commonwealth v. Petrick, J., Aplt. · filed 2019-09-26(a)(7)

We also agree with the Superior Court that the Kelly Court’s holding that Section 523(a)(7)’s exclusion from bankruptcy discharge includes restitution, is not dependent on the relative timing of the discharge of the civil obligation in relation to the imposition of the criminal sanction.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts restitution ordered as part of a state criminal sentence from discharge.

Arcadi v. Williams · filed 2019-09-30(a)(7)

The Court finds there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendant’s obligation to pay restitution is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts state criminal restitution from discharge even when the amount is calculated by reference to the victim’s loss.

Benson A. Snaider and Marsha Levitt Snaider · filed 2019-12-02(a)(7)

Under Kelly, restitution is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, irrespective of how the restitution amount is calculated.

Section 523(a)(7) prevents discharge of past-due taxes imposed as a condition of federal criminal probation.

Rinker v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Rinker) · filed 1999-08-23(a)(7)

The Supreme Court has held that “§ 523(a)(7) preserves from discharge any condition a state criminal court imposes as part of a criminal sentence.” ... Further, Burke v. United States Internal Revenue Service supports a finding that Rinker’s taxes are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) exempts restitution imposed as part of a state criminal sentence from bankruptcy discharge.

State v. Cabrera · filed 2007-06-07(a)(7)

Neither party disputes the fact that the trial court ordered restitution in the instant case as a condition of Defendant's criminal sentence arising from the drunk driving incident. Because the United States Supreme Court has held that the conditions a state court imposes at sentencing are exempted from discharge, the trial court's decision to order restitution is well within the court's discretion and does not contravene federal bankruptcy law.

Section 523(a)(13) generally excepts restitution obligations imposed under title 18 from a chapter 7 discharge.

Bontrager v. Commissioner · filed 2018-12-12(a)(13)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, restitution obligations imposed under title 18 are generally excepted from a chapter 7 discharge.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) must plead the fraud with particularity.

Bennett v. Lindsey · filed 2018-07-11(a)(2)(A)

However, because Bennett’s complaint seeks relief for fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), it is subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7009.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud from discharge, but a creditor must plead facts supporting the claimed fraud.

Jeffery Clark Wortham · filed 2020-04-07(a)(2)(A)

Under Section 523(a)(2)(A), debts may be excepted from discharge if they are for money, property, or services obtained by a debtor’s “false pretenses,” “false representations,” or “actual fraud” (other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition). ... However, the Complaint’s vague and conclusory narration of potentially fraudulent acts do not demonstrate Credit Union has a plausible claim to relief under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for misrepresentation or actual fraud to plead specific facts supporting the claim.

McPherson Co-Op Credit Union v. Wortham · filed 2020-04-07(a)(2)(A)

However, the Complaint’s vague and conclusory narration of potentially fraudulent acts do not demonstrate Credit Union has a plausible claim to relief under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

A § 523(a)(2)(A) actual fraud claim survives dismissal when the complaint sufficiently pleads the elements and circumstances of the alleged fraud.

Mobilization Funding, LLC v. Edwards · filed 2021-10-04(a)(2)(A)

Mobilization has passably pleaded the necessary elements of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to avoid dismissal.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a debt arose from a false statement to plead intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.

Provide Media,Inc. v. Rolon, Sr. · filed 2022-03-11(a)(2)(A)

To state a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiff must plead that Defendant “made a false statement with the purpose and intention of deceiving the creditor; the creditor relied on such false statement; the creditor’s reliance on the false statement was justifiably founded; and the creditor sustained damage as a result of the false statement.” Fuller v. Johannessen (In re Johannessen), 76 F.3d 347, 350 (11th Cir. 1996).

A creditor alleging fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) must plead the circumstances of the fraud with particularity.

Faridani v. Reaves Smith · filed 2024-01-22(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff brings this action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) which states that debts for money obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” are not dischargeable. Thus, the heightened pleading standard of Rule 7009 applies.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under §523(a)(2)(A) must plead the alleged fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).

SnowWolf v. Iacovazzi · filed 2024-03-22(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff has not pleaded with the required specificity the facts necessary to support a claim of fraud or an objection to dischargeability claim under §523(a)(2)(A) as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

A claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on fraudulent representations must plead with particularity who made them, when they were made, and why they were false at the time.

Porsche Leasing Limited v. Rachel Beth Dorfman Weis · filed 2026-03-06(a)(2)(A)

While it recites the statutory elements of § 523(a)(2)(A), it does not allege with sufficient factual detail what representations were made, when they were made, by whom they were made, or how those representations were false at the time they were allegedly made.

A creditor alleging willful evasion of a tax obligation under section 523(a)(1)(C) must plead supporting facts with specificity.

Roper v. Barclay (In re Roper) · filed 2001-09-13(a)(1)(C)

Moreover, as the party raising an issue which is essentially one of fraud, and objecting to discharge-ability on that basis, the state’s is required to plead the basis for its assertion that the debtor willfully evaded the tax obligation with specificity. Its general statement that the obligation is nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(1)(C) does not comply with that requirement.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts a tax debt from discharge if the debtor willfully attempted to evade or defeat the tax.

Letantia Bussell and Estate of John Bussell, Letantia Bussell, Surviving Spouse v. Commissioner · filed 2008-05-29(a)(1)(C)

Title 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts from discharge a debtor’s liability for taxes if the debtor “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax”.

A complaint alleging actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) must plead the circumstances of the fraud with particularity.

Citizens State Bank v. Ruebel (Ruebel) · filed 2010-02-17(a)(2)(A)

To the extent the Bank is basing its claims on alleged fraud by Debtors, the complaint must set out the circumstances of the fraud with particularity. This requirement applies, at least, to the count titled: “Actual Fraud— Misrepresentation, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).”

Section 523(a)(3) permits an unscheduled debt to be discharged in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when the debt does not qualify for a fraud-based exception, even if the creditor lacked notice of the case.

Roggenbuck, II v. Social Security Administration · filed 2018-07-24(a)(3)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a claim held by a creditor who did not receive notice of the case or have actual knowledge of the case is nonetheless discharged in a "no-asset" chapter 7 case unless the creditor's claim is found to fall under one of the fraud-based exceptions to discharge at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not prevent discharge of an unscheduled, otherwise dischargeable debt in a no-asset Chapter 7 case with no deadline for filing claims.

Stavrum v. Tudor · filed 2019-03-20(a)(3)(A)

Applying that settled Ninth Circuit case law to this case, the discharge in plaintiff's no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding had the effect of discharging all of his "dischargeable" debts that arose before the filing of his bankruptcy petition, regardless of whether those debts were scheduled or the creditor was notified of the bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) ceases to except an unlisted debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case when the creditor learns of the bankruptcy.

Arrel Adoma Leatherwood · filed 2021-02-23(a)(3)(A)

Thus, after In re Madaj, there could be no doubt that on February 27, 2020, when Options first received notice of her bankruptcy, Leatherwood’s personal liability on its judgment debt was–at that point–discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except a prepetition debt from discharge solely because it was unlisted in a no-asset Chapter 7 case.

Morgan v. Morgan · filed 2021-10-25(a)(3)(A)

Under the Tenth Circuit case of In re Parker, Appellants claims’ against Troy were pre-petition claims that were discharged regardless of whether they were listed because Troy’s was a “no asset” bankruptcy under Chapter 7.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unscheduled claim from discharge when the omission deprives the creditor of a timely proof of claim; in a no asset case with no claims deadline, that ground does not apply.

Nakia Antoinette Lewis · filed 2022-01-27(a)(3)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) prevents the discharge of an unlisted claim if the failure to schedule the claim results in that Creditor being deprived of the opportunity to timely file a proof of claim. ... Because this bankruptcy case was a no asset case, the notice sent to creditors who had been scheduled did not contain a deadline for filing proofs of claims. Accordingly, the failure to schedule the Creditor did not deprive the Creditor of the opportunity to timely file a proof of claim; and it therefore appears that the Creditor's claims may have been discharged, even though it had not been scheduled.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge in a no-asset Chapter 7 case with no deadline to file proofs of claim.

Michael McIntosh and Amanda McIntosh · filed 2024-01-12(a)(3)(A)

Because the exception to discharge under section 523(a)(3)(A) for unscheduled debts applies only to cases where there is a deadline to file proofs of claim – and there was no such deadline in this case – the exception does not apply here.

Section 523(a) claims must give fair notice of the applicable discharge exception; ambiguous allegations require the creditor to identify the specific subsection.

Parker v. Miller (In re Miller) · filed 2018-07-30(a)

The Court does not hold that all dischargeability claims must cite the specific sub-subsection in § 523(a) in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. In some instances, the facts alone will dictate the discharge exception in question. Under these facts, however, citation to the specific sub-subsection in § 523(a) is necessary because of the ambiguous nature of Barbara's allegations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a default judgment excepting a fraud debt from discharge when the creditor’s complaint sufficiently establishes the debtor’s liability.

In Re Stephen J Haythorne · filed 2019-08-02(a)(2)(A)

The court determined that Damon’s complaint sufficiently proved Haythorne’s liability under § 523(a)(2)(A), and there is nothing in the record, including Haythorne’s appellate briefs, to suggest that the court’s application of the correct legal standard to the facts of the case was illogical, implausible, or otherwise unsupported. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the bankruptcy court’s grant of default judgment in favor of Damon on the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts debts for fiduciary fraud or defalcation, embezzlement, or larceny from discharge; detailed allegations of fiduciary fraud can state a plausible claim.

Haglund v. Rusch · filed 2019-08-09(a)(4)

Section 523(a)(4) provides that a discharge does not apply to any debt “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” Here, the complaint satisfies the requirements to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. It contains detailed factual allegations with an attached exhibit of the Stipulation Judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) supports a default judgment when the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations establish each of its elements.

Halper v. Twin Palms Lending Group · filed 2019-11-12(a)(2)(A)

Here, the well-pleaded factual allegations of Twin Palms’s complaint show that each of the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) was met, and, indeed, Halper did not attempt to challenge the allegations or the evidence.

Well-pleaded allegations accepted as true on default can establish the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Halper v. Cohen · filed 2019-11-12(a)(2)(A)

Here, the well-pleaded factual allegations of Cohen’s complaint show that each of the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) was met, and, indeed, Halper did not attempt to challenge the allegations or the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a nondischargeability judgment on default when the complaint’s factual allegations establish a prima facie case of fraud.

Marshall Recovery II LLC v. Trueblood, Jr. · filed 2021-03-04(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint alleges sufficient facts establishing a prima facie case that the Debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), and Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment.

A § 523 claim cannot survive summary judgment when the creditor shows no genuine factual dispute about the claim.

Ceruti v. Woodhouse · filed 2022-03-03

Because Ceruti has not shown the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact concerning a § 523 claim, the Court will grant summary judgment to Woodhouse with respect to such claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) claims fail when the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to state either exception to discharge.

Kelly v. Lettiere · filed 2022-05-13(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that the claims under § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(4) be DISMISSED under Rule 12(b)(6) based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A creditor pleading a § 523(a)(4) claim must identify the basis for nondischargeability and allege facts supporting it.

Anderson v. Baker, Jr. · filed 2022-09-23(a)(4)

The Andersons cite to §523(a)(4) broadly, so it remains unclear whether they intend to bring their §523(a)(4) claim under (1) fraud or defalcation while acting in fiduciary capacity, (2) embezzlement, or (3) larceny, as no facts are pleaded to support any of these listed claims.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits an actual fraud claim without a misrepresentation, and § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury.

Believe Production, Inc. v. Patterson · filed 2022-08-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

An exception to discharge based on actual fraud does not necessarily require any misrepresentation: ... For now, the Court concludes only that Count I of the adversary complaint is legally sufficient. ... By incorporating the Colorado judgment into the complaint, Believe successfully has pled the necessary elements under Section 523(a)(6).

A Section 523(a)(2) fraud claim survives dismissal when allegations against the debtor personally plausibly plead its required elements.

Saleh v. Romero · filed 2023-01-27(a)(2)

Plaintiff has properly alleged the necessary elements to establish a possible claim under Section 523(a)(2), and has wrapped allegations directly at Defendant around those elements. These pleaded allegations, taken as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, appear to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Claims under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(6) survive dismissal when the complaint alleges enough facts to make them plausible.

Oklahoma Heritage Bank v. Van Horn · filed 2025-01-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(6)

When these allegations are taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Complaint sufficiently sets forth causes of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) and (a)(6) that are plausible on their face.

Claims under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(6) may proceed when the complaint alleges specific facts that make the claims plausible.

Caroline Hope Van Horn · filed 2025-01-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(6)

When these allegations are taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Complaint sufficiently sets forth causes of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) and (a)(6) that are plausible on their face.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires facts supporting fraud; an unfulfilled contract and reliance on its promises alone do not state a claim to except a debt from discharge.

Sutton v. Berkley · filed 2025-02-05(a)(2)(A)

The fact that Berkley, in his individual capacity, failed to fulfill the obligations of the purported agreement between Sutton and Berkely Marketing Inc., and the fact that Sutton relied on the promises of the agreement, is not enough to except a debt from a bankruptcy discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) under the standards set in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A Section 523 complaint must identify the specific exception to discharge on which it relies.

DeKroub, Jr. v. Literski · filed 2025-04-07

In this case, the Court cannot ascertain under which section of 11 U.S.C. § 523 Plaintiffs are seeking relief.

Claims under Section 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) survive a motion to dismiss when the complaint plausibly alleges grounds for those exceptions to discharge.

Graham v. Mascio · filed 2025-08-22(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Coupled with the many other factual allegations set forth in the Complaint, the foregoing is more than enough to state plausible claims for nondischargeability under Sections 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a) claims must identify acts or statements by the debtor that satisfy the invoked exception to discharge.

Golestani v. Schoening · filed 2025-10-10(a)

For both of the Section 523 claims here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to identify specific acts or statements by the Debtor that might satisfy either of these provisions as to the Debtor.

Unverified, conclusory denials of a § 523(a)(2)(B) claim do not establish a right to summary judgment.

First National Bank & Trust Co. Weatherford v. Hobbs · filed 2023-05-26(a)(2)(B)

In his Motion, Hobbs attempts to refute the requisite elements of the Bank’s § 523(a)(2)(B) claim; however, in attempting to do so he submits only his unverified, conclusory opinions.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent intent for embezzlement or at least gross recklessness for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Lester Dan Piercy, Jr. - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-02-24(a)(4)

Applying these standards for embezzlement and defalcation under § 523(a)(4) to the facts presented at trial leads the Court to conclude that Long failed to meet his burden of proof concerning wrongful intent.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a creditor to prove fraudulent intent for embezzlement or at least gross recklessness for defalcation before the debt is excepted from discharge.

Long v. Piercy · filed 2023-02-24(a)(4)

Based on the evidenced presented at trial, applying the burden of proof to Long (as the Court must) and construing the provisions of § 523(a)(4) strictly against Long (also as the Court must), the Court finds that Long has failed to carry his burden to prove that any of the Piercys possessed the requisite fraudulent intent for embezzlement or the requisite showing of at least gross recklessness to establish defalcation.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud from discharge; fraudulent intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Ettus (In re Ettus) · filed 2018-08-02(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that the Defendant had the requisite intent such that his debt to the FTC is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of an underlying debt and deceptive intent to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Monarrez (In re Monarrez) · filed 2018-08-06(a)(2)(A)

The weight of the evidence, as determined by the court, does not satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard imposed on the Plaintiff with respect to the existence of a debt or with respect to the required intent of the Debtor under any theory articulated in section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent for an actual-fraud claim based on a fraudulent transfer.

Trilogy Health Servs., LLC v. White (In re White) · filed 2019-04-13(a)(2)(A)

Conversely, a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on "actual fraud" does require proof of fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor knew a representation was false and intended to deceive the creditor.

In re: Sharon Mary Adams · filed 2019-08-05(a)(2)(A)

And failure to establish either knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive defeats the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for an unfulfilled promise to perform contract work without proof that the debtor intended not to perform when making the promise.

Bass v. Romano · filed 2019-10-15(a)(2)(A)

In light of the Debtor’s partial performance following closing and the absence of any evidence to infer that the Debtor never intended to complete the renovations and make the necessary repairs, the Court cannot infer fraudulent intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when making a representation.

Love v. Wiseman · filed 2020-03-03(a)(2)(A)

However, there is no evidence that the Wisemans intended to do so at the time they entered into the agreement – which is an element of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false promise to prove that the debtor knew the promise was false when made.

Della Luna v. Dvorkin · filed 2020-02-26(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Della Luna has not established the second element of her nondischargeability claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A), that Mr. Dvorkin knew that his representation that he would repay the loan was false at the time that it was made.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraudulent intent to except a debt arising from conversion from discharge; conversion alone is insufficient.

Cook v. Knight · filed 2020-09-14(a)(4)

However, a finding of conversion does not necessarily result in a finding of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4), since conversion lacks any intent requirement. ... Thus, the arbitrator’s award in the amount of $150,000 in relation to the client list is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof of fraudulent intent, so a creditor may need discovery into the circumstances of the debtor’s representations before opposing summary judgment.

Lin v. Hunt · filed 2020-11-10(a)(2)

In this case, where Plaintiffs’ claim for relief requires proof of a fraudulent intent, Plaintiffs have established a plausible need to discover the circumstances surrounding the transfer at issue in order to oppose the summary judgment motion as well as to prosecute their case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a promise to pay to prove that the debtor lacked the intent or knew he lacked the ability to pay when the agreement was made.

Pucci, Sr v. Hill · filed 2021-09-20(a)(2)(A)

In this case, the Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor did not intend to pay the Plaintiff at the time the parties entered into the Contract.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor intended to defraud or deceive.

Caprice Capital, LLC v. Ford · filed 2021-10-29(a)(2)(A)

The most critical, as well as most difficult, element in an action for false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) is establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor acted with the intent to defraud or deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a promise of future contractual performance as a false representation or false pretense.

American Technology, Inc. v. Balistreri-Amrhein · filed 2021-11-15(a)(2)(A)

Because any representation by Defendant regarding her future performance of all obligations arising under the June 2018 Contract and the July 2018 Contract pertained to a future event, any such statement cannot be properly characterized as a false representation or a false pretense in this Circuit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt for Ponzi scheme winnings nondischargeable merely because the scheme was fraudulent; the recipient must have acted with fraudulent intent.

Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. v. Sheppard · filed 2022-02-25(a)(2)(A)

Following this reasoning, the presumption that Ponzi schemes are operated with a fraudulent intent does not automatically extend to recipients of transfers made as a part of that fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor relying on a broken promise to plausibly allege that the debtor intended not to keep it when made; nonperformance alone does not establish fraudulent intent.

Bodley · filed 2022-02-24(a)(2)(A)

GCap alleges only a promise not kept. Such conduct, consisting of a promise to perform followed by nonperformance, does not properly allege fraudulent intent under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor promises to pay without intending to perform and the creditor relies on that promise.

O'Connor v. Burg · filed 2022-06-09(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Burg made a knowing and fraudulent falsehood that she would perform under the Fee Agreement. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. O’Connor relied on Burg’s knowing and fraudulent falsehood that she would perform under the Fee Agreement.

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof that a debtor intended to deceive the creditor when making a promise; a later breach alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Shin v. Baker · filed 2022-10-11(a)(2)

Because Ms. Shin has not met her burden of demonstrating a false representation or false pretense at the time the transfers were made, the debt is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires wrongful intent for actual fraud; concealment or hindrance alone is insufficient.

Tsai v. Chen-Ky · filed 2022-10-14(a)(2)(A)

Merely hindering Plaintiffs’ ability to collect from Joshua or concealing the funds without the requisite wrongful intent does not constitute actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor makes promises with no intent to perform and the creditor justifiably relies on them.

Wang v. Ling · filed 2022-10-21(a)(2)(A)

In justified reliance on Mr. Ling's knowingly false promises and representations, Mr. Wang advanced an aggregate of $148,109.51, for which Mr. Wang received nothing. This debt will be excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of fraudulent intent to except a debt for embezzlement from discharge; a misrepresentation is unnecessary.

Bailey v. Bailey · filed 2022-12-21(a)(4)

Distilling Fox and having reviewed and considered the authority cited in the parties’ papers, the Court perceives that, to prove fraudulent intent in the embezzlement context under § 523(a)(4), a plaintiff must show the debtor’s intent to permanently deprive the plaintiff of their property by way of deceit, artifice, a wrongful scheme, or a clever plan—though proof of a misrepresentation by the debtor is not required.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive or defraud; a fraud judgment that leaves open liability based on reckless disregard does not establish that element.

Johnson v. Creason · filed 2023-10-16(a)(2)(A)

The summary judgment record lacks any allegation or supporting admissible evidentiary documentation that the state court held any type of hearing or made any supplemental findings of fact to rule out the possibility that defendants’ representations were made with only reckless disregard, as opposed to being knowingly false, with an intent to deceive or defraud. Since the state court’s Default Judgment does not unequivocally find that Defendants intended to deceive or defraud Plaintiff, an essential element of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim is lacking, making it deficient under the third prong of Kansas collateral estoppel law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires allegations that support an inference of fraudulent intent when the debtor obtained the loan.

Michelle A. Veale v. · filed 2024-01-24(a)(2)(A)

Combined, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the Appellant’s favor, these facts do not lead to an inference that the Debtor made them with fraudulent intent when she applied for the loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when the debt arose; unfinished or poor work alone does not establish that intent.

Heckard v. Hayward · filed 2024-03-01(a)(2)(A)

Each element of §523(a)(2)(A) requires a showing of fraudulent intent to deceive at the time the debt arose. ... For all these reasons, I find it more likely than not that the Debtor did not intend to defraud the Plaintiffs. The debt owed by the Debtor to the Plaintiffs may, therefore, be discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to offer evidence of the debtor’s intent to defraud when opposing summary judgment.

Ashton v. May · filed 2024-06-14(a)(2)(A)

• Count XV: denial of discharge pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A) ... It is well settled that in order to prevail on a determination of nondischargeability, a plaintiff must show that the Debtor had intent to defraud. ... Because the Plaintiff fails to meet her burden of offering evidence in response to the Debtor’s motion for summary judgment, summary judgment will be granted to the Debtor on the above listed seven (7) counts of the Complaint.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of the debtor’s knowledge and intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge for fraud.

Universal Credit Advisors, LLC v. Aydt · filed 2025-01-24(a)(2)(A)

Because UCA has failed to meet its evidentiary burden of showing a genuine dispute of fact as to Aydt’s knowledge and intent, summary judgment on UCA’s claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) in Aydt’s favor is warranted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent, so a FDUTPA judgment that does not establish intent does not establish nondischargeability.

Timperman v. Kress · filed 2025-05-23(a)(2)(A)

Intent is a material component of all types of § 523(a)(2)(A) claims.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent to except a debt for false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud from discharge.

Eglet · filed 2026-03-16(a)(2)(A)

The underlying decision of the Circuit Court supports only a money judgment for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and damage to property, which is dischargeable in bankruptcy without any allegations of scienter.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual intent to deceive or defraud; a judgment that may rest on constructive fraud does not establish that intent through collateral estoppel.

Jarrett · filed 2026-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Because 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of actual intent to deceive or defraud, neither the Superior Court Order, the Superior Court Judgment, nor the Superior Court Amended Judgment can serve as a basis for collateral estoppel on the issue of the Debtor’s intent in connection with the Transfer.

Unpaid wage claims can be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) when they arise from the debtor’s fraud.

Halstead v. MUCKLOW · filed 2023-04-04(a)(2)(A)

The Court therefore finds that the debts owed to the Plaintiffs through the WVWPCA are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Debts for services obtained through fraud may be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Elliot v. MUCKLOW · filed 2023-04-04(a)(2)(A)

All the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) were satisfied by the testimony and evidence provided at the Trial, and therefore, the claims held by Ms. Halstead, Ms. Elliot, and Ms. Adkins, are hereby deemed nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for services obtained through false representations nondischargeable when the creditor proves the required elements of fraud.

Adkins v. MUCKLOW · filed 2023-04-04(a)(2)(A)

All the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) were satisfied by the testimony and evidence provided at the Trial, and therefore, the claims held by Ms. Halstead, Ms. Elliot, and Ms. Adkins, are hereby deemed nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s false pretenses ground does not require proof of a false representation.

The Gordon Law Firm LLP v. Burm · filed 2022-12-12(a)(2)(A)

This position is inaccurate because a false representation is not a requirement of proving “false” pretenses within the meaning of subsection (a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor obtained money by false pretenses for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

O'Neill v. Georgedes · filed 2022-12-19(a)(2)(A)

O’Neill has not carried her burden of proving that Georgedes’s debt is for money obtained by false pretenses.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove the debtor’s fraudulent intent or justifiable reliance on the debtor’s representations.

Heritage Equities, LLC v. Newman (In re Newman) · filed 2018-08-03(a)(2)(A)

Because the court construes exceptions to discharge narrowly, the court concludes Heritage failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Newman acted with the requisite intent, or that Heritage justifiably relied on Newman's representations, to establish the debt represented by the 11 Lake Drive Agreement was incurred by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud" as required by § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge for false representation or actual fraud, but a creditor cannot obtain summary judgment when the debtor’s alleged conduct remains genuinely disputed.

BancorpSouth Bank v. Avery (In re Avery) · filed 2018-11-30(a)(2)(A)

Since the Court has declined to consider the Meeting of Creditors Transcript for purposes of the Summary Judgment Motion, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Debtor made a false representation to BancorpSouth or committed actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves that the debtor obtained property through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Lepre v. Milton (In re Milton) · filed 2019-02-04(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Mr. Lepre failed to meet his burden to establish nondischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

A § 523(a)(2)(A) claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material facts about the agreement and the debt remain disputed.

Takuski v. Kurtz · filed 2019-03-29(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts certain debts from discharge in bankruptcy, including debts for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact. The Takuskis’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an overpaid maintenance debt from discharge without proof that the debtor obtained the payments through false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Graham v. Graham (In re Graham) · filed 2019-05-09(a)(2)(A)

That said, for a debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), there has to be more. There has to be "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud." There is just no evidence that Debtor was acting fraudulently.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to allege facts supporting false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Pool v. WINSTEAD · filed 2019-09-24(a)(2)(A)

Moreover, the Complaint does not mention any of the elements or facts that support a finding of actual fraud—the only prong under § 523(a)(2)(A) that does not require a false representation or statement. Creditor’s claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) should be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s fraudulent transfer scheme constitutes actual fraud or false pretenses induce a creditor to advance financing.

Suparo International Inc. v. Kedia · filed 2019-10-03(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, Suparo has proven that the debt owed it should be excepted from the Debtor’s discharge on two independent and alternative bases—‘actual fraud” and “false pretenses”—pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A complaint seeking to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses or fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) must allege specific omissions or misrepresentations by the debtor.

Sosalski, Jr. v. Melasecca, Jr. · filed 2019-11-14(a)(2)(A)

Construing the Complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, it does not meet the minimum pleading requirements to state a claim under §523(a)(2)(A). It is deficient of specific allegations regarding an omission, implied misrepresentation, or fraudulent misrepresentation by the Debtor Defendant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves it was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Kohn v. Merchant · filed 2020-04-02(a)(2)(A)

The Court holds that § 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar Debtor’s discharge of his debt to Charles A. Kohn and K & S Designs.

A claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) can survive judgment on the pleadings when the complaint plausibly alleges that the debt arose from false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud.

Gilbert v. Johnson · filed 2020-04-15(a)(2)(A)

Here, the Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim to relief under section 523(a)(2)(A) that is plausible on its face.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to allege false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; a breach of contract alone does not suffice without an intent not to perform when the contract was made.

Tanner v. Adetayo · filed 2020-05-05(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds, even in the best possible light, the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because the debtor failed to pay money owed under a contract; the creditor must prove false representation or actual fraud.

Eisenberg v. Swain · filed 2020-07-30(a)(2)(A)

Mr. Eisenberg’s bald assertion that Ms. Swain “actively concealed and converted” his property comes nowhere close to establishing either false representation or actual fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through knowing false representations or actual fraud.

Louisiana Workforce Commission v. Gray, Jr. · filed 2020-08-10(a)(2)(A)

Based on the undisputed facts, the Court concludes that LWC has proved the debt is nondischargeable under both the false pretenses/false representations prong and actual fraud prong of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove only one of false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud to establish that a debt is nondischargeable.

Mills v. Seawright · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)(A)

The word “or” has significance; the creditor need only prove one of the options within § 523(a)(2)(A) to render the debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains property or credit by false pretenses.

Regal Jewelry and Gift Shop LLC v. Wildenstein · filed 2021-03-24(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that Wildenstein obtained the Jewelry (and induced Regal to extend credit) by false pretenses, and that the debt that Wildenstein owes to Regal arising out of her acquisition of the Jewelry from Regal is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through a false promise made with intent to deceive the creditor.

Kim v. Yoon · filed 2021-05-12(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, as established above, the Court concludes that $167,500 of the $190,000 claimed debt is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from actual fraud from discharge without requiring a false representation.

Econocare, Inc. v. Spyropoulos · filed 2021-07-19(a)(2)(A)

But as the above-cited cases explain, a fraudulent representation is not necessary for “actual fraud” under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a claim arising from false pretenses from discharge.

MidFirst Bank, a federally chartered savings assoc v. Rodriguez, Jr. · filed 2021-07-21(a)(2)(A)

The Court views the totality of the facts and circumstances as a classic case of false pretenses, justifying application of Section 523(a)(2)(A) to except MidFirst’s claim from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt caused by a debtor’s intentional fraudulent representation, including silence about a material fact the debtor had a duty to disclose.

SIFA, Inc. v. Mir · filed 2021-03-19(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Mir has violated 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and that SIFA has proved the required elements for such a finding.29 Specifically, that Mir made representations by failure to disclose30 to SIFA the existence of Ryan Auto Glass and the diversion of SIFA’s clients, cash, supplies, inventory and labor to it while in its employ, and that Mir knew he should have disclosed these fact to SIFA and he failed to do so, and that his silence was intentional and made for the purpose of deceiving SIFA. That his silence intentionally perpetuated a falsehood. That he was silent with the intent to deceive SIFA that he was actively managing and taking actions in their best interest, when he was not. Additionally, that SIFA sustained loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from fraudulent misrepresentation, false pretenses, or nondisclosure from discharge.

Schindler v. Milliron · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(A)

But having carefully considered the evidence relevant to the specific contracts and the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that the damages suffered by Schindlers on the gravel, house, and electrical contracts resulted from fraudulent misrepresentation, false pretenses, or nondisclosure such that portions of the debt owed to the Schindlers should not be discharged under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debtor’s silence to count as a false representation, but silence alone does not establish every element needed to except a debt from discharge.

United States of America (SSA) v. McClelland · filed 2021-10-01(a)(2)(A)

Debtor’s silence alone does not establish all the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not bar discharge when the creditor fails to prove that the debtor obtained the debt through fraudulent means.

South Louisiana Bank v. Hebert, Jr. · filed 2021-11-09(a)(2)(A)

Having considered the testimony and evidence presented, and strictly construing the discharge exception against the Bank, the Court finds that the 2018 Loan is dischargeable as it was not obtained by the Heberts through fraudulent means.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false pretenses or actual fraud from discharge; whether the debtor intended to deceive can present a factual dispute that precludes summary judgment.

Bojkovic, M.D. v. Kutsomarkos · filed 2021-11-29(a)(2)(A)

This statute is phrased in the disjunctive; the Court finds false pretenses and actual fraud apply in this case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt for breach of contract from discharge when the creditor fails to prove fraudulent intent.

Paulsen v. Westerby · filed 2021-12-22(a)(2)(A)

The debt the defendant owes to the plaintiff on account of the confessed judgment for breach of contract is not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentations from discharge when the creditor justifiably relies and suffers a loss.

Kryszczuk v. Lingerfelt · filed 2022-01-20(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge those debts obtained through “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” ... Thus, the Complaint establishes that the entry of default judgment declaring the debt owed by Debtor to Plaintiffs nondischargeable is appropriate.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a contractor obtains payment by falsely implying that he has the ability to perform the work.

Blake v. Wolfe · filed 2022-06-02(a)(2)(A)

A false pretense as to the expertise or qualification to perform a contract can constitute a false pretense for purposes of Section 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor's § 523(a)(2)(A) complaint must allege the elements of a fraud claim to obtain a ruling that a marital debt is nondischargeable.

Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2023-08-10(a)(2)(A)

Because she has not made allegations that would satisfy several elements of a claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the Motion Objecting to Dischargeability must be denied without prejudice in its current form.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraud to except an overpayment debt from discharge; proof that the debtor received benefits he was not entitled to is insufficient.

United States v. McClelland · filed 2023-09-14(a)(2)(A)

The SSA must not simply prove that McClelland obtained benefits he was not entitled to, but that he did so fraudulently.

The creditor's unsuccessful § 523(a)(2)(A) claim did not except the debt for legal services from discharge.

Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP v. Kuper · filed 2023-10-17(a)(2)(A)

For all of the foregoing reasons, BNM’s objections under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(4) to the grant of a discharge to the Kupers will be overruled and BNM’s request for a determination of nondischargeability of the BNM Debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) will be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debt for money, property, services, or credit obtained through fraud; a false statement that yields none of those things does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Behm v. McGill · filed 2023-10-30(a)(2)(A)

But even if McGill lied to Rebecca Behm about his receipt and cashing of this check—that is, McGill did not simply misspeak—nothing in the trial evidence suggests that he obtained money, property, services, or credit from the Behms as a result of this statement, thereby incurring a non-dischargeable debt under §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires proof of elements including reliance, false pretenses, and intent to except a debt from discharge.

In Re. White · filed 2024-02-14(a)(2)

As to White’s assertion that the Bankruptcy Judge erred in finding that White had failed to prove various elements of his nondischargeability claims—e.g., reliance on any misrepresentations by Davidson, false pretenses, the requisite intent—the record reasonably supports the Bankruptcy Judge’s determinations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that a debt was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Arnold Joseph Kelly, Jr. and Camille Lynn Breitkreutz · filed 2024-01-30(a)(2)(A)

Because McShannon did not establish the existence of the debt and did not meet his burden of proof under § 523(a)(2)(A), judgment is entered in favor of the defendant on plaintiff’s complaint, and the debtors’ objection to claim is granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a claimed fraud debt from discharge when the creditor fails to establish the debt or meet the burden of proof.

McShannon v. Kelly, Jr. · filed 2024-01-30(a)(2)(A)

Because McShannon did not establish the existence of the debt and did not meet his burden of proof under § 523(a)(2)(A), judgment is entered in favor of the defendant on plaintiff’s complaint, and the debtors’ objection to claim is granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for false pretenses or a false representation to prove that the debtor knew the representation was false and intended to deceive the creditor.

Anderson v. Tatum · filed 2024-04-08(a)(2)(A)

In both cases, a determination of nondischargeability is dependent upon the court finding both that the debtor knew of the falsity of the misrepresentation when made and that the debtor made the misrepresentation with the intent to deceive the creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor knowingly uses omissions or implied misrepresentations to induce a creditor to advance funds under false pretenses.

Mercer v. Lee · filed 2024-03-25(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that Mercer has satisfied his burden with respect to the false pretenses cause of action under § 523(a)(2)(A) by showing that Ira knowingly and willingly made omissions or implied misrepresentations which created a contrived and misleading understanding of the actual cost of goods and services provided to Mercer and ESB, and this was done to induce Mercer to continue to advance funds.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that a debt exists and that it is for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Pampa Beverages, LLC d/b/a Transnational Supply v. Hussing · filed 2024-05-28(a)(2)(A)

For its debt to be excepted from discharge, Pampa therefore had to prove, by preponderance of the evidence, first that Mr. Hussing is liable to it for the common law tort of breach of fiduciary duty, and ... second that this liability is a debt for money to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s silence about an inactive contractor license as a fraudulent omission when the debtor has a duty to disclose it.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2025-01-07(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Defendant had a duty to disclose the material fact that his license was inactive, and his silence constituted a fraudulent omission under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a claim to proceed when a creditor plausibly alleges that a debtor induced payment for work the debtor never intended to perform.

Robb v. Gividen · filed 2025-01-23(a)(2)(A)

On review, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have set forth a plausible claim under Section 523(a)(2)(A) based on their allegations that the Debtor made representations on which they relied in paying him certain funds to complete a renovation project that he did not intend to perform.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor to except a debt based on false representations from discharge.

Gardiner v. Curtis · filed 2025-01-27(a)(2)(A)

In short, because the Gardiners failed to establish the Curtises withdrew loan funds with the intent to misuse them, the Bankruptcy Court appropriately rejected their § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

A fraudulent omission can support nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) because an omission is not a statement respecting financial condition.

In re: Michael Adrian Manion · filed 2025-03-19(a)(2)(A)

Debtor’s interpretation of the word “statement” as inclusive of “omissions” runs contrary to the plain meaning of both terms. Consequently, the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that Debtor’s omission did not qualify as a statement under § 523(a)(2)(A).