11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a promise of future performance as fraud only if the debtor intended not to perform when making it.

Erik Duvall d/b/a Duvall Construction v. Schacherer · filed 2025-07-11(a)(2)(A)

Because both representations are promises to perform in the future, Defendant must have made those promises with no intent to follow through at the time he made them. Plaintiff has not carried his burden to show that this was the case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor proves false representation, scienter, reliance, and harm by a preponderance of the evidence.

Star Auto Sales of Queens, LLC v. Filardo · filed 2025-08-04(a)(2)(A)

The elements of false representations, the Debtor’s scienter, reliance by the Plaintiff on the representations and harm are all established by a preponderance of the evidence in this case. Therefore, the debt incurred in connection with the first cause of action is non-dischargeable under the fraud exception pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains services with a check she intends to have dishonored.

All Star Collision, LLC v. Scott · filed 2025-09-04(a)(2)(A)

Because All Star has established that the Debtor engaged in actual fraud by paying for repairs with a check that she intended to be dishonored, its claim is excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for a failed contractual promise unless the creditor proves a knowingly false representation and intent to deceive.

Bauer v. Hayes · filed 2025-09-22(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the court holds that the Bauers have failed to carry their burden to prove that the Hayeses made a false statement or false promise with respect to the initial deposit regarding GHGC’s ability and intent to perform, or that they did so with knowledge of the falsity or intent to deceive. Therefore, the Bauers have failed to establish their claim for fraud to hold the Hayeses liable for the initial deposit of $190,500 or except that debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

A debt obtained by actual fraud is nondischargeable, and fraudulent intent may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.

Cameo v. Amazon.com Services LLC · filed 2025-09-29(a)(2)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) provides that a debt obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud” is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. ... Amazon established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the totality of circumstances supports an inference of actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor’s fraud based nondischargeability claim to proceed when the alleged facts plausibly support that the debt arose through fraud.

Abbott v. Svensson · filed 2025-09-30(a)(2)(A)

For the same reasons previously discussed under the §727(a)(4)(A) portion of this decision, there are sufficient factual allegations, if true, to support a plausible finding that the Plaintiffs’ debt is nondischargable. Therefore, the Defendant’s request to dismiss this cause of action is denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a debtor promised to pay for services and failed to do so.

Law Office of Brandon A. Rotbart, P.A. v. Seraphin · filed 2025-10-01(a)(2)(A)

Count I alleges only that Ms. Seraphin promised to pay for legal services and failed to do so. These allegations plead a claim for breach of contract. They do not, however, suffice to state a claim – and certainly not with the specificity required by Rule 9(b) – that the debt is one for money, property, or services to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when it results from false pretenses or false representations on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Robles · filed 2025-10-15(a)(2)(A)

Because the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Tubbs made false pretenses and false representations to Plaintiffs, the Court need not determine if Mr. Tubbs committed actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a guaranty debt from discharge as actual fraud without evidence that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor when giving the guaranty.

SCGV Dexter Ridge, LLC v. Harris · filed 2025-11-04(a)(2)(A)

Without more, the Court cannot conclude that the Defendants intended to deceive SCGV when they agreed to guarantee the obligations of Cordova Catfish under the amended Lease.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove false pretenses or actual fraud by a preponderance of the evidence to except a debt from discharge.

Hudson · filed 2025-11-19(a)(2)(A)

Based on the record, including the witnesses’ testimony at trial and the exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants obtained money or property from either Mr. Perkins or his estate through false pretenses or actual fraud.

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

Denise M. Hay · filed 2026-01-08(a)(2)(A)

The Commonwealth has not proven that its claim for restitution is excepted from discharge under §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a creditor to seek an exception to discharge for false pretenses or actual fraud, and disputes over the debtor’s conduct and intent can preclude summary judgment.

Navarrete · filed 2026-04-09(a)(2)(A)

However, the evidence that Creditor may present at trial may not focus on misrepresentation at all, but may instead be based on asserted false pretenses or “deceit, artifice, trick or design” by Debtor. ... Summary judgment is not appropriate at this time. Genuine issues of material fact, including without limitation Debtor’s actions and intent, exist.

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

Schwalb · filed 2026-06-02(a)(2)(A)

When taken as true, the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint state a plausible claim for false pretenses, false representation, or actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts for money obtained through false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud.

Carroll v. Jadallah · filed 2019-02-11(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge any debts for money, property, or services to the extent they are obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when it arises from the debtor’s active and knowing participation in a fraudulent transfer scheme.

In re: Laura A. Valente · filed 2023-05-05(a)(2)(A)

Valente’s active and knowing participation in the scheme on behalf of both companies established her debt and that her liability arose from actual fraud for purposes of excepting it from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from actual fraud from discharge even if the debtor made no false statement.

McNally v. Stallman (In re Stallman) · filed 2018-08-08(a)(2)(A)

Addressing Ms. Stallman's arguments in the order presented, contrary to her contention, establishing a fraud debt under § 523(a)(2) does not require a misrepresentation, as the court noted above and during oral argument.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging actual fraud to prove deceptive conduct, the debtor’s knowledge and intent to deceive, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.

Shults v. Faulkiner (In re Faulkiner) · filed 2018-11-19(a)(2)(A)

In this circuit, a claim for actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove: "(1) misrepresentation, fraudulent omission or deceptive conduct by the debtor; (2) knowledge of the falsity or deceptiveness of his statement or conduct; (3) an intent to deceive; (4) justifiable reliance by the creditor on the debtor's statement or conduct; and (5) damage to the creditor proximately caused by its reliance on the debtor's statement or conduct."

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through actual fraud nondischargeable when the debtor knowingly participates in the fraud.

Berman v. Leary (In re Leary) · filed 2019-04-12(a)(2)(A)

The collateral estoppel effect of the Amended Findings, the undisputed record of the Defendant's participation in furthering the fraud, and the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Husky v. Ritz , establish that the Stipulated Judgment debt was obtained by "actual fraud," and thus is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains it through intentional deception or trickery amounting to actual fraud.

Guardian Alarm Services, Inc. v. Rossman · filed 2019-07-24(a)(2)(A)

Rossman’s deliberate actions accomplished by deception and trickery satisfy the ‘fraud’ component of “actual fraud” under Husky.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a debtor obtains funding through actual fraud, including a false statement of intended use on which the creditor justifiably relies.

Donghee Choi - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-12-20(a)(2)(A)

The court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing actual fraud, rendering the Debt nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats fraudulent representations about future performance as actual fraud for discharge purposes in the Fifth Circuit.

Trans Global Auto Logistics, Inc. v. Davidson · filed 2020-01-22(a)(2)(A)

Because the representations allegedly used by the Defendant to induce the execution of the contract by the Plaintiff pertained to his future performance, the Plaintiff’s nondischargeability action is properly characterized as one based upon actual fraud in this Circuit.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when it is traceable to a fraudulent transfer that the debtor received with fraudulent intent.

Robert Laslie Jones, III · filed 2020-01-24(a)(2)(A)

The debts owed by Defendants to Wheeler as a result of the District Court Judgment are nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts from discharge when a prior judgment establishes that the debtor received fraudulent transfers with the requisite fraudulent intent.

Wheeler Bros., Inc v. Jones · filed 2020-01-24(a)(2)(A)

In applying those findings of actual fraud to these nondischargeability proceedings, Wheeler has likewise met its burden that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Defendants’ requisite fraudulent intent such that the debts owed by Defendants to Wheeler as a result of the District Court Judgment are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraudulent transfer judgment debt from discharge when the debtor accepted the transfers with intent to defraud the creditor.

Lavenia A. Jones · filed 2020-01-24(a)(2)(A)

In applying those findings of actual fraud to these nondischargeability proceedings, Wheeler has likewise met its burden that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact regarding Defendants’ requisite fraudulent intent such that the debts owed by Defendants to Wheeler as a result of the District Court Judgment are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from a fraudulent conveyance scheme from discharge only after the creditor establishes that the debtor personally owes the debt.

Dynomite Marketing, LLC v. Dowd · filed 2020-04-17(a)(2)(A)

Husky does not provide a basis for a personal claim against Dowd, but only holds that an established personal claim could be found nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) if it arose as a result of a fraudulent conveyance scheme.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s actual fraud created the debt.

Park Street Apartments, LLLP v. Harvey · filed 2020-07-10(a)(2)(A)

All elements under the “actual fraud” prong of section 523(a)(2)(A) are met.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor’s conduct satisfies the elements of actual fraud.

M S International, Inc. v. Shah · filed 2020-07-23(a)(2)(A)

The elements of actual fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied according to McClellan standards by the fraud and deceit finding.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from actual fraud, including the unauthorized taking of an employer’s information and trade secrets for personal benefit.

Ankit Shah · filed 2020-07-27(a)(2)(A)

Based on their fraudulent and deceitful conduct, this court finds that the Defendants committed actual fraud, under section 523(a)(2)(A), based on Judge Selna’s factual findings, for taking their former employer’s information and trade secrets without permission to benefit themselves and Century Marble and Granite, The Defendants are barred from relitigating the facts as found in the district court case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from actual fraud, including the fraudulent taking of an employer’s information and trade secrets for personal benefit.

M S International, Inc. v. Patel · filed 2020-07-27(a)(2)(A)

Based on their fraudulent and deceitful conduct, this court finds that the Defendants committed actual fraud, under section 523(a)(2)(A), based on Judge Selna’s factual findings, for taking their former employer’s information and trade secrets without permission to benefit themselves and Century Marble and Granite, The Defendants are barred from relitigating the facts as found in the district court case.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from actual fraud from discharge; collateral estoppel can establish the underlying facts through a prior federal judgment.

Pramod Patel · filed 2020-07-27(a)(2)(A)

Judge Selna’s description of MSI’s claims and his liability rulings establish that the Defendants’ debts are not dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from actual fraud, including the fraudulent taking of an employer’s information and trade secrets.

M S International, Inc. v. Shah · filed 2020-10-13(a)(2)(A)

Based on their fraudulent and deceitful conduct, this court finds that the Defendants committed actual fraud, under section 523(a)(2)(A), based on Judge Selna’s factual findings, for taking their former employer’s information and trade secrets without permission to benefit themselves and Century Marble and Granite.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from a fraudulent transfer scheme from discharge without proof of the traditional elements of a misrepresentation claim.

Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Wigley · filed 2020-09-25(a)(2)(A)

The traditional elements of a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) clearly do not apply to a claim arising out of a fraudulent transfer scheme, and the Husky court did not expressly identify the elements of such a claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an earlier debt from discharge merely because the debtor later fraudulently transfers property and the creditor obtains a judicial lien securing that debt.

Alliance Coal, LLC v. Savage · filed 2021-01-14(a)(2)(A)

Because a judgment lien is distinct from a debt, the court concludes that there is no debt for money obtained by actual fraud; nor did a debt arise from actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt obtained through an intentional fraudulent conveyance scheme, even without a false representation.

Cottrell v. Cottrell, Jr. · filed 2021-01-21(a)(2)(A)

This Court then applied the undisputed factual findings—including that the Defendant fraudulently conveyed the real properties to prevent the Plaintiff from obtaining an interest in them in a future dissolution action—to the controlling law of what constitutes “actual fraud” under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts traceable to a fraudulent conveyance from discharge when the transferee received it with the requisite wrongful intent.

Bonnett v. Moirbia Scottsdale, LLC · filed 2021-08-04(a)(2)(A)

A transferee who receives a fraudulent conveyance with the requisite wrongful intent also commits actual fraud, and any debts traceable to the fraudulent conveyance will be nondischargeable. ... Moirbia has established nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require proof of reliance when an actual fraud claim is not based on a debtor’s misrepresentation.

T. Levy Associates, Inc. v. Kaplan · filed 2021-08-30(a)(2)(A)

As discussed at length above, where the actual fraud forming the basis of a §523(a)(2)(A) claim is not premised on a misrepresentation by a debtor, the creditor does not need to prove reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to prove reliance when an actual fraud claim is not based on a debtor’s misrepresentation.

Michael Kaplan and Nina Kaplan · filed 2021-08-30(a)(2)(A)

As discussed at length above, where the actual fraud forming the basis of a §523(a)(2)(A) claim is not premised on a misrepresentation by a debtor, the creditor does not need to prove reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt for money obtained through actual fraud; an issue-preclusive default judgment can establish that fraud.

Patel v. MS International, Inc. · filed 2021-09-24(a)(2)(A)

As a result, the bankruptcy court did not err in granting MSI summary judgment on the issue of dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt resulting from actual fraud or fraudulent transfers, even when the fraud occurs after the original loan.

Parke Bank v. Kern · filed 2021-09-07(a)(2)(A)

As Mr. Kern has not set forth a genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment as a matter of law, the court finds that the debtor committed actual fraud and fraudulent transfers such that the resulting debt will be deemed nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts traceable to a fraudulent transfer from discharge when the recipient accepted the transfer with wrongful intent.

Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Wigley · filed 2021-10-18(a)(2)(A)

A transferee who receives a fraudulent transfer with the requisite wrongful intent commits “actual fraud,” and any debts traceable to the fraudulent transfer are excepted from discharge. See Husky, 136 S. Ct. at 1586.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts for money obtained through actual fraud from discharge even when the fraud involved no misrepresentation or creditor reliance.

Maine Circuit Breaker, Inc. v. Burnham · filed 2021-12-23(a)(2)(A)

By engaging in the B3 scheme, Burnham and Giacomuzzi committed actual fraud within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A). This form of fraud does not necessarily require a misrepresentation or reliance by the affected creditor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor’s fraudulent conveyance scheme constitutes actual fraud.

Lawrence v. Frost Bank · filed 2022-01-12(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Lawrence intended to defraud Frost by perpetuating a fraudulent conveyance scheme and that Lawrence committed actual fraud actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The circumstances present a picture of deceptive conduct by which Lawrence was diverting assets out of Frost’s reach. Lawrence’s debt was accordingly nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) includes transfers made with intent to evade creditors within actual fraud.

Martin v. Hunter · filed 2022-01-14(a)(2)(A)

For purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), “actual fraud” includes transfers made with an intent to evade creditors.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes the compensatory part of a debt arising from actual fraud nondischargeable.

Hertz Electric, LLC v. Benge · filed 2022-12-28(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes it clear that the compensatory component of a debt arising from actual fraud is nondischargeable.

When a debtor’s liability is direct rather than vicarious, § 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor committed actual fraud to except the debt from discharge.

The Commercial Bank v. Colquitt · filed 2023-03-02(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, Plaintiff had to prove that this debt was incurred by actual fraud committed by Defendant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt for actual fraud from discharge when findings of intentional conversion, wrongful taking, deceit, and misrepresentation establish the fraud.

Dennis v. McDaniel · filed 2023-09-29(a)(2)(A)

Combining the state court’s findings of conversion, wrongful taking and appropriation, and deceit and misrepresentation, I find that the state court made sufficient findings to meet the requirements of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent for the actual fraud exception; receiving fraudulent transfers alone is insufficient.

Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. v. Tyndall · filed 2024-03-06(a)(2)(A)

Thus, a mere receipt of funds or value via fraudulent transfers does not equate with “actual fraud;” the additional element of requisite intent or scienter must also be alleged and shown.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt obtained by actual fraud from discharge when the creditor justifiably relied on the debtor’s deception and suffered a loss.

Krommes v. Hobbs · filed 2024-12-12(a)(2)(A)

For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that Judgment should be entered in the Plaintiffs’ favor confirming that the debt owed to the Plaintiffs by the Debtors is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 US.C. § 1328(c)(2) and 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A contractually authorized purchase did not constitute actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A), despite the creditor’s reliance on the fraudulent-transfer rule in Husky.

In Re: W. Wesley Drummon · filed 2025-05-07(a)(2)(A)

The City’s argument stretches the Husky expansion of the term “actual fraud” in section 523(a) beyond its logical limits. The Husky Court clearly held that its expansion of actual fraud was meant to include the specific conduct at issue in Husky, which was “a transfer scheme designed to hinder the collection of debt.” Id. at 360. The City’s assertion that although “Husky was a fraudulent transfer case, the Supreme Court’s holding was not limited to such cases” is incorrect. Appellant Br. at 26. Moreover, as the Bankruptcy Court noted, even if Husky is read broadly, there is no evidence in this case that establishes fraud. Bankr. Op. 1 at 42. Zemurray’s transfer of funds to TN BIDCO to purchase it were authorized by the terms of the poorly drafted MOU and Escrow Agreement. Id. at 43. Although the poor drafting of those agreements led to unfortunate results for the City, that does not convert Drummon’s conduct into fraud. This Court concurs with the Bankruptcy Court that the City “entered into a poorly planned arrangement with an imprecisely worded contract followed by a bungling execution in which Zemurray spent all of the funds to purchase TN BIDCO.” Id. Although all of that is unfortunate for the City, it does not constitute fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a debt arising from actual fraud to be excepted from discharge without a specific misrepresentation by the debtor.

Murena · filed 2026-03-13(a)(2)(A)

However, a creditor, such as Receiver, may plead and prove that a debtor is guilty of “actual fraud” that will cause a resulting debt to be excepted from discharge without specifying any misrepresentation by the debtor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a fraud based nondischargeability claim to proceed when allegations of fictitious insurance sales plausibly show fraud, wrongful intent, and resulting loss.

Rovero-Arriaga · filed 2026-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Thus, Plaintiffs’ complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to support a plausible claim under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A)'s actual fraud exception requires intent to circumvent or deceive, even without a false representation.

Sibbet v. Presutti (In re Presutti) · filed 2015-10-09(a)(2)(A)

In those cases that subscribe to an expansive view of Section 523(a)(2)(A), the courts require proof of an intent to circumvent or deceive a party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts arising from actual fraud, including fraudulent transfers, from discharge.

Damian v. Fossum · filed 2021-10-12(a)(2)(A)

But even if Plaintiff were considered an entity whose causes of action arose before the discharge, exceptions to discharge exist for actual fraud as alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 523(a)(6) requires willful and malicious injury by the debtor; vicarious liability alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Nigam v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2018-08-09(a)(6)

While courts have excepted debts from discharge under the theory of vicarious liability in proceedings under other subsections of § 523(a), this Court’s research reveals no scenario where a debtor was held vicariously liable, resulting in denial of discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(6), and sees no reason to deviate from the prevailing view.

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt from discharge based solely on another person’s injurious act when the debtor neither participated in nor knew of that act.

Shaw v. Osborne · filed 2019-08-13(a)(6)

As a result, the writing of the improper prescription by Sanders cannot support a § 523(a)(6) claim, even if it were established that Sanders acted as the Debtor’s agent.

Section 523(a)(6) requires willful injury by the debtor; vicarious liability for another person’s acts alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Kronk v. Anthony · filed 2020-01-08(a)(6)

Thus, to the extent that Kronk hangs his claim on a theory of vicarious liability or agency, such an attempt is unavailing under the plain terms of the statute.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debtor’s liability for another person’s fraud from discharge when state law establishes a partnership or agency relationship.

Auction Credit Enterprises, LLC v. Desouza · filed 2024-04-23(a)(2)(A)

This Court therefore understands Bartenwerfer to require the Court to find some form of partnership or agency under state law in order to hold Defendant responsible for the nondischargeable fraud of another under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make one spouse responsible for the other's fraud based on marriage alone; vicarious liability requires an agency or partnership relationship under state law.

White v. Salcedo · filed 2025-09-09(a)(2)(A)

In the absence of any of these required elements, or if under state law no partnership or agency relationship exists, then under Bartenwerfer a debtor is not responsible under section 523(a)(2)(A) for the actual fraud, false representations, or false pretenses of another. Under Texas law, marriage alone is not sufficient to support a finding of agency or partnership as required.

When a creditor claims that fraud induced it to forbear collection, it must prove that it had valuable collection remedies that lost value because of the fraud.

Fu v. City National Bank · filed 2018-08-16(a)(2)(B)

To the extent CNB claims that the Fus’ debt is non-dischargeable because the Fus fraudulently obtained an extension or renewal of credit, thereby causing CNB’s forbearance with respect to its collection remedies, CNB was required to prove that it possessed valuable collection remedies that lost value as a result of the fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a forbearance agreement to qualify as an extension or refinancing of credit, but requires proof of fraud to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Chen v. Phat · filed 2021-01-21(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the Court joins its sister courts in holding that a forbearance agreement may constitute an extension or refinancing of credit for purposes of § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge liability arising from a debtor's fraudulent acquisition of money, including related losses beyond the money the debtor received.

Okla. Heritage Bank v. Ward (In re Ward) · filed 2018-08-20(a)(2)(A)

In this case, Ward obtained risk-based compensation bonuses through fraudulent loan practices that also caused the Bank other financial losses. These losses fall within the Supreme Court's pronouncement that any liability arising from the debtor's fraudulent acquisition of money is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from fraud from discharge even when the debt’s amount has not yet been determined.

Lowery v. Iftiu · filed 2019-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court finds that the undetermined debt Defendant-Debtor owes Plaintiffs in relation to the Niles frozen yogurt store transaction is nondischargeable under §523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) do not except an existing judgment debt from discharge based solely on later fraud or willful and malicious conduct that did not give rise to the debt.

FROST BANK v. Rivera · filed 2020-07-16(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

There is no question that – notwithstanding the allegations of fraud post-judgment – the Judgment itself was not for a debt obtained by fraud. ... Where the injury alleged did not give rise to the debt at issue, however, section 523(a)(6) does not render the debt non-dischargeable.45 And again, here, the injuries alleged all occurred after the debt was incurred. Accordingly, Dr. Rivera’s alleged actions taken to thwart collection – even if willful and malicious – do not render the Judgment non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) do not except a preexisting contract debt from discharge merely because the debtor later fraudulently transfers assets to hinder collection.

SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Gaddy · filed 2020-09-29(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

SEPH presents no binding authority that supports its assertion that a debtor’s fraudulent conveyance of assets in an attempt to avoid collection of a preexisting debt renders that preexisting debt exempt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The Water’s Edge debt—incurred long before Gaddy’s conveyances of assets—was not “for willful and malicious injury” to SEPH or its property, and SEPH’s § 523(a)(6) claim that its Water’s Edge judgment is exempt from discharge fails as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the fraud or misrepresentation to occur before the debtor obtains the money.

Great Northern Insurance Company v. Collins · filed 2020-10-06(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debt from discharge “to the extent obtained by” fraud or misrepresentation. The ALE advance could not have been obtained by any misrepresentations the Collinses made after GNIC had already advanced the funds.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from actual fraud, including fees owed under a receivership agreement the debtor entered without intending to comply.

Mandel v. White Nile Software · filed 2021-08-17(a)(2)(A)

Thus, finding Orenstein’s and MSM’s claims arose from actual fraud, the bankruptcy court concluded that Mandel should be denied discharge, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), regarding these debts. The district court agreed. ... On this record, we find no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s determinations of Mandel’s intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a fraud debt from discharge even when the debtor did not directly receive the proceeds.

Glencove Holdings, LLC v. Bloom · filed 2021-12-02(a)(2)(A)

This Court follows the Eleventh Circuit’s lead and concludes that § 523(a)(2)(A) bars the discharge of the Debtor’s debt to Glencove even though the Debtor did not directly receive the fruits of his fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from a debtor’s fraud from discharge.

Khalil v. El Rafaei · filed 2022-07-22(a)(2)(A)

Having reviewed the record in this case and having heard the evidence and arguments of counsel, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will enter judgment for the Plaintiff on Counts Two, Four, Five, and Six, for a total award of $172,800, including reasonable attorneys fees which shall be determined at a later date, all of which shall be excepted from the debtor’s discharge as the judgment is a debt arising from the Debtor’s fraud against the Plaintiff under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers liability arising from fraud, including a right to repayment under a settlement allegedly induced by fraud.

PIRTEK USA, LLC v. Lager · filed 2022-08-11(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim, as set forth in the Complaint, falls within the extremely broad definition of “debt” under § 523(a)(2)(A) as a liability arising from Mr. Lager’s alleged fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes all liability arising from a debtor’s fraud nondischargeable.

Potts-Schlimme v. Zamani-Zadeh · filed 2023-05-11(a)(2)(A)

Once the bankruptcy court determines that a debtor has defrauded a creditor within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A), the court must declare nondischargeable all liability “arising from” the fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) prevents discharge of all liability arising from fraud, even when the debtor received only part of the money.

Boyko v. Barizon · filed 2025-03-18(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, Boyko’s contention that his liability is limited to amounts received from debtors or received from Citores is plainly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. See Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 215 (1998) (“§ 523(a)(2)(A) prevents the discharge of all liability arising from ... fraud. . . .”) (emphasis added).

A fraud claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) can proceed when later diversion of funds supports an inference that the debtor never intended to pay when the debt arose.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Hardin, III · filed 2023-03-30(a)(2)(A)

If proven, such facts could support a finding of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A). At this stage, the Court is not prepared to find that the Complaint fails to state a claim that the debt arose from fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits intent to deceive to be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including reckless disregard for the truth of a representation.

Martin v. Melendez (In re Melendez) · filed 2018-08-27(a)(2)(A)

Furthermore, even if the Debtor had established that he did not read the Disclosure Statement before signing it, his reckless indifference to its truth establishes intent to deceive sufficient to support a finding that the Judgment is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive for a claim based on affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.

Sturgeon-Garcia v. Cagno · filed 2018-10-18(a)(2)(A)

To prevail on his § 523(a)(2)(A) claim—whether based on affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment—Sturgeon- Garcia was required to show “an intent to deceive.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove the debtor’s intent to deceive by a preponderance of the evidence.

Schneider v. Jagar · filed 2018-11-14(a)(2)(A)

Instead, the bankruptcy court correctly determined that, for Schneider to prevail on his Section 523(a)(2)(A) claim, he must demonstrate, among other things, an intent on Jagar’s part to deceive Schneider, under a preponderance of the evidence standard.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove reliance on a materially false written statement of financial condition and the debtor’s intent to deceive.

Casamatta v. Dunlop · filed 2019-06-05(a)(2)(B)

In this case, the evidence does not establish either reliance or intent. Deposition testimony from the bank’s president indicates the bank accepted the financial statements merely as a formality before extending the maturity dates on some of the loans, so the bank cannot claim that it relied on the financial statements to approve a loan.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires intent to deceive, which may be shown by reckless misrepresentations assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances; intent to harm is unnecessary.

United States v. Larson · filed 2020-02-03(a)(2)(A)

While it may not have been Stewart's intent to harm the DeWitts by not completing their project, the right question is whether he intended to deceive them, through recklessly made misrepresentations, in light of the totality of the circumstances.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the debtor’s intent to deceive; a genuine dispute about that intent prevents summary judgment on dischargeability.

Molz v. Price · filed 2020-03-27(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons discussed, the Court finds that a triable issue of fact remains as to the Debtor’s intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires evidence of the debtor’s representations and intent to deceive before a debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud.

Muldoon v. Walker · filed 2020-05-18(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the debt cannot be excepted from discharge until this court has evidence of what representations Ms. Walker made to Mr. Muldoon and what her intent was in making those representations. Mr. Muldoon’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive or induce reliance; recklessness alone does not establish that intent.

Shaw v. Osborne · filed 2020-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Intent to deceive or induce reliance remains a separate element.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove the debtor intended to deceive the creditor before a debt can be excepted from discharge for fraud.

Harper v. Mosley · filed 2021-05-26(a)(2)(A)

Because Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant intended to deceive him, he has failed to meet all the elements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff's debt will not be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of subjective intent for a claim based on false representation or actual fraud.

State of Connecticut, Department of Labor v. Mendez-Rodriguez · filed 2021-06-24(a)(2)(A)

The Court, in considering whether this claim could be determined on a motion for summary judgment on the present record, notes that in order to succeed on a cause of action alleging either false representation or actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Plaintiff must prove subjective intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require proof of intent to deceive to except a fraud-based debt from discharge.

Criswell Chevrolet, Inc. v. Prifti · filed 2021-08-16(a)(2)

Accordingly, Criswell has not established its non-dischargeability claim under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires more than a false statement to except a debt from discharge; the creditor must prove the debtor intended to deceive.

Mohammed v. Garcia · filed 2021-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Although the statement on the website was untrue, for several reasons I conclude that the misstatement does not rise to the level of an intentional misrepresentation required under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that a written statement about financial condition was made or published with intent to deceive.

Brad H. Friedlander - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2021-08-27(a)(2)(B)(iv)

Regardless of whether Kapitus has established the other elements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B), Kapitus has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any written statement was “made or published with intent to deceive” under § 523(a)(2)(B)(iv).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a debt arising from false representations made with intent to deceive.

Don Karl Juravin and April Goodwin - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-10-27(a)(2)(A)

Defendant advertised his Products as one thing, while knowing they did not work as promoted. Defendant intentionally tricked customers into buying his Products through consistent and repeated misrepresentations. The Court finds Juravin intended to deceive customers of the Roca Entities. Thus, the Judgment is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require a creditor to prove the debtor’s intent to deceive by a preponderance of the evidence.

Buterick Bulkheading, Inc. v. Sachkowsky · filed 2021-10-15(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B)

Buterick has not demonstrated the intent necessary to succeed under either § 523(a)(2)(A) or § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt for false representation to prove the debtor’s knowledge and intent to deceive, the creditor’s justifiable reliance, and a resulting loss.

Crooms v. Pasco · filed 2021-11-10(a)(2)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a debt obtained by “false pretenses, a false statement, or actual fraud” is excepted from discharge. ... Plaintiffs have established that Debtor made false representations, that they relied on these representations, and that their loss was caused by these representations. It follows then, that there remains no genuine issue of material fact on those elements and Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on them. However, they have failed to show that Debtor knew her representations about the property’s lack of encumbrances was false when she made them and that she intended to deceive Plaintiffs. Debtor never admitted to knowledge or intent and there is no clear evidence of any. Therefore, there is still a genuine issue of material fact on these two elements and Plaintiffs cannot be granted summary judgment on knowledge and intent.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)’s intent to deceive requirement can be satisfied when a debtor knowingly or recklessly omits a material liability from a written financial statement.

McClave State Bank v. Stum · filed 2021-12-01(a)(2)(B)

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires that the debtor make the false statement at issue “with intent to deceive.” ... All these findings are supported by the record and support the conclusion that Mr. Stum either intended to deceive McClave State Bank or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of the debtor’s intent to deceive; a failed investment alone does not establish fraud.

The Estates of Robert Moss and Brenda Moss by Dana v. Dorand · filed 2022-07-06(a)(2)(A)

While this project turned out to be a terrible situation for all involved – as with many real estate investors in the 2007-2009 timeframe – the court does not find that any action by the debtor rises to the level of fraud required to sustain a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof of intent to deceive before a debt obtained through a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition can be excepted from discharge.

Elliott v. Piazza, III · filed 2022-11-04(a)(2)(B)

Importantly, success on a § 523(a)(2)(B) claim requires a showing of intent to deceive.

The jury’s alternative knowledge findings established the intent to deceive element under § 523(a)(2)(A).

United States of America v. Saavedra · filed 2022-11-10(a)(2)(A)

Any one of these alternative findings is sufficient to prove an intent to deceive under § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff therefore is entitled to summary judgment on that element of § 523(a)(2)(A).

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

Sheri J. Palmer Revocable Trust v. Stephens · filed 2022-12-12(a)(2)(A)

While each of the bases for excepting a debt from discharge under section § 523(a)(2)(A) are distinct, each requires proof of the debtor’s intent to deceive at the time the money is obtained.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when the debtor obtains services through a false representation made with gross recklessness as to its truth.

Maersk A/S trading as Maersk Line and Safmarine v. Razzaq · filed 2023-01-06(a)(2)(A)

Because gross recklessness meets the intent requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and the Debtor warranted to the contents of the containers relying solely on information he received from a third party, the Debtor acted with gross recklessness and is not entitled to discharge his debt to Maersk.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a subjective determination of the debtor’s intent to deceive, which may preclude summary judgment when material facts are disputed.

Thor v. Moore · filed 2023-04-27(a)(2)(A)

Further, Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a subjective determination of Defendant’s intent at the relevant times, which is not appropriate for summary judgment based upon this record.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof of intent to deceive; the court assessed that intent by asking whether the debtor intended to repay the debt when he incurred it.

Elliott v. Piazza · filed 2023-11-02(a)(2)(B)

Thus, the relevant analysis in determining non-dischargeability under §523(a)(2)(B) is whether Appellee had the subjective intent when the debt was incurred to repay the obligation.

A creditor must prove the debtor intended to deceive to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Vincent A. Piazza, III v. · filed 2024-12-04(a)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court did not clearly err in finding that Elliott failed to prove “that Piazza intended to deceive her at any point while Piazza and his wife were authorized users on her [c]ards,” and therefore “failed to establish that the [s]tate [c]ourt [j]udgments are exempted from Piazza’s Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).” In re Piazza, 645 B.R. at 732.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof that the debtor intended to deceive the creditor; a knowing omission and justifiable reliance alone are insufficient.

Ramirez v. Knight · filed 2025-09-23(a)(2)(A)

Ramirez did not, however, present sufficient evidence that Knight intended to deceive Ramirez, which is a requirement for a debt to be declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2) requires a fraud complaint to plead facts supporting fraudulent misrepresentation and intent to deceive.

Segobiano · filed 2026-01-15(a)(2)

Here, Count I lacks any factual allegations regarding fraudulent misrepresentation and intent to deceive and therefore must be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the creditor to prove a false or fraudulent representation made knowingly, with reckless disregard, or with actual intent to deceive.

Bilodeau · filed 2026-05-29(a)(2)(A)

With respect to both causes of action, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a false or fraudulent representation was made knowingly, with reckless disregard, or with an actual intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debt to arise from value the debtor obtained through fraud; a repayment agreement that gives the debtor nothing of value does not satisfy that requirement.

Alicia Marie Gallo - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-06-06(a)(2)(A)

The first sub-part of the first element Builders’ General must prove is that the debt at issue arose from money, property, or services obtained by Alicia Gallo. ... From the evidence that was adduced at trial, Builders’ General has not established that anything of value was “obtained by” Alicia Gallo as a result of entering into the Settlement Agreement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a contractual debt from discharge merely because fraudulent transfers occurred; the debt itself must have been obtained by fraud.

Roof Technology Partners, LLC v. Queen, Jr. · filed 2023-03-29(a)(2)(A)

They fail because, based on the Plaintiff’s own allegations, there is simply no obligation of the Debtors (other than the Debt on the Contract evidenced by the Judgment) that the Plaintiff can point to that was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. Instead, like the plaintiff in Gaddy, the Plaintiff here holds only a judgment based on contractual obligations. The existence of fraudulent transfers in and around the time the incurrence of the contractual debt does not change its nature or create a separate debt that could be nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt attributable to fraud from discharge, but each portion of a judgment may be assessed to determine whether it arose from fraud.

Superior Cleaning Serv., LLC v. Munoz (In re Munoz) · filed 2018-09-05(a)(2)(A)

In other words, if the debt is attributable to fraud, then it is entirely nondischargeable-there is no requirement on the creditor to prove the amount of the debt that it could recover as damages if it were bringing a suit for fraud directly.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by fraud from discharge, but a creditor must obtain a bankruptcy court declaratory judgment determining nondischargeability.

Estate Of Doris Mathews · filed 2019-10-15(a)(2)(A)

Under section 523(a), determinations of nondischargeability must be obtained through declaratory judgment, and are the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. ... Although Spice alleges fraud, which is an exception to discharge, he does not show he received a declaratory judgment from the bankruptcy court determining nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when fraud induced the creditor to enter the transaction that created it.

Weaver v. Hartman · filed 2019-09-27(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2) excepts from discharge certain categories of actual fraud that, prior to the bankruptcy case, produce, induce, or cause the specific debt at issue held by the plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a preexisting debt from discharge when a debtor later transfers his own property without obtaining property or incurring a debt through the transfer.

The Piedmont Bank v. Wisner · filed 2019-10-18(a)(2)(A)

Defendant did not incur any debt through the transfers made after Plaintiff obtained its judgment and thus, Plaintiff’s Husky claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) fail as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to first prove that the debtor owes the creditor a debt.

Aeschliman v. Vraney · filed 2020-03-31(a)(2)(A)

To obtain a determination of nondischargeability under this section the creditor must first prove that the debtor owes him a debt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a fraud debt from discharge unless the debtor obtained something of value.

John E. Williams Jr., as of the Estate of v. Jackson · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)(A)

Frauds that do not involve the receipt of value by the debtor, even if the creditor suffers a financial harm, are not within the scope of this discharge exception.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a contract debt from discharge based on the debtor’s later efforts to hinder collection of that debt.

MKL Enterprises, LLC v. Hill · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(A)

However, while such conduct was essentially an attempt to hinder Drimaxx’s collection efforts, it does not render the breach of contract debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a causal link between a debt and money, property, or services obtained by fraud; a judgment for violating FTC regulations does not qualify merely because fraudulent conduct may underlie the violations.

Federal Trade Commission v. Lake · filed 2022-02-22(a)(2)(A)

The lack of correspondence between the requirements for proving up a violation of the MARS Substantial Assistance Rule and/or the TSR Substantial Assistance Rule on one hand and an exception to discharge for a debt described in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) on the other hand means that the FTC cannot validly contend that the FTC Judgment is a debt “for” money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt arising from fraud nondischargeable.

Pastorek, M.D. v. Mijares · filed 2022-06-01(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth in greater detail below, the Court finds that the Plaintiff holds a valid claim against the Defendant for fraud and that such claim is nondischargeable, but for many of the expenses that the Plaintiff identified as the source of damages, the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence to find that they were improper and harmed the Plaintiff.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except an existing debt from discharge merely because the debtor later transfers assets fraudulently to avoid paying it; the debt must be obtained by the fraud.

Chowdary v. Ozcelebi · filed 2022-06-28(a)(2)(A)

The subsequent fraudulent transfers did not give rise to the debt, it was already incurred.

A debt involving a fraudulent conveyance must be traceable to that conveyance to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

In re: Cottrell · filed 2022-09-16(a)(2)(A)

For the debt to be nondischargeable, it must be “traceable” to the fraudulent conveyance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt arising from an intentionally fraudulent transfer even if the underlying debt is dischargeable.

The Danberry Co., Realtors v. Nadeau · filed 2022-09-28(a)(2)(A)

The fraudulent transfer can give rise to a debt that can be distinct from the predicate debt (here, the Judgment), and a finding that the predicate debt is dischargeable does not mean that the debt arising from the fraudulent transfer is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a debt to meet the fraud exception’s requirements; liability under a statute that uses the word fraud is not enough by itself.

Defot-Sido v. Carr · filed 2022-11-28(a)(2)

Contrary to Ms. Defot-Sido’s argument, a statute’s use of the word fraud or fraudulent does not per se render liability arising under that statute nondischargeable for fraud under the Bankruptcy Code. The debt at issue must still meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show that the harm it alleges directly resulted from the debtor’s fraud.

In Re Autism Intervention Specialists LLC · filed 2023-09-19(a)(2)(A)

In sum, in order to succeed, AIS must show that the harm it alleges “directly” resulted from Mr. Aoude’s fraud.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor fails to prove false representations, false pretenses, or actual fraud.

Lee v. Choi · filed 2025-02-04(a)(2)(A)

In summary, based on the scant evidence presented, the court ultimately concludes that the debt owed to Plaintiff does not fit under false representations, false pretenses, or actual fraud so as to be deemed nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge a contractual premium for anticipated profits when the debt arises from fraud, even if the debtor never received the premium.

WILEY v. OLSON · filed 2025-03-28(a)(2)(A)

For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and the portion of the default judgment attributable to the premium payment is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud that induced the transfer of property; later bad checks did not establish that the property was obtained by fraud.

Momma Tried Sports Cards, LLC v. Leibold · filed 2025-03-31(a)(2)(A)

The timeline reflects that property was delivered first, and the bad checks and breaches of the Agreement happened thereafter. Plaintiff’s Complaint (which is not Summary Judgment evidence) does not make it clear that any property was delivered in reliance on the tendered “bad checks”. While it may be that Defendant had an intent to defraud from the inception of the Agreement, there is no evidence of that intent that would support the granting of Summary Judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires the debtor to have obtained money, property, services, or credit through fraud; a damages judgment does not qualify when the debtor received nothing from the creditor.

Skyline Air Ops, Inc. v. Conkle · filed 2025-05-28(a)(2)(A)

The State Court Judgment may have resulted from Conkle’s wrongful filing of the Mechanic’s Lien, but the debt is not a debt for money, property, services, or credit obtained by Conkle from Skyline, as he received nothing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) treats a settlement agreement that extends the time to pay a debt as an extension of credit.

BTS Trucking Leasing, Inc. v. Burant · filed 2019-05-21(a)(2)(A)

The settlement agreement at issue in this case constitutes an “extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except an existing debt from discharge when fraud induces a creditor to extend the time for payment.

SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart · filed 2022-08-03(a)(2)(A)

Stewart ignores the express language of § 523(a)(2) which makes it applicable not only to fraud by which the debtor “obtains” money or services or by which a “debt arises” but also to fraud connected to the “obtaining” of “an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit.”

A creditor cannot obtain summary judgment that an educational credit extension is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(8) when material facts concerning the credit extension remain disputed.

Trinity High Sch., Inc. v. Sanderfer · filed 2024-05-24(a)(8)

Contrary to Trinity’s arguments in its appeal brief, genuine issues of material fact clearly exist with respect to the factors set forth by the Sixth Circuit in In re Merchant. This is so regardless of the form of the alleged agreement. Because the Debtor was the non-moving party, the material facts in dispute must be construed in her favor, resulting in the denial of Trinity’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not automatically except a later loan from discharge merely because an earlier related loan was obtained with a false financial statement.

Rund · filed 2026-01-16(a)(2)(B)

A subsequent related loan is not automatically deemed non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(B) merely because an earlier loan was determined to be nondischargeable due to a false financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor's false representations to except a debt from discharge.

Postovit v. Bolling (In re Bolling) · filed 2019-05-29(a)(2)(A)

Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court finds that Mr. Postovit's reliance as to Ms. Bolling was not justified.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor relying on an alleged fraudulent promise to prove the amount owed for services provided in reliance on that promise.

Rodriguez Remodeling, LLC v. Moradi · filed 2019-07-11(a)(2)(A)

In order to prevail on a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim premised on this event, then, the Plaintiff must establish the amount owed for services provided in reliance upon that particular event.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for a false representation to show justifiable reliance on that representation.

Yogurt Treats Niles, LLC v. Iftiu · filed 2019-09-30(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the court finds that the third §523(a)(2)(A) element is met here.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires reliance for fraud based on misrepresentation, so a prior judgment that does not establish reliance has only partial preclusive effect.

T. Levy Associates, Inc. v. Kaplan · filed 2019-10-04(a)(2)(A)

But because reliance is required for fraud under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2)(A) the evidentiary value of the prepetition RICO judgment has only partial preclusive effect.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt for credit obtained through intentional misrepresentation nondischargeable when the creditor justifiably relies on it.

Tobias v. Alvarado · filed 2019-11-27(a)(2)(A)

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Tobias has sustained her burden of establishing that in part her prepetition extension of credit to Alvarado in the amount of $132,000.00 constitutes a non-dischargeable debt for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on misrepresentation must prove a false representation and justifiable reliance.

Curbow v. Conley · filed 2020-02-05(a)(2)(A)

These undisputed facts prevent Plaintiff from meeting his burden under § 523(a)(2)(A) so that summary judgment must be granted in favor of Defendant.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a creditor relies on a debtor’s misrepresentation to continue making payments after entering a contract.

Dewitt v. Stewart · filed 2020-02-03(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred by applying a standard of reliance that overlooked the role those statements may have had in continuing to string along the DeWitts.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not allow a creditor to establish reliance by attributing a banker’s hearing and apparent reliance on a debtor’s representations to the creditor.

Shrewsbury v. Williams · filed 2020-03-03(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiffs appear to believe that such hearing and apparent reliance by the strawman can be shifted to Plaintiffs as a basis for excepting a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).1 This Court disagrees.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to show actual and reasonable reliance on a false written statement.

Webster Business Credit Corporation v. Smith · filed 2020-03-30(a)(2)(B)

Under § 523(a)(2)(B), Webster must show that it actually relied on Smith’s false statements and that its reliance was reasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) permits a creditor to rely on a debtor’s materially false written financial statement without further investigation when nothing alerts the creditor to the misstatements.

Busey Bank v. Cosman · filed 2020-04-22(a)(2)(B)

For all these reasons, the court finds that the Bank has established its reasonable reliance on the Debtor’s false financial statements and met its burden to show its debt should be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) require findings on intent and creditor reliance; factual disputes over those elements preclude summary judgment.

F&M Bank v. Frost · filed 2020-07-06(a)(2)

Neither party focused their arguments on § 523(a)(2)(B) (a materially false statement in writing regarding the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition), but as that subsection also requires findings of intent and reliance, the same deficiencies exist. Because these questions of fact remain, summary judgment is not warranted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s fraud; a creditor’s failure to investigate does not necessarily defeat that reliance.

Wickam v. Ivar · filed 2020-07-23(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires only justifiable (rather than reasonable) reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming false pretenses or false representation to show justifiable reliance on the debtor’s statement.

Brush v. Franco · filed 2020-08-03(a)(2)(A)

Thus, under the false pretenses and false representations prongs of § 523(a)(2), the Complaint fails to establish that Saira Brush justifiably relied upon Defendant’s false statements in agreeing to advance the funds.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s misrepresentation to except a debt from discharge.

F&M Bank v. Frost · filed 2020-11-18(a)(2)(A)

Absent some evidence that the bank required such documentation, the Court cannot find that the bank justifiably relied on boilerplate representations in its loan documents as to lien priority, particularly when the bank was adamant about the need to pay off the prior loan and its reliance upon the specific property listing.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge to prove justifiable reliance on the debtor’s representation.

Excellent Home Properties, Inc v. Kinard · filed 2021-05-21(a)(2)(A)

Excellent Home, in submitting the full-credit bid, did not justifiably rely on Kinard’s misrepresentations, so its claim is not excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a debtor’s misrepresentation; a creditor’s sophistication does not alone defeat that reliance.

Huezo v. Joey Ball · filed 2021-08-10(a)(2)(A)

While Huezo argues that Ball was a sophisticated investor who should have seen through Huezo’s misrepresentations, we agree with the BAP that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Ball’s reliance on these statements was justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor claiming false representation to establish justifiable reliance on the debtor’s statement.

Squeeze, LLC v. Biricik · filed 2021-09-16(a)(2)(A)

From the gist of the story laid out in the Motion, the Court perceives that Plaintiffs intend to assert the “false representation” prong of § 523(a)(2)(A). With this assumption in mind, the lack of undisputed facts regarding Plaintiffs’ justifiable reliance upon Cemhan’s allegedly false statements provides yet another stumbling block to summary judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to show justifiable reliance on a debtor’s false representation.

ABLP REIT, LLC v. Cox · filed 2022-01-21(a)(2)(A)

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires not only that the creditor rely on the false representation but that the reliance is justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor’s reliance on an alleged misrepresentation to be justifiable in light of the creditor’s knowledge and circumstances.

Keese v. The Barbknecht Firm, PC · filed 2022-03-30(a)(2)(A)

The Bankruptcy Court correctly denied Barbknecht’s Section 523(a)(2)(A) claim. ... Considering Barbknecht’s “individual characteristics, abilities, and appreciation of facts and circumstances at or before the time of the alleged fraud,” the firm’s alleged reliance was not justifiable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains payment through a false representation made with intent to deceive, the creditor justifiably relies on it, and the creditor suffers a loss.

Barber v. Taylor · filed 2022-03-31(a)(2)(A)

In sum, the Court finds Plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant made a false representation with intent to deceive Plaintiffs; that Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the false representation by Defendant; and Plaintiffs sustained a loss as a result of the false representation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown that the debt to Plaintiffs incurred by Defendant in the amount of $3,400 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for fraud to prove intentional misrepresentation and justifiable reliance.

Vokshori Law Group v. Villa · filed 2022-04-07(a)(2)(A)

The burden of proof is on VLG here to establish non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), including justifiable reliance. ... The court is not convinced that VLG has met its burden of proof as to at least two of the elements of its claim: intentional misrepresentation and justifiable reliance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance and proof of nondischargeable damages; without them, summary judgment on nondischargeability must be denied.

Schoenmann v. Schoenmann · filed 2022-11-28(a)(2)(A)

Nevertheless, given the lack of facts in the Tentative Decision that could establish the element of justifiable reliance, and the absence of proof of any nondischargeable damages (discussed, infra), the court must deny summary judgment as to subsection (a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), whether a creditor’s reliance was justified depends on the creditor’s own knowledge and experience.

Pfeil v. Yablonowski · filed 2022-12-07(a)(2)(A)

It was not error for the bankruptcy court to conclude that under these circumstances, a person with Pfeil’s knowledge and experience was not justified in relying solely on Yablonowski’s representations in investing $1.7 million in Ultrawatt.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)’s justifiable-reliance element can be established through issue preclusion when a prior judgment necessarily found reasonable reliance.

In Re Dennis Edward Lake · filed 2022-12-12(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, in deciding that Lake should be jointly and severally liable for the full $2,349,885 in ill-gotten gains, the Court necessarily decided that consumers reasonably relied on Lake’s misrepresentations. Since reasonable reliance is a higher standard than justifiable reliance, the Court necessarily decided that consumers justifiably relied on Lake’s misrepresentations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to investigate a debtor’s factual representations to establish justifiable reliance.

In Re: Vance Johnson v. Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC · filed 2023-11-16(a)(2)(A)

To prove justifiable reliance, a creditor need not investigate a debtor’s factual representations.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a creditor to investigate a debtor’s representations to establish justifiable reliance.

Guinn v. Cdr Investments, LLC · filed 2024-04-05(a)(2)(A)

But the Ruthes’ general failure to conduct due diligence is not a barrier to their justifiable reliance on the details provided in the solicitation call, some of which were affected by Guinn’s omissions.