11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of justifiable reliance when the alleged fraud is based on a false representation.

Grange Insurance Association v. Reson Woods · filed 2024-07-11(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, because the fraud is premised on false representations, to establish a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), Grange must prove it justifiably relied on the fabricated documentation in making payment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a fraudulent representation; a single unexplained red flag does not necessarily create a duty to investigate.

First Recovery, LLC v. Sanders · filed 2024-08-06(a)(2)(A)

In turn, the absence of such duty rendered creditors’ actions justifiable. The court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the justifiable reliance standard under § 523(a)(2)(A) was met.

Section 523(a)(2)(A)'s justifiable reliance requirement does not impose a duty of active investigation on the creditor.

Howard v. Ray Hodge & Associates, LLC · filed 2025-03-11(a)(2)(A)

Finally, we reject Howard’s argument that the bankruptcy court clearly erred by finding that RHA justifiably relied on his misrepresentations. Contrary to Howard’s contention, the justifiable reliance requirement “does not impose a duty of active investigation on a plaintiff.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a false representation; repeated unpaid loans can make reliance on later repayment promises unjustified.

Rhodes · filed 2025-10-27(a)(2)(A)

Thus, without additional evidence creating a justification for Rhodes to believe White’s promise to pay, she did not justifiably rely on White’s misrepresentations that he would repay her for the remaining loans. ... The money White obtained from those loans are not subject to §523(a)(2)(A). Those debts are discharged.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor alleging a false representation to prove justifiable reliance; concerns found during a preclosing inspection can leave reliance disputed.

Zappacosta · filed 2026-05-07(a)(2)(A)

Given that Plaintiffs conducted a home inspection of the Cambridge Property between receiving the Seller’s Disclosure and closing on the sale, and furthermore, given Plaintiffs’ admission in the State Court Complaint that “major concerns” were raised by the home inspection in specific regard to the condition of the roof, there remains in this case a genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Defendant’s false representations in the Seller’s Disclosure, or whether Plaintiffs relied on the statements in the Seller’s Disclosure at all.

A creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2) must plead actual reliance that was justifiable under (A) or reasonable under (B).

Harley · filed 2026-06-12(a)(2)

Plaintiff does not plead, with the particularity required by Rule 9(b), that it actually relied on the alleged misstatements in making or continuing to provide housing benefits, nor does it plead facts showing that any such reliance was justifiable under § 523(a)(2)(A) or reasonable under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance on a fraudulent misrepresentation; reasonable reliance is not required.

Capp Equities, LLC v. Christine (In Re Christine) · filed 2010-06-14(a)(2)(A)

The United States Supreme Court, however, has held that the proper measure of reliance — when a portion of a debtor’s discharge is in question — is not an objective or “reasonable” standard, but a less demanding “justifiable” reliance standard.

Substandard work alone does not establish fraud sufficient to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Cox v. Diederich · filed 2023-04-17(a)(2)(A)

Although there is evidence of substandard work and performance, the evidence does not rise to the level required to except a debt from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge merely because a contractor who accepted advance payment later failed to perform; the payment must have been obtained by fraud.

Dylan Andrew McCurdy - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-05-31(a)(2)(A)

On the contrary, if advance payment is made to a debtor who is willing and able to perform, later nonperformance, while constituting a breach of the contract, will not warrant a determination of nondischargeability. This distinction gives effect to the statutory condition that under section 523(a)(2)(A) a debt may be excepted from discharge only to the extent obtained by fraud.

Section 523(a)(8) neither automatically includes nor excludes religious and charitable donations when assessing undue hardship; courts assess whether those expenses are reasonable in context.

In Re: Rafael Lozada · filed 2019-06-12(a)(8)

Because the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that Congress has mandated neither inclusion nor exclusion of charitable and religious donations from the scope of the § 523(a)(8) analysis, and that Lozada’s expenses were unreasonable, was not required to list them in its evaluation of the Brunner factors.

Section 523 does not except a debt for poor workmanship from discharge without a false or reckless statement under (a)(2)(A) or willful and malicious injury under (a)(6).

Lincicome v. Anthony Roofing, LLC · filed 2019-07-16(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

To be excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiff had to demonstrate that Defendant obtained his payment for the roof on the basis of a false or reckless statement and she did not. ... In order for the debt to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), Plaintiff had to show that Defendant willfully and maliciously intended the damage that resulted to her property. The record does not support such a finding.

Section 523(a)(11) excepts a debt from discharge only when the debtor’s fiduciary fraud or defalcation concerns a depository institution or insured credit union.

Sawyer v. Thompson · filed 2019-08-01(a)(11)

This provision should not be read to mean that any settlement agreement or final judgment entered by a court is excepted from discharge. ... Instead, the Debtor must have committed the fraud or defalcation “while acting in a fiduciary capacity committed with respect to any depository institution or insured credit union.”

Under the 1995 version of § 523(a)(8)(A), a student loan was dischargeable after more than seven years in repayment, excluding applicable suspensions; the loan’s terms and deferments determine when repayment began.

Biegler v. Educational Credit Management Group · filed 2019-09-24(a)(8)(A)

Plaintiff has failed to identify any error in the bankruptcy court’s determination that Appellant’s Stafford Loans entered repayment on February 28, 1988 and were not dischargeable in her 1995 bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(9) excepts a personal injury debt from discharge when the debtor’s operation of a vessel was unlawful because of intoxication, which the creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

Mullen v. Olson, III · filed 2019-10-08(a)(9)

Based on the evidence presented at trial and the admitted exhibits, the Court concludes that Ms. Mullen has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Olson was intoxicated as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9).

Section 523 excepts only enumerated kinds of debt from discharge; an unpaid plan obligation does not qualify merely because the debtor failed to pay it.

Milosavljevic v. Curtis · filed 2019-10-14

But even if the Order wrongfully discharged the plan, Curtis’s debt is not of a kind enumerated by 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 523 does not except a claim for workers’ compensation benefits from discharge in bankruptcy.

Willis, Earl v. Express Towing · filed 2020-06-18

A claim for workers’ compensation benefits is not an exception to discharge in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 523 (2017).

Section 523(a) governs the dischargeability of debts, including disputed and unliquidated debts, rather than judgments.

Byrnes v. Byrnes · filed 2021-05-27(a)

Finally, § 523(a) deals with the dischargeability of debts, not judgments.

Section 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) permit a creditor to seek an exception from discharge for a debt established in a prior action.

Oil States Industries, Inc v. Nambakam · filed 2021-08-25(a)(4), (a)(6)

Oil States now seeks to have the debt excepted from Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (6), relying on issue preclusion to support its request for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, Oil States’ Amended Motion is granted.

Section 523 excepts debts arising from fraud, fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and willful and malicious injury from discharge when the applicable requirements are met.

Options Unlimited, Inc. v. McCann · filed 2021-08-31(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), (a)(6)

For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiff is entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the debt owed to it by the Defendant is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(1)(A) excepts certain tax debts from discharge, allowing collection from the debtor’s personal assets.

Kreisler v. Comm'r · filed 2011-01-25(a)(1)(A)

A discharge in bankruptcy absolves the debtor of all personal liability. 11 U.S.C. sec. 524(a) (2006). However, it does not discharge tax debts that arose 3 years before bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(A) (2006), 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a)(8) (2006).

A judgment determining that a debt is nondischargeable under § 523 does not expire or need renewal; the underlying money judgment may still require renewal.

Densley v. Dyches · filed 2019-12-13

The portion that determines the dischargeability of the debt never needs to be renewed since it does not expire.

Section 523(a) makes this PACA trust judgment non-dischargeable.

CF Fresh, LLC v. Carioto Produce, Inc. · filed 2021-09-10(a)

ORDERED that the Judgment is non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover oral statements about a debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. Polk · filed 2019-12-19(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, because all of Debtor’s oral representations on the phone calls were “respecting” the Debtor’s or AgForest’s financial condition, they may not be challenged under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a debtor’s failure to report changed financial information, as promised in a written application, as a statement respecting financial condition.

In re: Blake McHaro and India Rose McHaro · filed 2020-01-09(a)(2)(A)

We emphasize that our holding is limited: where the debtor has made a written application that includes financial information and promises to report any changes in that information, the debtor’s failure to make such a report is not a “statement respecting . . . financial condition.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover false statements respecting a debtor’s financial condition.

First Nebraska Bank v. Balfour · filed 2020-01-24(a)(2)(A)

As to the Balfours’ allegedly false representations, sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) are mutually exclusive.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not cover oral representations about a debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition; such representations must be in writing to support a claim under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. Polk · filed 2020-02-13(a)(2)(A)

Accordingly, because all of Debtor’s oral representations on the phone calls were “respecting” the Debtor’s or AgForest’s financial condition, they may not be challenged under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition; a contract promising services does not qualify unless it relates to the debtor’s overall financial status.

Garnett v. Harvey · filed 2020-03-13(a)(2)(B)

While the Able contract promises specific performance of installing solar panels, it does not provide a direct relation to or effect on Harvey’s overall financial status. The signed contract between Garnett and Able does not meet the third element of section 523(a)(2)(B) as a written statement respecting Harvey’s financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove every element of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence before a debt is excepted from discharge.

GCAP Holdings LLC v. Shawver · filed 2020-03-23(a)(2)(B)

The Creditor failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that each and every element of § 523(a)(2)(B) was met. Therefore, the Court FINDS the Debt not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a loan debt from discharge when the debtor obtains the loan through a materially false written statement about financial condition, intends to deceive, and the creditor reasonably relies on it.

Pliura v. Brady · filed 2020-03-31(a)(2)(B)

The Pliuras met their burden of proof on all issues of their cause of action under §523(a)(2)(B). The Debtor obtained a $1 million loan from them using a written statement that contained false representations about his financial condition. The Debtor intended to deceive the Pliuras with his false statements and knew that the information that was the substance of his false statements was material to the loan transaction and to the Pliuras. The Pliuras reasonably relied on the Debtor’s false statements. For these reasons, the entirety of the Debtor’s obligations pursuant to the $1 million Note signed on October 29, 2010, will be excepted from his discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on an oral statement about a debtor’s or insider’s financial condition.

Brad H. Friedlander - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-06-25(a)(2)(A)

Oral statements respecting the financial condition of a debtor or an insider are not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a fraud claim based on allegedly falsified bank records and a cashier’s check that provide no insight into the debtor’s actual financial condition.

Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, LLC v. Barnett, Jr. · filed 2020-08-25(a)(2)(A)

Because the bank accounts, bank statements, and cashier’s check were allegedly falsified and presented to fraudulently obtain a mortgage on the Property, they provide no insight into the actual financial condition of Barnett.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not prevent discharge based on an oral statement about the debtor’s financial condition, including the profitability of a business the debtor owns.

In the Matter of: Steven Cyr · filed 2020-12-15(a)(2)(A)

Because Dr. Cyr’s statement about OSI’s profitability was an oral statement respecting his financial condition, the statement does not prevent Dr. Cyr’s debt from being discharged under this section.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) governs written profit and loss statements about an insider’s financial condition.

Feldy Boys, LLC v. Polasky · filed 2021-02-17(a)(2)(B)

Because the statements that form the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint relate to Identity’s financial condition, the Court must analyze the nondischargeability of the debt under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers fraudulent omissions because an omission is not a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

In re: Nancy Ann Howell · filed 2021-04-09(a)(2)(A)

However, this Panel has held that fraudulent omissions are not “statements” within the meaning of the statute. Thus, her argument lacks merit.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a false statement about the debtor's income to be in writing to support an exception to discharge.

Kessler v. Longmire · filed 2021-05-03(a)(2)(B)

Nor is it clear that any such oral statements would have any legal significance, since allegedly false statements about one's income are statements about financial condition, and must be in writing to be actionable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can except a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through materially false written statements about salary and employment history that a creditor reasonably relies on.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Adesanya · filed 2021-07-14(a)(2)(B)

Therefore, all elements of a section § 523(a)(2)(B) claim are satisfied and the portion of the Judgment attributable to fraud on Afoluso’s employment application and resume is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when a debtor obtains money through an intentionally deceptive, materially false written statement about financial condition on which the creditor reasonably relies.

Douglas County Department of Human Services v. Rioux · filed 2021-08-02(a)(2)(B)

Defendant obtained money by use of a materially false written statement. Thus, the Court finds DHS was damaged by the fraud in extending food stamp benefits to Defendant in the amount of $6,248 and Medicaid benefits in the amount of $273.10.

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

Diaz-Saavedra v. Pearson · filed 2021-10-28(a)(2)(B)

Specifically, to establish a non-dischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(B), Plaintiff must show that the judgment debt resulted from: (1) a materially false written statement; (2) respecting Debtors’ financial condition; (3) made by Debtors with an intent to deceive; (4) on which Plaintiff reasonably relied.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on false statements about a debtor’s overall financial condition.

Liberty Bail Bond Agency v. Rankin · filed 2022-12-16(a)(2)(A)

Even if all of the foregoing statements by Debtor were materially false, they are all statements related to her overall financial condition and, thus, not actionable as a matter of law under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove that the debtor used a materially false written statement about financial condition with intent to deceive.

SLK Capital, LLC v. Beach · filed 2023-04-03(a)(2)(B)

Even though the Court finds that the written representations to SLK were material and plaintiff’s reliance on them was reasonable, the Court finds that debtor Brian Beach did not falsely represent $160,000 in funds given to him by his mother and stepfather as paid-in capital/equity and not a personal loan. In addition, the Court does not find Brian Beach intended, in 2015 and 2016, to deceive SLK into loaning him money, despite his thought that he might voluntarily repay those monies to his mother if he sold the restaurant. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the debt owed by debtor Brian Beach to SLK Capital, LLC, totaling $220,948.18, is not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) does not cover a written statement about amounts owed on a running account without a connection to the debtor’s overall financial condition or ability to pay.

Liberty Wellness Services, LLC v. Dunwoody Labs, Inc. · filed 2023-08-10(a)(2)(B)

The fact that one email allegedly contained a false statement of amounts owed between the parties on a running account does not, on its face, implicate Dunwoody Labs’ overall financial condition or ability to pay, and neither the Second Amended Complaint nor the Plaintiffs’ brief explain the connection.

A creditor that establishes all elements of § 523(a)(2)(B) can obtain a ruling that the debt is nondischargeable.

SMGB, LLC v. Cross · filed 2023-08-25(a)(2)(B)

For this reason the Court does not find Defendant’s argument availing, but instead finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden with respect to all elements of its section 523(a)(2)(B) claim for nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a written misrepresentation about the debtor’s financial condition; reliance on an oral or inferred statement does not suffice.

1st Rate Construction and Drain Wizard Inc v. Gorkin · filed 2024-04-17(a)(2)(B)

Regardless, absent a writing, 1st Rate cannot succeed under § 523(a)(2)(B) as a matter of law, even if it reasonably relied on an oral or inferred material misrepresentation by Ms. Gorkin.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts a debt from discharge when the debtor obtains it through a materially false written statement about financial condition, made with intent to deceive, on which the creditor reasonably relies.

Farm Credit Services of America, PCA v. Woodrum · filed 2025-02-24(a)(2)(B)

Because the January 2018 loan was obtained using written statements regarding the Debtor’s financial condition that the Debtor caused to be made and Farm Credit reasonably relied upon in making the loan, the debt from the January 2018 loan will be excepted from the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a statement about a debtor’s or insider’s financial condition to be in writing for the resulting debt to be nondischargeable.

Badalov · filed 2026-03-27(a)(2)

Under the scheme created by § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), a debt obtained by an oral statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition is dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3) makes the amounts owed to the tax sale purchaser for taxes, charges, and interest nondischargeable.

McGee v. Ma My Dung · filed 2023-06-07(a)(3)

It is FURTHER ORDERED that all amounts due to Ms. Ma under Mississippi Code § 27-45-27 are NONDISCHARGEABLE under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice to file a claim, but does not apply if the debtor did not know of the claim before the claims bar date.

Matthews, Jr. v. Gamboa · filed 2020-01-09(a)(3)(A)

Simply put, § 523(a)(3)(A) does not apply when the debtor has no knowledge of the claim in time to include it in the schedules before the bar date has run.

Section 523(a)(3) makes an unscheduled debt nondischargeable when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to file a proof of claim or request a dischargeability ruling.

Salt Lake Cable & Harness, Inc. v. Bray · filed 2020-02-07(a)(3)

Because Bray failed to list or schedule his debt to SLCable and because SLCable did not receive notice or have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to timely file a proof of claim and/or request for nondischargeability, SLCable is entitled to a judgment determining that the Civil Judgment debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) preserves a creditor’s ability to seek a nondischargeability determination when the creditor lacked notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely complaint.

In re: Shawne Merriman · filed 2020-07-13(a)(3)(B)

And Mr. Merriman is wrong that the Fattorinis are time-barred from filing a nondischargeability complaint. The deadline for filing a nondischargeability complaint under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) expired on February 11, 2019, but that deadline does not apply to the Fattorinis because they lacked notice of the bankruptcy filing in time to file a timely complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked timely notice and the debt satisfies a listed ground for nondischargeability.

King v. Dennis · filed 2020-07-27(a)(3)(B)

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the amount of the debt excepted from discharge is the amount stated on the Superior Court judgment, plus post-judgment interest at the legal rate under Georgia law from the date of the judgment until the debt is paid in full.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires an omitted creditor to prove lack of timely notice and the merits of a claim under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Washington v. Abreu · filed 2021-02-01(a)(3)(B)

The Court agrees with those courts that have held an omitted creditor must not only prove lack of notice but must also prove the merits of her claim under section 523(a)(2), (4) or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an unlisted debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to seek a dischargeability determination.

LONG v. SARGENT · filed 2021-02-26(a)(3)(B)

This Court notes that the Bankruptcy Court’s decision turns on whether or not Appellant had “notice or actual knowledge” of Appellees’ bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B). ... This finding of fact is fatal to Appellant’s appeal, given the relevant statutory language and caselaw interpreting it. Appellant provided no legal authority to support her apparent position that the failure to list Appellant in the Voluntary Petition should somehow trump the fact that Appellant had actual knowledge of the Complaint.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except a debt from discharge when it was listed and scheduled, even if the debtor placed it on the wrong schedule or mischaracterized it as secured.

Peter M. Venuto · filed 2021-07-02(a)(3)

Accordingly, the Court rules that the debt to AmRhein on account of the rock crushing business and dishonored checks was both “listed” and “scheduled,” and therefore was not excepted from the Debtor’s discharge, under § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely proof of claim.

McCarty v. Perrine · filed 2021-07-30(a)(3)(A)

This section excepts from discharge any debt that was not scheduled in time to permit timely action by the creditor to protect its rights unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not except an omitted debt from discharge when the prepetition debt did not arise from fraud or willful and malicious conduct.

Reinhart FoodService L.L.C. v. Schlundt · filed 2021-08-19(a)(3)(B)

Here, unlike in Papi, a further amendment to state a claim under section 523(a)(3)(B) would be futile because Reinhart held no pre-petition debt obtained via fraud or by virtue of willful and malicious conduct, nor was there a pending state court claim asserting intentional wrongful conduct.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor files a claim in time to share in estate distributions, even after the original claims deadline.

Creative Enterprises HK, Ltd. v. Simmons · filed 2021-08-24(a)(3)(A)

For the reasons stated, the Court finds that § 523(a)(3)(A) should be read in conjunction with § 726(a)(2)(C), and that the determining factor in considering timeliness is whether the proof of claim was filed in time to share in the distribution of assets from the estate.

Section 523(a)(3) does not except an unscheduled debt from discharge when the debtor did not know of the creditor’s claim and could not reasonably ascertain it.

Matthews v. Gamboa · filed 2021-09-21(a)(3)

The focus of § 523(a)(3), however, is not on whether the creditor may assert a claim, but on whether the debt or the creditor is “known to the debtor.”

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge in an asset case when the creditor lacked notice or knowledge in time to file a timely proof of claim, regardless of the estate’s assets or the creditor’s priority.

Grantz v. Fashion Show Mall, LLC · filed 2022-02-10(a)(3)(A)

The statute does not allow courts to make exceptions based on how much the debtor has in assets or on the relative priority of creditors who hold his debts. It strictly applies to asset cases when a debt is not listed and the creditor did not have the notice or knowledge necessary to file a timely proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts a known creditor’s debt from discharge when the creditor lacks notice in time to file a proof of claim.

Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of B v. Ken-Wen Family Limited Partnership · filed 2022-03-09(a)(3)(A)

As such, this debt was not discharged in Brown’s chapter 11 case, pursuant to § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a creditor with an unlisted debt to prove a meritorious nondischargeability claim under §523(a)(2), (4) or (6).

Bernhard v. Kull · filed 2022-02-22(a)(3)(B)

I have considered the competing lines of cases and I conclude that Jones rather than Haga provides the correct interpretation of §523(a)(3)(B): the discharge exception requires the creditor to establish a meritorious nondischargeable claim under §523(a)(2), (4) or (6).

Section 523(a)(3)(B) can except an unscheduled debt from discharge despite a timely proof of claim if the creditor lacked timely notice to seek a dischargeability determination and establishes a debt under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6).

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services v. Sylvester · filed 2022-08-04(a)(3)(B)

Section 523(a)(3)(B) still exists as a basis for a judgment of non-dischargeability to the extent of any claim established under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6), because § 523(a)(3)(B) is phrased conjunctively.

Section 523(a)(3) permits discharge of an unscheduled claim when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Jalbert v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. · filed 2022-07-29(a)(3)

The Court finds that this situation falls squarely under § 523(a)(3) and the Fifth Circuit’s long-standing case law, such as Christopher. Because the Debtors failed to list or schedule the Defendants’ claims, ordinarily they would be exempted from discharge, but because it is undisputed that the Defendants had “actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing” of a proof of claim, their claims are dischargeable under the plain language of the statute.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) permits an unscheduled creditor who lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy to seek a determination that a debt falls under § 523(a)(2) or (a)(6).

Bacquet v. Aleksanyan · filed 2022-08-19(a)(3)(B)

Thus, this Amended Complaint is properly brought under § 523(a)(3(B) to determine if the debt qualifies as a debt arising under § 523(a)(2) and/or § ... 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts the entire debt from discharge when the debtor fails to properly list or schedule it and the creditor lacks notice or actual knowledge in time to file a proof of claim.

In re: Edwin D. Licup and Christine Tracy Castro · filed 2023-02-21(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) is clear that when a debtor fails to properly schedule or list a debt, and the creditor does not have actual notice or knowledge of the case in time to file a proof of claim, the debt is not discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) generally excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge unless the creditor had timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy.

Laura v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-03-27(a)(3)

For example, under subsection 523(a)(3), debts not timely listed in the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules are not discharged unless the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a proof of claim. ... Following the precedent with which it is presented, the Court concludes that the debt had not been discharged at the time Experian reported 1t because Laura never amended her bankruptcy schedules to include Midwest as a creditor.

An omitted claim may remain dischargeable under § 523(a)(3)(A) when the governing equitable factors do not support an exception.

Crest Foods, Inc. v. Buck · filed 2023-05-11(a)(3)(A)

After considering the evidentiary record, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable standard, the Court finds and concludes that the Robin- son factors do not support a declaration under section 523(a)(3)(A) that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Debtor is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) makes an improperly scheduled debt entirely nondischargeable when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to file a claim in an asset bankruptcy.

In Re: Edwin Licup v. Jefferson Avenue Temecula LLC · filed 2024-03-18(a)(3)(A)

The plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A) makes the 2013 unlawful detainer judgment in favor of Jefferson nondischargeable in Castro and Licup’s bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Rashad Lovett, Sr. and Kaceria Lovett · filed 2024-05-21(a)(3)(A)

These debts are excepted from discharge if they are not listed or scheduled “in time to permit . . . timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case” in time to file a claim.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacks notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Morozov v. Hancock Whitney Bank · filed 2025-03-07(a)(3)(A)

Because the record supports the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that Hancock did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case prior to the proof of claim deadline, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding that the loans were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(3) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor received timely notice of the bankruptcy case and no deadline to file a proof of claim had passed.

Bob Sutton Realty & Loans, LLC v. Darnell · filed 2025-04-21(a)(3)

The discharge exception that comes closest is in Section 523(a)(3), which may except a debt from discharge if the debtor omits the creditor from the schedules entirely and the creditor does not become aware of the case otherwise. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). But even this exception would not apply here. Bob Sutton was given timely notice of the case because it was included on the creditor matrix, but in any event, there was no deadline to file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of an unscheduled debt when the creditor lacked timely notice to file a claim or seek a dischargeability determination.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2026-04-16(a)(3)

Thus, under § 523(a)(3), the claim could not have been discharged by the 2024 discharge order.

Section 523(a)(3) generally permits discharge of an unscheduled debt in a no-asset Chapter 7 case unless the omission adversely affects the creditor.

In Re Hutchins · filed 1994-01-26(a)(3)

The basic rationale behind the Stucker line of cases is that failure to schedule a creditor in a Chapter 7 proceeding does not bar the debt from discharge under § 523(a) unless that omission affects the creditor adversely.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) allows a creditor whose qualifying debt was not scheduled in time, and who lacked timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy, to seek a dischargeability determination after the ordinary filing deadline.

Irons v. Santiago (In Re Santiago) · filed 1994-12-08(a)(3)(B)

The cases agree that a debt within the requirements of section 523(a)(3)(B) is not subject to any time bar to file a complaint.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of an unlisted or unscheduled debt if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Cash v. Thaler · filed 2009-03-18(a)(3)(A)

The bankruptcy court granted a discharge to Cash under 11 U.S.C. § 727, which is effective even for unlisted or unscheduled creditors if these creditors “had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for ... timely filing” of a proof of claim. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts for actual fraud from discharge; issue preclusion may establish the fraud when a prior judgment was entered as a discovery sanction and the debtor had an opportunity to litigate.

Aviles v. Norton · filed 2020-01-14(a)(2)(A)

As noted above, the state law fraud claim and the § 523(a)(2) actual fraud claim are essentially the same and therefore collateral estoppel should apply. As such the liability established under the Judgment is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when preclusive state court findings establish fraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting loss.

Darlene Robinson, ACNPc and Glite Healthcare Allia v. Thompson · filed 2020-04-03(a)(2)(A)

Those findings have already been made, and the Court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel establishes that the debt owed by Dr. Thompson is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a prior fraud judgment establishes the elements of actual fraud.

Turchin v. Berkowitz · filed 2020-05-06(a)(2)(A)

The Colorado judgment made specific findings with respect to each of these elements of common law fraud, and these findings establish all five elements needed to show that the debt is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation from discharge, and a Michigan default judgment can conclusively establish the elements of that claim.

Eisenmen v. Lezotte · filed 2020-04-07(a)(2)(A)

The Court concludes that the State Court Default Judgment is a conclusive determination as to the elements of a Section 523(a)(2)(A) claim, and thus, was “actually litigated” and “necessarily determined.”

Section 523(a)(6) excepts a debt for deliberate injury without just cause or excuse from discharge, and an essential state court finding of that injury can establish nondischargeability through collateral estoppel.

In re Aaron Hill · filed 2020-05-04(a)(6)

Therefore, this finding, which matches the elements of § 523(a)(6), was necessary to the state court’s judgment holding Hill liable to CMCO and precludes Hill from challenging the nondischargeability of his debt to CMCO.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when a stipulated judgment for fraudulent concealment has preclusive effect and establishes the required elements.

Jeffrey Catanzarite Family Limited Partnership et v. Lane · filed 2020-09-10(a)(2)(A)

The stipulated judgment here should be given preclusive effect. ... The elements of fraudulent concealment in California mirror those necessary for a non-dischargeablility judgment under § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt nondischargeable when a prior judgment for intentional misrepresentation resolved all issues necessary to establish fraud under the section.

Metcoff v. Parrella · filed 2020-10-28(a)(2)(A)

Because the State Court Judgment with respect to the intentional misrepresentation claim resolved all issues necessary to establish nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A), collateral estoppel applies.

A state fraud judgment can establish that a debt is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A) when it necessarily decided the same elements.

Kaltschmidt, Jr. v. Shannon, III · filed 2021-02-04(a)(2)(A)

All of this means that the Mr. Kaltschmidt is entitled to judgement as a matter of law that the Montana judgment debt is excepted from discharge under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(2)(A). The elements to find the debt excepted from discharge have already been decided, and the defendant is estopped from re-litigating those elements.

Section 523(a)(2)’s fraud exception to discharge has the same elements as fraud under California law, so admitted facts establishing that fraud can support nondischargeability.

Yang v. Fund Management Intl, LLC · filed 2021-02-26(a)(2)

As noted above, Jun Ho stipulated to the facts supporting a finding of fraud under California law, which contains the same elements as the fraud exception to discharge in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a fraud debt nondischargeable when a prior judgment necessarily establishes the elements of actual fraud.

Price v. Reddin · filed 2021-03-22(a)(2)(A)

The State Court Judgment for fraud (the only claim asserted against Defendant-Debtor in the State Court Complaint) necessarily required the State Court to make findings of California law fraud which also meet the requirements for nondischargeable fraud pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by fraud from discharge, but a default judgment does not establish nondischargeability when the fraud elements remain in dispute.

Stratford v. Fontanez · filed 2021-03-01(a)(2)(A)

And while the default judgment may have fixed the amount of the creditor’s claim against the debtor, the elements needed to establish nondischargeability of that debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) remain in dispute.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires justifiable reliance for fraud, and a prior judgment has no issue-preclusive effect on that element unless it necessarily decided the issue.

Federal Trade Commission v. Lake · filed 2021-04-22(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the Court determines that the FTC has failed to prove issue preclusion with respect to the justifiable reliance element of fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) based upon the District Court Criminal Action.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when a prior judgment preclusively establishes the required elements of fraud.

Brown v. Hudson · filed 2021-07-09(a)(2)(A)

The San Diego County Superior Court’s amended judgment awarding $8,813.21 in damages, $997.26 in pre-judgment interest, $34,000.00 in attorney fees, and $3,230.71 in costs for a total of $47,041.18 will be deemed non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when a state court fraud judgment establishes the required fraud and the debtor had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.

Good v. Goulding · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(A)

The debt arising from the decision of the State Court awarding plaintiff damages of $43,450 is excepted from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of a false representation, intent to deceive, actual and justifiable reliance, and resulting damages; issue preclusion can establish individual elements.

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

The Court concludes that the Judgment precludes relitigating three of the five elements: false representation, reliance, and damages. Litigation of the remaining elements, i.e., justifiable reliance and intent to deceive, are not precluded by the Judgment.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt arising from actual fraud from discharge; a prior fraud judgment can establish that fraud when it decided the same issue under a stricter burden of proof.

Williams-Johnson v. Johnson · filed 2021-11-23(a)(2)(A)

In rendering its judgment, the Superior Court considered the same facts as in this adversary proceeding and applied a stricter evidentiary standard than this Court would apply in a trial on the merits under § 523(a)(2)(A). Therefore, because the same underlying issue as in Count I of this adversary proceed was raised in the Superior Court and submitted for judicial determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Superior Court Judgment has preclusive effect in this case as to Count I and the Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on Count I as a matter of law.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a prior fraud verdict to establish that a debt is nondischargeable when issue preclusion applies.

Trofimchuk v. BitClave PTE, Ltd. · filed 2022-02-08(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court held, and Trofimchuk agrees, that the elements required under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) mirror the elements of fraud under California law. ... For the foregoing reasons, the bankruptcy court properly applied issue preclusion and granted summary judgment for BitClave on the fraud claim.

Section 523(a) does not permit a prior judgment to establish nondischargeability through issue preclusion when the verdict leaves elements of the asserted exceptions unresolved.

Robinson, Representative for the Estate of George v. Robinson · filed 2022-03-04

The Special Verdict did not address many of the elements of the Plaintiff’s claims under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on his nondischargeability claims in Counts I through IV of the Bankruptcy Complaint.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts debts for willful and malicious injury from discharge; a default judgment does not establish that exception when its grounds and the basis for its damages cannot be identified.

Robertson v. Murray · filed 2022-03-31(a)(6)

The Default Judgment does not state the legal grounds on which it was rendered, nor does it include findings or determinations on elements that would also satisfy the willful and malicious standard under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A)'s fraud elements mirror those of fraud under California law, allowing a prior fraud judgment to establish nondischargeability through issue preclusion.

In Re: Valladoid · filed 2022-08-17(a)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court held, and this Court agrees, that the elements required under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) mirror the elements of fraud under California law.

A fraud judgment can be a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Pravati SPV II, LLC v. Pe · filed 2022-09-27(a)(2)(A)

The Arizona Judgment is a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A prior judgment can establish some elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim through issue preclusion, but it does not establish intent to deceive when the prior claim required no finding of intent.

Mylife.com Inc. · filed 2023-07-31(a)(2)(A)

Specifically, the Debtor is precluded from contesting its liability under the first, second, fourth, and fifth elements of § 523(a)(2)(A), but is not precluded from contesting its liability under the third element of § 523(a)(2)(A) (intent to deceive).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false representations from discharge; a state default judgment can establish its elements through issue preclusion when read with the complaint.

Dahill v. Drennen · filed 2023-11-09(a)(2)(A)

When the judgments are read with all the complaint’s allegations, the judgments are preclusive of 523(a)(2)(A) nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraudulent intent; a prior judgment without findings on that intent cannot establish or defeat nondischargeability through issue preclusion.

Skyline Air Ops, Inc. v. Conkle · filed 2024-04-03(a)(2)(A)

In the absence of a finding regarding Defendant’s intent, one way or the other, issue preclusion simply cannot apply to establish or defeat Plaintiff’s Section 523(a)(2)(A) claim.

A state judgment can establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) through issue preclusion when its findings satisfy the fraud elements, even if the state statute does not require all those elements.

Brookhouser v. Bostick · filed 2024-06-11(a)(2)(A)

Even though the elements necessary to sustain a claim for violation of the NMUPA are not identical to the elements necessary to establish non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), Plaintiff nevertheless is entitled to summary judgment on its claim of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on the State Court’s findings.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained through fraud or false pretenses from discharge, and a state court judgment with sufficient findings may establish the exception through issue preclusion.

Beaver v. Heaston · filed 2024-11-14(a)(2)(A)

This Court holds that the State Court’s findings meet the standard for dischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and are entitled to preclusive effect as a default judgment order.

Section 523(a)(2) can except a debt from discharge when a state court default judgment contains sufficiently specific findings of fraud and false pretenses that are entitled to preclusive effect.

Kulavik v. Heaston · filed 2024-11-14(a)(2)

This Court holds that the State Court’s findings meet the standard for dischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and are entitled to preclusive effect as a default judgment order.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can except a debt from discharge when a state court default judgment contains preclusive findings of fraud and false pretenses.

Miller v. Heaston · filed 2024-11-14(a)(2)(A)

This Court holds that the State Court’s findings meet the standard for dischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and are entitled to preclusive effect as a default judgment order.

A prior judgment can establish a willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6) when its findings decide the same issue and have preclusive effect.

The Retirement Group, LLC v. Dalton · filed 2025-01-10(a)(6)

While the definitions for “willful and malicious” under the California Trade Secrets Act are not identical to those used under § 523(a)(6), they do encompass the same types of conduct, i.e., an unreasonable act taken in bad faith that was intended or likely to cause injury. As such, the Court readily concludes that the issues faced and decided by the District Court are the same issues presented in this proceeding.

A state court judgment supports issue preclusion in a § 523(a)(2) dischargeability action only if it contains sufficient findings to establish nondischargeability.

Raley v. Beaumier, Jr. · filed 2025-01-29(a)(2)

Although res judicata does not apply in this context, collateral estoppel will preclude the Court from looking behind the State Court judgment if the judgment contains sufficient findings to support nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that regard, the Court finds that the State Court judgment is not entitled to preclusive effect based upon its insufficient findings within the order of judgment.

An earlier finding that intentional or malicious conduct was not proved by clear and convincing evidence does not preclude a § 523(a)(6) claim, which requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Taylor · filed 2025-12-18(a)(6)

Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than is required to except a debt from discharge in bankruptcy. The burden of proof for a party seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523 is a preponderance of the evidence. ... Based on the record presented, the Court finds that issue preclusion does not apply in this case to bar relitigation of the issues pursuant to § 523(a)(6) presented in the Amended Complaint.

Section 523(a)(6) permits a creditor to litigate willful and malicious injury despite a prior finding that failed to establish intent or malice under a higher burden of proof.

Taylor v. Vanderpool · filed 2025-12-18(a)(6)

Thus, the state appellate court’s finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence of intentional or malicious behavior was not based on the same considerations that would be before this Court. Based on the record presented, the Court finds that issue preclusion does not apply in this case to bar relitigation of the issues pursuant to § 523(a)(6) presented in the Amended Complaint.

Issue preclusion applies in § 523(a)(2)(A) discharge proceedings; a post-answer default imposed for discovery violations can satisfy the actually litigated requirement.

Cornwell v. Loesch (In Re Cornwell) · filed 2004-09-23(a)(2)(A)

If there was evidence for the bankruptcy court to conclude that the Kansas judgment was a post-answer default entered as a sanction for discovery violations, it could conclude that the issue was “actually litigated” and issue preclusion applied. As shown by the above-quoted Kansas district court judgment, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the issue was a sanction which made it “actually litigated” for estoppel purposes.

Section 523(a)(6) can cover injury from deprivation of collateral even when the debtor later returns it.

Security First Bank of North Dakota v. Reimer · filed 2020-01-15(a)(6)

Debtor’s return of the property, however, does not extinguish all forms of injury possibly caused by the deprivation and it does not prevent the Court from considering Debtor’s conduct in deciding whether Debtor willfully and maliciously harmed Security First.

Section 523(b) permits reconsideration of certain tax debts in a later bankruptcy, but the passage of time does not make late-filed returns timely.

McCoy v. Mississippi Department of Revenue · filed 2020-02-03(b)

Thus, for discharge determinations that hinge on the expiration of a time limitations period, § 523(b) renders res judicata inapplicable to § 523(a)(1). ... Her late-filed “returns” remain late even after ten (10) years.

Section 523(a)(8) does not discharge one creditor’s educational loan merely because another creditor’s educational loan was discharged.

Schultz v. U.S. Department of Education · filed 2020-02-11(a)(8)

There is simply no support for the argument that the discharge of one educational loan of a creditor discharges educational loans of other creditors.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves student loans undischarged when the debtor has not obtained a dischargeability determination in an adversary proceeding.

KAETZ v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION · filed 2020-06-30(a)(8)

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that he commenced an adversary proceeding to determine whether his student loans were dischargeable. Therefore, Plaintiff's debts were not discharged through the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 523(a)(8) leaves student loan debt enforceable after bankruptcy when an agreement acknowledges only an administrative discharge and makes no bankruptcy dischargeability determination.

Ratliff v. The United States Department of Education · filed 2021-08-27(a)(8)

The Agreed Order simply moots the § 523(a)(8) dischargeability determination because of the administrative discharge. According to the Bankruptcy Code, the Ratliffs remained obligated on the student loan debt post-discharge.

Section 523(a)(8) presumes educational debts nondischargeable unless the debtor shows undue hardship.

Brian Michael Graber · filed 2026-06-16(a)(8)

In other words, the educational debt owing to DFAS was presumed to be nondischargeable, and it was the Debtor’s burden to initiate an adversary proceeding and show the debt imposed an undue hardship upon him if he wanted the debt discharged.

Section 523(c)(1) treats a debt as discharged while an action to determine its dischargeability is pending, so the discharge injunction applies in the meantime.

Alarid, Jr. v. Pacheco · filed 2020-02-13(c)(1)

The Court agrees that the best construction of 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1) is that a debt is discharged while a nondischargeabilty action relating to that debt is pending.

A prior consent judgment resolving a § 523(a)(6) exception can preclude the debtor from contesting that exception again.

Trahan v. Mulholland · filed 2023-05-19(a)(6)

The issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to an exception to discharge has been litigated in the Prior Adversary Proceeding and was resolved by the Consent Judgment. Accordingly, the common law doctrine of res judicata prevents any further arguments on the matter of exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), and Defendant is collaterally estopped from ... arguing against the exception to discharge.

A prior judgment establishing a debt generally does not preclude a separate § 523 claim to determine whether the debt is dischargeable.

Al Dosari v. McCormick · filed 2020-03-23

However, a cause of action under non-bankruptcy law that gives rise to a creditor’s claim is a different “cause of action” than the cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523 for nondischargeability. ... As such, a prior judgment will generally not preclude litigation of a claim for nondischargeability.

A prior state court judgment does not bar a bankruptcy court from examining previously unlitigated issues when deciding dischargeability under § 523(a)(9).

Maclovio v. Brewer · filed 2020-08-03(a)(9)

Brown and Archer supports this court in examining issues not litigated at the state court level to determine the dischargeability of this action under § 523(a)(9). Res judicata is not applicable in this instance.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) leaves dischargeability for the bankruptcy court to decide, even when a prior judgment establishes the debt.

STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC. v. Evans · filed 2025-01-29(a)(2)(A)

Plaintiff’s nondischargeability proceeding is a matter within this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, so claim preclusion does not apply.

Section 523(c)(1) gives bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over the listed dischargeability claims, so a prior state court judgment does not bar those claims through res judicata.

Busche v. Grover · filed 2025-02-26(c)(1)

“This is because under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)(1) bankruptcy courts have ‘exclusive’ jurisdiction over issues regarding section 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6) and (a)(15)”—the sections pursuant to which Busche moves in his Complaint. ... The Court therefore rejects Busche’s argument that res judicata applies to the state court judgment.

Section 523 dischargeability claims are separate from state court claims, so claim preclusion does not bar a bankruptcy court from deciding them.

In re: Guy S. Griffithe · filed 2025-10-30

With respect to claim preclusion, the state court did not, and could not, decide a claim of nondischargeability under § 523. As such, under Brown and Archer, the State Court Dismissal would not preclude the bankruptcy court’s consideration of nondischargeability claims.

Section 523 dischargeability claims are not barred by claim preclusion merely because a state court judgment fixed the amount of the debt.

Supplee · filed 2026-06-03

For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that the Washington Judgment is entitled to claim preclusion regarding the amount of the debt defendant owes to plaintiffs but is not entitled to claim preclusion regarding whether or how much of that debt is nondischargeable under federal bankruptcy law.

Section 523(a)(8) presumptively excepts student loans guaranteed by a governmental unit from discharge unless the debtor establishes undue hardship.

Channer v. Penn. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency · filed 2020-12-17(a)(8)

Under Section 523(a)(8), student loans “made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution” are presumptively non-dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor establishes “undue hardship.”

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) excepts an educational loan from discharge if a governmental unit makes, insures, or guarantees it, or if it is made under a program funded by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution.

Latson v. US Department of Education · filed 2021-09-30(a)(8)(A)(i)

The statute is written in the disjunctive; an educational loan is nondischargeable if it falls within either the “made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit” category, or the “made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution” category.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) excepts a loan from discharge when its initial purpose was solely to pay qualified higher education expenses, unless excepting it would impose undue hardship.

Monyak v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2021-02-02(a)(8)(B)

These undisputed facts when examined in the same way as Conti establish that the debtor’s initial purpose when applying for these loans was “solely to pay qualified higher education expenses.” Therefore, the loans in question are qualified educational loans within the meaning of § 523(a)(8)(B) and are nondischargeable, absent a determination that “excepting such debt from discharge under [§ 523(a)(8)] would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents.”

Section 523(a)(8)(B) excepts a qualified education loan from discharge based on the purpose for which the borrower incurred it, rather than how the funds were ultimately used.

Conti v. Arrowood Indemnity Co. · filed 2020-12-14(a)(8)(B)

Both parties argue that the court should look to the initial purpose of Conti’s loans, rather than their actual uses, to determine whether they fall within the scope of (8)(B). We agree that this is the proper inquiry.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) makes a qualified education loan nondischargeable; an unrebutted tax deduction for the loan’s interest can establish that the loan was incurred for qualified higher education expenses.

Mallett, as Trustee v. Mallett · filed 2021-03-23(a)(8)(B)

Because there is no evidence controverting or explaining away the Debtor’s admission, the Court concludes the loan from Mrs. Mallet is nondischargeable under Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(8)(B).

Section 523(a)(8) makes a student loan’s stated purpose, the borrower’s certifications and understanding, and the loan documents relevant to whether it is dischargeable.

Didonato v. GS Services Limited Partnership · filed 2021-09-16(a)(8)(B)

In addition, as discussed above regarding Plaintiff, facts regarding the stated purpose of each potential class member’s loan, any certifications the potential class member made, the potential class member’s understanding of the purpose of the loan and the loan documents he or she signed are relevant to determine whether that potential class member’s loan was dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) does not except a bar study loan from discharge when its funds pay for bar preparation and living expenses after the borrower is no longer an eligible student.

Teran v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2022-02-15(a)(8)(B)

The Bar Loan is not a qualified educational loan under the Qualified Loan Section as a matter of law, and summary judgment must be granted in favor of Teran.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) determines whether a loan is a qualified education loan from its stated purpose when the agreement was made, rather than the debtor’s later use of the funds.

Mazloom v. Navient Solutions, Inc. · filed 2023-01-26(a)(8)(B)

The plain text of § 523(a)(8)(B) requires looking to the stated purpose of the loan at the time of the agreement, rather than supplementing the stated purpose with ancillary information from the debtor’s use of the loan funds.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) determines whether a loan is a qualified education loan when the borrower obtains it; a school’s later use of the proceeds does not change that status.

Grabis v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-04-11(a)(8)(B)

Even if true, those actions cannot render the Student Loans “unqualified” loans if those loans were “qualified education loans” when Plaintiff obtained them.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) does not make alleged wrongdoing by a school and others in using student-loan proceeds a basis for treating the loans as dischargeable.

Grabis v. Navient Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-08-07(a)(8)(B)

At issue in this adversary proceeding is whether the Student Loan Debt is excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff’s contentions regarding Lafayette’s alleged participation the alleged wrongdoing by Auerbach, Gorelick and their alleged accomplices in giving effect to the Auerbach-Gorelick Scheme, have no bearing on the resolution of this matter.

Section 523(a)(8)(B) allows contrary evidence when determining whether a loan was incurred to pay qualified higher education expenses.

Cuvelier · filed 2026-05-27(a)(8)(B)

But as Conti reads, contrary evidence may be considered when determining a loan’s purpose for § 523(a)(8)(B).

A student loan guaranteed by a nonprofit institution qualifies for the discharge exception for loans funded in whole or in part by a nonprofit institution, absent undue hardship.

Loper v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2 · filed 2021-03-29(a)(8)(A)(i)

Debtor has no undue hardship preventing her from repaying the loan. And she has no compelling argument why the loan is not a qualified education loan under §523(a)(8)(A)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code. NCSLT’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) makes an education loan guaranteed by a nonprofit institution nondischargeable absent undue hardship.

Loper v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 · filed 2021-03-29(a)(8)(A)(i)

Debtor has no undue hardship preventing her from repaying the loan. And she has no compelling argument why the loan is not a qualified education loan under §523(a)(8)(A)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code. NCSLT’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) treats a nonprofit institution’s guarantee of an educational loan program as funding of that program.

Medina v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 · filed 2021-04-20(a)(8)(A)(i)

TERI’s guaranty of Medina’s loan program constitutes “funding” for purposes of Section 523(a)(8).

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) excepts from discharge student loans made under programs funded by nonprofit institutions.

Eady v. U.S.Department of Education (DOE) · filed 2021-07-26(a)(8)(A)(i)

Furthermore, because Penn State qualifies as a nonprofit institution, the student loans at issue fall under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i).

Section 523(a)(8)(A)(i) requires evidence that a nonprofit funded the loan program; statements in loan agreements alone do not establish that funding.

Robarge · filed 2026-01-05(a)(8)(A)(i)

While the loan agreements included statements that the program was funded by TERI, such evidence alone is insufficient to meet NCSLT’s burden.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) can except money obtained through a false written financial statement from discharge even when the money was not loaned.

Young v. Wells-Lucas · filed 2021-03-31(a)(2)(B)

First, the statute is not limited to money loaned and includes a debt for money obtained. Plaintiff’s claim is for the Deposit, Set Up Fee, and other amounts she paid to Debtor on April 15 and 16. This is money obtained even if not loaned.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) covers a materially false written statement about an insider’s financial condition when the other required elements, including intent to deceive, are proved.

Andringa v. Acker · filed 2021-03-31(a)(2)(B)

The statement in the Offering Memorandum that the Andringas’ investment would be returned if NBQSL failed to collect subscriptions of $500,000 was therefore a statement “respecting an insider’s financial condition.” As a result, this alleged false representation, which is in writing in the Offering Memorandum, falls under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

30 Thompson AW Holdings, LLC v. Kovacs · filed 2021-04-21(a)(2)(A)

First, the allegedly false representation uttered by defendant is not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A) because it is a statement “respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition” which is expressly carved out of subsection (A) and expressly provided for in subsection (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes statements about a debtor’s financial condition, including an oral statement about a single liability.

Zoltan Karoly Kovacs - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2021-04-23(a)(2)(A)

First, the allegedly false representation uttered by defendant is not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A) because it is a statement “respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition” which is expressly carved out of subsection (A) and expressly provided for in subsection (B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a personal promise to pay as a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

Cutting Edge Decorative Concrete v. Struhar, Sr. · filed 2021-05-19(a)(2)(A)

However, the personal guarantee by the debtor in this case was not a statement respecting financial condition under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge based on a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

M&M Electrical Supply Company, Inc. v. Blais · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(A)

As for the inflated report presented to CED, it by itself does not constitute actual fraud within the meaning of section 523(a)(2)(A) because it qualifies as a statement respecting DRB’s financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes a debtor’s failure to disclose a lien when that omission is a statement respecting financial condition.

Moody National Bank v. Shurley · filed 2021-11-24(a)(2)(A)

The Shurleys’ failure to inform Moody Bank about the Colonial lien is a statement respecting financial condition excluded from the reach of 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes false statements about a debtor’s employment and earnings when they concern the debtor’s financial condition.

Kansas Department of Labor v. Larson · filed 2022-04-08(a)(2)(A)

Under the evidence and facts of this proceeding, the Court agrees with Martinez to this extent—Larson’s representations that he did not work during the nine weeks claimed (and therefore had no hours and no earnings) is a “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition,” that renders the debt for overpayment of unemployment compensation beyond the reach of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on an oral statement about the debtor’s financial condition.

Baer v. Myers · filed 2022-08-24(a)(2)(A)

By its terms, § 523(a)(2)(A) does not apply to a debtor’s oral statement of financial condition, and written statements respecting a debtor’s financial condition are only actionable under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) governs misrepresentations about asset assignability that do not directly relate to the debtor’s overall financial condition.

First Recovery, LLC v. Sanders · filed 2023-01-09(a)(2)(A)

Consistent with Biondo, appellee’s statements about the assignability of the bond, client contracts, and leases also are properly analyzed under subparagraph (A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable based on oral statements or omissions about the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

Simply Funding, LLC v. Werman · filed 2023-06-15(a)(2)(A)

The debtor’s oral statement that business was “fairly good” and her failure to disclose A & A’s financial struggles both directly reflect the financial condition of the debtor or an insider and therefore fail to support a nondischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) and the Supreme Court’s decision under Lamar.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes representations about a debtor’s financial condition, including the value of a company in which the debtor owns a significant interest.

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

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes such statements about a defendant’s financial condition. Consequently, Plaintiff cannot recover for any alleged false representations concerning Central LLC’s value under section 523(a)(2)(A); nondischargeability of Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff, if any, based on misrepresentations concerning Central LLC’s value must be established under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat concealment by omission as a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition.

In Re: Nancy Howell v. Law Offices of Andrew S Bisom · filed 2023-09-12(a)(2)(A)

On the contrary, Howell’s fraud was accomplished via concealment (e.g., an omission),6 which is not a “statement” within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).