11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debtor’s silence about financial condition a ground for nondischargeability.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc., as servicing agent for Ka v. Keith · filed 2023-10-30(a)(2)(A)

While Selenberg is correct that a debtor’s silence can constitute false representation under § 523(a)(2)(A), the debtor’s silence respecting his financial condition is not actionable under this subsection of § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when fraudulent statements conceal that expected investments did not occur, rather than describe the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.

In re: Sharp · filed 2025-05-13(a)(2)(A)

For these reasons, the bankruptcy court did not misapply § 523(a)(2)(A) or clearly err in finding the at-issue statements were fraudulent, rather than innocent descriptions of the company’s financial condition.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes statements about a debtor’s financial condition, including statements about employment and income.

Evans v. Marshall · filed 2025-08-19(a)(2)(A)

Statements regarding the Defendant’s employment status and income are statements respecting his financial condition and do not fall under the nondischargeability standard of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excludes statements respecting a debtor’s financial condition.

FCB BANKS v. Abrahim · filed 2025-09-26(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds that this Income and Property Statement constitutes a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” and, therefore, is expressly excluded from the application of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) excepts only fraudulently obtained advances from discharge, so the debtor’s intent must be assessed separately for advances made at different times.

Spencer · filed 2026-06-11(a)(2)(B)

The debtor’s intent during both periods must be determined independently. Only fraudulently obtained advances are excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to establish that the debtor owes an enforceable debt under nonbankruptcy law before the court considers whether that debt is excepted from discharge.

Lund-Ross Constructors, Inc. v. Buchanan · filed 2021-04-02(a)(2)(A)

Because Lund-Ross did not first demonstrate for the bankruptcy court how it could establish a personal debt owed by Debtors under nonbankruptcy law, we, like the bankruptcy court, do not reach the issue of whether such a debt would be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a) requires a creditor to establish an enforceable debt against the debtor before the debt can be declared nondischargeable.

Treasures London Limited v. Keswani · filed 2021-05-13(a)

If the Plaintiffs do not hold a valid debt against the Debtor, then they cannot prevail in their section 523(a) causes of action.

Section 523(a)(8) does not support a dischargeability claim against a loan servicer that has no right to payment on the debt.

White v. U.S. Department Of Education · filed 2022-05-24(a)(8)

Without a “debt,” there is no dischargeability issue under Section 523. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Great Lakes under the Section 523(a)(8) Counts—second Count 8, Count 7 and Count 9—those Counts are dismissed as well under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 523(a) requires an enforceable debt before that debt can be excepted from discharge.

Spencer T. Malysiak Profit Sharing Plan v. Schmidt · filed 2023-01-24(a)

The existence of an enforceable debt is the sine qua non to an action to except debt from discharge, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an underlying debt before a creditor can have it excepted from discharge for a false representation.

Watson v. Larsen-Berryhill · filed 2023-03-20(a)(2)(A)

A non-dischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) requires that the plaintiff prove the debtor owes an underlying debt.

Section 523(a) requires a debt owed by the debtor before a court can except it from discharge.

Amex Electric Services Dallas-Ft. Worth, Inc. v. Molinar · filed 2023-07-07(a)

For a nondischargeability determination to be necessary, though, there must first be a debt.

Section 523(a) requires an existing debt before an exception to discharge can apply.

Daren C. Daly · filed 2023-11-08(a)

Finally, for a debt to be excepted from a debtor’s discharge, there must be a debt to begin with. But neither Patrick, Elizabeth, nor All Paving and Sealcoating, LLC, have proven any claim against Daren. Accordingly, he does not owe them any debts, let alone a debt that could be excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a) requires an enforceable underlying debt before it can be declared nondischargeable.

Colebrook v. HUFFMAN · filed 2024-04-19(a)

Since Ms. Colebrook cannot enforce the underlying debt, there is nothing for the Court to declare nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a) requires an enforceable debt before a court can declare it nondischargeable.

Colebrook v. Thompson · filed 2024-04-29(a)

Since Ms. Colebrook cannot enforce the underlying debt, there is nothing for the Court to declare nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an underlying debt owed by the debtor before that debt can be excepted from discharge.

Badalov v. Buzhunashvili · filed 2025-02-06(a)(2)(A)

That is, the debtor must be liable to the plaintiff under a law other than the Bankruptcy Code, because § 523(a) does not create or impose liability where none existed before bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) requires conduct intended to evade taxes; excessive personal spending alone does not satisfy its conduct requirement.

Ransdell v. Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the · filed 2021-04-01(a)(1)(C)

It is the Court’s view that a finding that a debtor lived a “lavish lifestyle,” engaged in “excessive personal spending,” or made “large discretionary expenditures” is not sufficient, standing alone, to satisfy § 523(a)(1)(C)’s conduct requirement; additional culpable behavior intended to prevent the IRS from reaching the debtor’s assets must be present.

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

United States of America (IRS) v. Tallis a/k/a Sam Tallis · filed 2021-09-09(a)(1)(C)

Consequently, Mr. Tallis’s 2012 tax debt shall be excepted from being discharged under § 523(a)(1)(C).

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

Herron v. Internal Revenue Service, United States of America · filed 2021-10-05(a)(1)(C)

The Court thus finds that the IRS has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor’s tax obligation is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(1)(C), and the Debtor has failed to come forward with any credible evidence that might satisfactorily explain why his conduct should not be viewed as a willful effort to evade or defeat his tax liability.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) permits a tax debt to be excepted from discharge based on willful tax evasion without a fraudulent return.

United States v. SHADOAN · filed 2021-11-12(a)(1)(C)

And Defendants are incorrect that fraud and willful in 11 U.S.C. § 523 are one standard.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) left the debtor’s listed tax liabilities undischarged on default judgment.

United States v. Wisniewski · filed 2022-06-15(a)(1)(C)

First, given that the Court must now accept the Complaints allegations as true, the Court finds that the 2017 bankruptcy did not discharge his tax liabilities for 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debt from discharge when the debtor willfully attempts to evade it; willfulness is determined from the totality of the circumstances.

Fernandez v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2022-08-23(a)(1)(C)

Given the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the United States failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Debtor’s failure to pay his taxes was willful. The Debtor’s tax debt is therefore dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor willfully attempts to evade the tax; spending available funds on other purposes can support a finding of willfulness.

United States v. HERRON · filed 2024-02-09(a)(1)(C)

This Court finds no error in the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Herron’s failure to put even that remainder toward paying his taxes was anything other than willful evasion.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly and intentionally violates a tax duty to evade payment.

HERRON v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2024-02-09(a)(1)(C)

A debtor therefore willfully evades a tax where she has a duty under the tax laws, knows she has that duty, and voluntarily and intentionally violates that duty.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly and deliberately attempts to evade or defeat the tax; failure to pay for another reason does not suffice.

Internal Revenue Service v. Fernandez · filed 2024-03-29(a)(1)(C)

Section 523(a)(1)(C) prevents discharge for a debtor who fails to pay taxes for the purpose of knowingly and delib- erately evading (or attempting to evade) tax liability but allows a discharge for a debtor who fails to pay — even voluminously and thoughtlessly — for some other reason.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) makes a tax debt nondischargeable when a debtor willfully attempts to evade or defeat the tax.

Narine v. United States of America Department of the Treasur · filed 2024-06-11(a)(1)(C)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff willfully evaded her tax obligations for the 2017 calendar year. Therefore, Defendant’s claim is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) excepts tax debts from discharge when a debtor fraudulently conveys property to evade tax collection.

In Re MacKs · filed 1994-04-12(a)(1)(C)

The clear statutory language, "in any manner," is sufficiently broad to encompass the fraudulent conveyances by the plaintiff in this matter.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) bars discharge for evasion of tax assessment, but not for evasion of payment.

Griffith v. United States · filed 1999-05-11(a)(1)(C)

Pursuant to Haas, §523(a)(1)(C) applies only to conduct constituting evasion of the assessment of a tax; it does not apply to conduct that involves evasion of the payment of a tax debt.

Section 523(a)(1)(C) permits discretionary payments made while taxes remain unpaid to establish the conduct and willfulness requirements for excepting a tax debt from discharge.

United States v. Clayton · filed 2012-01-06(a)(1)(C)

These were gratuitous payments totaling $18,000 per year that Clayton continued to make in the face of mounting financial burdens and his significant tax debts to the IRS. ... These payments satisfy section 523(a)(l)(C)’s conduct and mental state requirements.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unlisted creditor’s debt from discharge if the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case before the bar date.

Garcia v. Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(a)(3)

However, both subparagraphs (A) and (B) indicate that, if an unlisted creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case on or before the bar date, the debt owed to that creditor is not discharged.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unlisted creditor’s debt from discharge if the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case by the bar date.

Nosson Sklar · filed 2021-04-20(a)(3)

However, both subparagraphs (A) and (B) indicate that, if an unlisted creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case on or before the bar date, the debt owed to that creditor is not discharged.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except a debt from discharge when the creditor had actual notice of the bankruptcy in time to file a proof of claim.

Applebaum v. Southworth · filed 2021-09-20(a)(3)(A)

Generally, in his response brief, Appellee asserts four arguments: (1) Bankruptcy Judge Littlefield did not err with regard to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), because ... Bankruptcy Judge Littlefield correctly found that Jeffrey Southworth provided actual notice to Appellant Southworth of Appellee’s filing no later that January 1, 2019 (and thus Appellant Southworth had time to object to dischargeability and timely file a proof of claim), that it was incorrect to argue that the debt owed to Appellant Southworth had not been in fact discharged, ... After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments on appeal, the Court rejects those arguments for each of the reasons offered by Appellee in his response brief and the reasons offered by Bankruptcy Judge Littlefield in his Memorandum-Decision and Order of January 21, 2021.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unscheduled debt from discharge when the creditor lacked notice or actual knowledge in time to meet the applicable proof of claim and dischargeability deadlines.

Garcia v. Sklar · filed 2022-01-27(a)(3)

Based on the testimony adduced at trial, the Court CONCLUDES that Garcia did not have notice or actual knowledge of Sklar’s Second Bankruptcy Case before the Bar Date or the Deadline for a Discharge Complaint. Therefore, in the event that Garcia files an action against Sklar on the claims she previously asserted against him and recovers a judgment thereon, Garcia’s claims against Sklar are DETERMINED to be non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts a debt from discharge when the creditor is omitted from the creditor matrix and lacks notice or actual knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy.

Michael J. Mendoza · filed 2022-03-11(a)(3)

I find that the debt was not discharged under Section 523(a)(3) because Medeiros was not listed on the creditor matrix and had no actual notice of the Individual Proceedings.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) allows an unlisted or unscheduled debt to be discharged when the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Dorrion · filed 2023-08-23(a)(3)(A)

Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, for a debt to be discharged that’s neither listed nor scheduled in the restructuring plan, the creditor holding the debt must have “had notice or actual knowledge of the [bankruptcy] case in time for . . . timely filing” of a proof of claim. ... On the available record, the bankruptcy court didn’t err by determining that the Decedent’s estate had sufficient notice of the need to file a bankruptcy claim.

Section 523(a)(3) generally preserves an unlisted creditor’s claim from discharge, but actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to protect that claim defeats the exception.

Raymond James & Assoc v. Jalbert · filed 2024-01-30(a)(3)

Although such an omission would usually preserve Raymond James’s pre-bankruptcy indemnity rights, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), Raymond James had “actual knowledge” of the bankruptcy case: It monitored the case’s progression from its commencement and even communicated with LAP’s counsel.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) does not except an unlisted debt from discharge when the creditor had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely proof of claim.

Craig Alan Timmerman · filed 2024-02-29(a)(3)(A)

The Court finds that the fact that Stickney was not listed as a creditor on Debtor’s original bankruptcy petition is immaterial to this Court’s overall determination in this case. Although the parties disagree as to the manner of communication, both parties testified that Stickney had actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceedings in 2017.

Section 523(a)(3)(B) requires a court to determine whether the debtor knew an omitted creditor’s name and whether the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy before the relevant filing deadlines expired.

Curtis James Jackson, III · filed 2025-07-10(a)(3)(B)

To apply Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(3)(B), a court must determine if the name of the creditor to whom an alleged debt was owed was known to the Debtor, and whether Ms. Rodriguez had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case before both of the Relevant Time Periods expired.

Section 523(a)(3) excepts an unscheduled claim from discharge unless the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a timely claim.

Schreiber v. Nelkin · filed 2025-10-01(a)(3)

A debtor has the obligation to list and schedule a creditor, and failure to do so will mean that those claims will be exempt from discharge “unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing.”

Section 523(a)(3)(A) permits discharge of a creditor’s claim if the creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a claim.

Weiand Automotive Industries, Inc. · filed 2025-10-02(a)(3)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(A), a bankruptcy plan may discharge a creditor’s claim if the creditor “had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for…timely filing.”

Section 523(a)(3)(B) does not preserve an omitted creditor’s claim when the creditor has actual knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to seek a dischargeability ruling but misses the deadline.

David Anthony Vranicar · filed 2026-05-22(a)(3)(B)

Where the creditor has notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to file a timely complaint, § 523(a)(3)(B) does not permit the creditor to wait until after the deadline and then litigate nondischargeability.

Section 523(a)(3)(A) requires lack of timely notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case; lack of notice of a later contract rejection does not suffice.

Patient to Person, LLC v. Careismatic Brands · filed 2026-05-29(a)(3)(A)

By its plain language, the statute exempts a debt from discharge only if the creditor did not receive notice “of the case” in time to file a proof of claim.

Section 523(a)(3) prevents discharge of a claim when its holder did not receive appropriate notice of the bankruptcy.

In Re Frascella Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2007-02-08(a)(3)

First, to the extent the holder of a claim has not received appropriate notice, his claim will not be discharged. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires reasonable reliance, judged objectively under the totality of the circumstances.

Kessler v. Longmire · filed 2021-04-29(a)(2)(B)

On the other hand, reasonable reliance, under § 523(a)(2)(B), is an objective standard to be reviewed under the totality of the circumstances.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove reasonable reliance on a written statement about the debtor’s financial condition to except a debt from discharge.

C&L Supply, Inc. v. Morrow · filed 2021-04-13(a)(2)(B)

Accordingly, the debt owed by the Morrows to C&L related to the Loan is dischargeable, and the Court need not consider any of the other elements under § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) makes a debt obtained through a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition nondischargeable when the creditor reasonably relied on it and the debtor intended to deceive.

Cosman v. Busey Bank · filed 2021-05-12(a)(2)(B)

The Bank reasonably relied on Cosman’s false written financial statements, and his debts to Busey Bank are, therefore, nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge to have reasonably relied on the debtor’s written statement about financial condition.

GCAP Holdings LLC v. Shawver · filed 2021-09-30(a)(2)(B)

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error when it found that Appellant unreasonably relied on the Elysium Proposals. Because the Court affirms the bankruptcy court’s findings as to reasonable reliance, it does not need to consider the bankruptcy court’s findings as to Appellees’ intent to deceive.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a false written financial statement to prove reasonable reliance on that statement.

FCU v. Burks · filed 2022-01-25(a)(2)(B)

Nonetheless, inasmuch as Alderson has failed to satisfy the reasonable reliance element under Section 523(a)(2)(B), the debt cannot be deemed nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to prove reasonable reliance on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition to except a debt from discharge.

Heather Marie Burks · filed 2022-01-25(a)(2)(B)

Nonetheless, inasmuch as Alderson has failed to satisfy the reasonable reliance element under Section 523(a)(2)(B), the debt cannot be deemed nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to reasonably rely on a debtor’s materially false written financial statement to except the debt from discharge.

Wilson & Muir Bank & Trust Company v. Agrawal · filed 2022-06-03(a)(2)(B)

Taking all these elements together, the Court concludes that what reliance WMB had on the 2016 PFS was not reasonable.

Under § 523(a)(2)(B), a creditor’s benefit from a transaction is one factor in assessing whether it relied on a false financial statement; that benefit alone does not make the debt dischargeable.

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. Adesanya · filed 2022-11-02(a)(2)(B)

As this summary shows, the fact that a creditor gains some benefit from a transaction does not render a debt dischargeable. Instead, the creditor’s potential benefit from the transaction is one factor that a court may consider in determining whether the creditor actually relied on a false financial statement.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to have actually and reasonably relied on the debtor’s false written statement about financial condition.

Horlbeck v. Tillman Enterprises, LLC · filed 2023-08-25(a)(2)(B)

The reliance prong under § 523(a)(2)(B) has two parts—the creditor must have actually relied on the debtor’s false written statement and that reliance must have been reasonable. ... A reasonable factfinder could only conclude that Tillman Enterprises reasonably relied on Horlbeck’s financial affidavit, so Tillman is entitled to summary judgment on Count III.

Section 523(a)(2)(B)(iii) requires a creditor to actually and reasonably rely on a materially false written financial statement.

Fonz Inc. v. Rubin · filed 2025-09-05(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Under section 523(a)(2)(B), a creditor must establish reliance on the debtor’s materially false written statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition and that such reliance was reasonable. ... Fonz has failed to meet its burden of establishing that in entering into the Refinancing Transaction, it actually, or reasonably relied on the CBB Debt Schedule.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor to reasonably rely on a materially false written statement about the debtor’s financial condition to except the debt from discharge.

Frost Bank v. Hickman II · filed 2025-10-10(a)(2)(B)

As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentations contained in the 2018 PFS was not reasonable.

Section 523(a)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge based on a false financial statement to prove reasonable reliance on that statement.

St. Bernard Bank & Trust Co. v. Sigur (In re Sigur) · filed 1994-06-03(a)(2)(B)

Simply put, the Bankruptcy Court found that there was no showing that Mr. Meraux or the Bank reasonably relied upon the subject financial statements. ... Based on a review of the record, it appears that the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is not clearly erroneous.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts both compensatory and punitive damages arising from a willful and malicious injury from discharge.

Dean v. Clavet · filed 2021-05-07(a)(6)

Here, because the punitive damages are liabilities arising from a willful and malicious injury within the meaning of section 523(a)(6), they are nondischargeable just as the treble damages were nondischargeable in Cohen.

A creditor seeking a § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability determination must file an adversary proceeding by the applicable deadline.

Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa and Associated Case in US District Court · filed 2021-05-13(a)(6)

The motion alleges that the Archdiocese’s obligation to Mr. Blea is nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6). The deadline to file adversary proceedings seeking a nondischargeability determination was March 11, 2019. As Mr. Blea did not file such a proceeding, any debt owed to him is dischargeable. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4007(c).

A court may grant a short extension of time for a creditor to file a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint for cause.

Joseph Scott Raley and Karen Sue Raley · filed 2021-11-02(c)

Therefore, upon considering all the facts and circumstances and balancing the equities, the Court determines that allowing a short extension of time is appropriate so that the Movants are not prejudiced by filing and awaiting a ruling on the Motion for Relief. The Court however declines to allow the lengthy extension requested. If the Movants find it necessary and appropriate to file an adversary proceeding challenging dischargeability of their debts under §523(c), they must do so within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

Section 523(c) requires a timely bankruptcy court action to except debts described in § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) from discharge.

Bonnie Sue Ostrander · filed 2022-04-01(c)

Specifically, those in § 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to determine as nondischargeable in an action brought within the 60- day time frame set forth in § 523(c). There were no actions brought against Ostrander in this case under § 523(c) and it is too late to do so now.

A request to extend the deadline for a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint must be filed before the Rule 4007(c) deadline expires.

Matthew M. Motil · filed 2022-07-14(c)

Finally, the Court rejects as untimely the movants’ oral request on June 28, 2022, to extend the deadline to file a complaint objecting to the dischargeability of particular debts under section 523(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c). Under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), such motion must be filed before the time expired, which in this case was June 3, 2022.

A creditor who received no timely notice of the bankruptcy may file a late nondischargeability complaint under § 523.

Joseph Klaynberg · filed 2022-09-19(a)

The Court finds cause exists to permit the late filing of a nondischargeability complaint because of the failure to provide timely notice of the bankruptcy to the creditor in this case.

A complaint seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) must meet Rule 4007(c)’s deadline; a later amendment does not relate back when the original complaint gave no notice of the dischargeability claim.

Ballout Real Estate, LLC v. Wisner · filed 2022-09-29

Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c) similarly requires that a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) shall be filed within the same time frame. ... In this case, as discussed, the Plaintiff’s discharge and dischargeability claims were not asserted until the Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint, which was 88 days after the 727/523 Deadline. Allowing the Plaintiff’s late-filed objections to discharge and dischargeability to proceed would be inconsistent with Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), which states that the time periods set out in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 may be extended “only to the extent and under the conditions stated in” the Rule.

A creditor seeking more time to file a section 523 nondischargeability complaint must explain why it could not assess its claim within Rule 4007’s filing period.

Poondarik Sours · filed 2022-09-30

Under Willms, to establish cause for extension of the 523 deadline, a movant must offer at least an “explanation why [the movant] could not have made this determination [whether the movant had a viable 523 claim] within the time set by Rule 4007.” Absent that explanation, I cannot find cause for that extension.

The deadline for filing a § 523(c) nondischargeability complaint cannot be extended retroactively because a trustee’s errors confused a creditor about the case.

In re: Leticia Miranda-Garcia · filed 2022-10-17(c)

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s pronouncements regarding the narrow circumstances in which a retroactive extension may be granted, however, we will not expand Anwiler’s holding to apply to Trustee’s errors in this case.

Section 523 allows creditors to seek exclusion of individual debts from discharge; an extension granted only to trustees does not extend a creditor’s filing deadline.

Direnzo v. Millinghausen · filed 2025-04-23

I acknowledge that the Consent Order cites to §523 of the Code (in addition to §727), a provision which allows individual debts to be excluded from discharge by creditors and is not a tool employed by a trustee. However, the fact that the Order includes surplusage does not negate the clear language that the relief only applies to the U.S. and chapter 7 trustees.

Section 523(a)(19) claims are not subject to Rule 4007(c)’s filing deadline for claims listed in Section 523(c).

Nolan v. Nolan · filed 2025-07-01(a)(19)

Thus, unlike the amendments sought under Sections 523(a)(2), (4) and (6), non- dischargeability under Section 523(a)(19) does not have a set deadline to bring the action.

A creditor seeking to except a fraud debt from discharge under § 523(c) must file a timely complaint; equitable tolling does not extend the Rule 4007(c) deadline.

TL90108 LLC v. Joseph Ford, III · filed 2025-08-11(c)

Alton thus compels us to conclude that Rule 4007(c)’s deadline may not be tolled based on equitable considerations. Alton also requires us to reject TL’s due process challenge. We thus affirm the bankruptcy court’s order denying TL’s motion to extend the time to file its § 523(c) complaint.

A creditor cannot add a factually distinct nondischargeability claim after the Rule 4007(c) deadline unless the amendment relates back to a timely complaint.

McCauley v. Powell · filed 2025-09-05(c)

Section 523(c) allows a creditor to seek a judgment from the bankruptcy court excepting its debt from a debtor’s discharge if the debt resulted from “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). ... McCauley’s Proposed Amended Complaint, if allowed, would therefore not relate back and would be subject to dismissal as untimely.

A § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability claim is distinct from a § 727 objection and may be denied as an untimely amendment even when both rely on similar facts.

Tucker v. Palmer · filed 2025-10-08(a)(6)

Given the “radically-different” causes of actions, even if based on similar facts, the Court must deny the motion to amend the complaint to add the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) cause of action in light of the Court’s prior order and the persuasive case law cited herein.

The deadline for filing a § 523(c) dischargeability complaint may be extended for cause on a timely motion under Rule 4007(c).

Brett Ray Pavel · filed 2025-10-23(c)

The Movant’s complaint deadline under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) is extended through and including September 9, 2025.

Section 523(a)(3) claims are not subject to Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c)’s 60-day filing deadline.

Lora Yakubova · filed 2026-04-14(a)(3)

Consequently, no basis exists for the Debtor’s challenge to the timeliness of plaintiffs’ section 523(a)(3) claim.

A creditor must file a timely complaint to except a fraud debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2), but missing that deadline does not prevent recoupment of related overpayments from later benefits.

Meyer v. Kansas Department of Labor (In re Meyer) · filed 2014-12-03(a)(2)

The Debtor is correct that it is too late for KDOL to obtain a determination of nondischargeability of the prepetition overpayments, and that KDOL has no authority to make such a determination. However, this is not a nondischargeability action, and KDOL is not asserting that the overpayments were obtained by fraud in the context of § 523(a).

Section 523 nondischargeability claims cannot be established through collateral estoppel based on a default judgment when the debtor did not participate in the prior action.

Patel v. Ragland · filed 2021-05-28

Thus, the fourth element of collateral estoppel is not met as the District Court Case was not actually litigated for the purposes of invoking collateral estoppel and excepting the amounts awarded to Plaintiff from discharge.

A general default judgment does not establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) through collateral estoppel when it may rest on allegations that do not satisfy the fraud exception.

Harris v. Jayo · filed 2021-07-14(a)(2)(A)

Because it is impossible for us to tell on which factual ground the general default judgment rested for each of those claims, that judgment does not have collateral estoppel effect in the § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding.

For a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, an Ohio default judgment that states only a fraud conclusion without factual findings does not establish fraud through collateral estoppel.

Casey v. Simmons · filed 2021-10-05(a)(2)(A)

The default judgment contained only a legal conclusion and no findings of fact or explanation. It follows, then, that this court cannot give preclusive effect to the default judgment. Since collateral estoppel cannot be applied, there remains a material issue of fact and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment cannot be granted.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) allow a reasoned arbitration award to establish that a debt is nondischargeable when its findings sufficiently establish the elements of fraud or fraud in a fiduciary capacity.

Amberson v. McAllen · filed 2022-08-19(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Having considered the Arbitration Award, the Summary Judgment Order, and all of the arguments and authorities presented by the parties in their briefs, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding that the Award contained sufficient detail and analysis of the McAllen Parties’ claims for fraud and breach-of-fiduciary duty to be entitled to preclusive effect.

Section 523(a) discharge exceptions can be established through collateral estoppel only when the earlier court actually decided the necessary elements.

Comfort Innovations, LLC v. Haarlander · filed 2022-10-27(a)

The Court finds that collateral estoppel does not apply (offensively, in Comfort Innovations’s favor) to any of the three invoked provisions of Section 523(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through a false representation nondischargeable; a prior fraud judgment can establish the facts through collateral estoppel.

Hemp Recovery Company, LLC v. Boyd · filed 2023-07-10(a)(2)(A)

HRC has established, through the Oral Ruling, Order, and Judgment and application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel that the foregoing debt embodied in the Judgment is nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A) since the debt is “for money . . . obtained by . . . a false representation, or actual fraud.”

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts debts obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud from discharge; prior state court findings can establish those elements through collateral estoppel.

Ogle v. Sigler · filed 2023-07-17(a)(2)(A)

The Court holds that the Alaska Court’s detailed findings of fact preclusively establish and satisfy all the elements required for nondischargeability under 523(a)(2)(A), and Ogle is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Alaska collateral estoppel law.

In a § 523(a)(2)(A) dischargeability action, an Alabama default judgment does not establish fraud through collateral estoppel because the issue was not actually litigated.

Payne v. Ball · filed 2024-03-06(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, this Court adopts the reasoning of long-standing Alabama case law and holds the Final Order – rendered by default – fails to satisfy the “actually litigated” prong of collateral estoppel.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraud debt from discharge when a state court default judgment has preclusive findings establishing the required fraud issues.

Reed v. Branom, II · filed 2025-01-07(a)(2)(A)

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as defined under Ohio law, and pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A), the Judgment entered by the Civil Division of the Common Pleas Court of Greene County, Ohio on November 13, 2023, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $67,500.00 is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) claims could not rest on an unsigned state-court minute order that had no collateral-estoppel effect.

Brandler v. Brandler · filed 2025-01-10(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6)

Therefore, the Court declines to admit the Unsigned Minute Order into evidence as it is not a final judgement under Arizona law and has no collateral estoppel effect.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted the debt based on false representations after the court found the state judgment established the elements of that claim.

In re: Paige · filed 2025-01-15(a)(2)(A)

Because the court is affirming the Bankruptcy’s Court judgment on the basis of its analysis with respect to false representations under § 523(a)(2)(A), it does not address nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6).

A consent judgment with no fraud findings does not preclude a Section 523(a)(2)(A) dischargeability complaint.

Rojas v. Fletcher · filed 2025-01-22(a)(2)(A)

This is because, even if collateral estoppel would otherwise apply to the Consent Judgment, in this case there is nothing to which collateral estoppel can apply because the Consent Judgment, unlike the consent judgments in all of the cases cited by the parties, explicitly makes no factual findings other than the amount of the debt.

Florida common-law fraud findings can establish the fraud issue in a Section 523(a)(2)(A) dischargeability action.

Alcalay v. Dynkin · filed 2025-04-03(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the issue of fraud in the Florida State Court Action is identical to fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a debt from discharge when prior state court findings establish that the debtor obtained money through false representations on which the creditor justifiably relied.

Business Finland USA, Inc. v. Colangelo · filed 2025-05-19(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the matters pertinent to the nondischargeability claim under section 523(a)(2)(A) have been resolved by the State Court Decision, the Debtor is estopped from relitigating those matters in this adversary proceeding, and the Business Finland Claim is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

A judgment for violating New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act does not alone establish an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), or (a)(6); the creditor must establish the elements of the asserted exception.

McCutcheon v. Davide · filed 2025-10-07

The State Court Order (as defined below) awarded damages, fees, and costs under New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act against Ms. Davide and her company and in favor of Mr. McCutcheon. However, the order made no findings or conclusions of fraud that would lead to non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), nor did it make any findings or conclusions that would lead non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable through collateral estoppel when the prior judgment lacks specific findings of actual fraud and justifiable reliance remains disputed.

Khan · filed 2026-06-26(a)(2)(A)

As the Debtor correctly asserts, the Judgment does not present specific factual findings establishing each element of actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) generally does not treat a contractor’s vague promise about the quality of future work as a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Pascucci v. Konecny · filed 2023-03-08(a)(2)(A)

A non-specific representation such as that will rarely suffice for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), failure to pay money on demand does not, by itself, necessarily establish misrepresentation or fraud.

In re: Soon Hee Kim · filed 2023-02-15(a)(2)(A)

Although she later said that her complaint was based on Ms. Kang’s failure to return the money in the account, the bankruptcy court correctly pointed out that the failure to pay money on demand, in and of itself, does not necessarily constitute misrepresentation or fraud. In other words, the bankruptcy court correctly found that Ms. Kang did not prove any misrepresentation, fraudulent omission, or deceptive conduct under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not except a debt from discharge for breach of contract alone.

Miner v. Mines · filed 2021-06-03(a)(2)(A)

A debtor’s breach of contract, without more, does not satisfy the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intent to deceive to except a debt from discharge for fraud; a breach of contract alone is insufficient.

Rock Real Estate Ventures LLC v. Schneider · filed 2021-12-15(a)(2)(A)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not satisfy its burden under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to except the Judgment from discharge and dismisses the Adversary Complaint without costs to either party.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor failed to perform a contract.

Marko v. Carpena · filed 2022-12-16(a)(2)(A)

It is well established that failure to perform as promised, by itself, gives rise to a cause of action for breach of contract, not actionable misrepresentation, fraud, or false pretenses under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(6) does not except a debt for breach of contract from discharge without an independent intentional tort.

Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Bilyeu · filed 2023-11-08(a)(6)

Applying § 523(a)(6) to contract causes of action is not appropriate in light of the long-standing application of the section solely to tort causes of action.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable for a failure to account for funds when that failure creates no liability independent of the parties’ contract.

Clem v. Tomlinson · filed 2024-12-23(a)(2)(A)

Applying that law here, the Tomlinsons’ claims for accounting deceptions sound in breach of contract but not fraud. As such, they are not nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor failed to perform a repayment agreement.

Selvan v. Selvarajah · filed 2025-03-31(a)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s entry into, and failure to perform under, the State Court Stipulation constitutes a false representation, false pretense, or fraud.

Under § 523(a)(2)(A), a creditor alleging a false promise to repay a loan must show that the debtor did not intend to repay it when the loan was made; later nonpayment alone does not establish fraudulent intent.

White v. Norton · filed 2025-06-13(a)(2)(A)

Because White cannot satisfy an essential element of § 523(a)(2)(A) which requires a finding that Norton obtained the loan while never intending to repay it, Norton’s Motion to Dismiss must be granted and this adversary proceeding dismissed.

Section 523(a)(6) requires a contract-based claim to allege an independent tort committed with intent to injure or substantial certainty of injury.

Velez · filed 2026-04-27(a)(6)

To bring a contract-based claim within Section 523(a)(6), the creditor must plead conduct that amounts to a tort independent of the breach of contract – that is, conduct that is tortious in its own right and that was undertaken with the intent to injure, or with a substantial certainty of injury.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make an attorney-fee award nondischargeable unless the fees arise from defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Beltran v. Miller · filed 2021-06-04(a)(4)

They have failed to establish that those attorney fees are based upon Miller’s defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Section 523 does not except debts under prepetition agreements to pay attorney fees from Chapter 7 discharge.

Hali Maeann Suazo · filed 2022-05-10

There is no exception to the discharge of debts incurred in conjunction with pre-petition agreements to pay attorney fees in Section 523.

Section 523 does not except debts under pre-petition agreements to pay attorney fees from Chapter 7 discharge.

Hali Maeann Suazo · filed 2022-06-17

There is no exception to the discharge of debts incurred in conjunction with pre-petition agreements to pay attorney fees in Section 523.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) can include attorney fees in a nondischargeable fraud debt when applicable law permits recovery of those fees.

Ives v. Lyon · filed 2022-08-18(a)(2)(A)

These determinations are consistent with Cohen, which said that the debt found to be not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) could include attorney fees if state law provided for them. ... To determine whether Plaintiffs in this case may recover attorney fees, we look to Oregon law and to the language of the relevant agreement. ... Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of attorney fees for litigating the exception to discharge claims in the bankruptcy adversary proceedings.

Attorney fees may be awarded in a § 523(a)(4) dischargeability action when underlying law authorizes them and covers the issues litigated.

Hales v. Reed · filed 2023-01-23(a)(4)

A bankruptcy court may award attorney fees in an action to determine dischargeability, provided that (a) underlying non-bankruptcy law provides a right to recover attorney fees and (b) the issues litigated in the dischargeability action are within the scope of the non-bankruptcy law. ... Mr. Hales was entitled to recover his attorney fees for these false and deceptive representations outside of bankruptcy, and can therefore claim them within a nondischargeability action in bankruptcy.

Attorney fees ancillary to a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) are likewise nondischargeable.

Halstead v. MUCKLOW · filed 2023-08-29(a)(2)(A)

Because these attorney fees ancillary to the nondischargeable judgment previously awarded against the Defendant, this fee award is likewise nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(5) makes attorney fees incurred to enforce a domestic support obligation nondischargeable.

In re Marriage of Bonzani · filed 2023-10-20(a)(5)

Phyllis’s petitions for rule to show cause were directly linked to the enforcement of Robert’s domestic support obligations. Consequently, any fees incurred in preparing and litigating those petitions were nondischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 523 does not itself authorize attorney’s fees for litigating dischargeability; a creditor needs a contractual or statutory basis to recover them.

McGarvey v. Johnson · filed 2025-08-22

The Bankruptcy Code does not reference whether attorney’s fees are recoverable when succeeding in a non-dischargeability lawsuit against a debtor. The “American Rule” controls, and each party bears their costs for their attorney’s fees.

Section 523 permits recovery of attorney’s fees in a dischargeability action if a contract or statute authorizes them and they arise from the conduct underlying a nondischargeable debt.

Bryant Bank v. Jackson, as the Independent of the Probat · filed 2025-10-06

The Guaranty allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees and legal expenses in this § 523 action.

Section 523 excepts a debt from discharge when it was obtained through false representations or arose from embezzlement.

BRRRT Properties, LLC v. Pfeifer · filed 2021-06-17(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

The $235,174.00 debt will, for the reasons set out above, be deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... The court concludes that plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the debt should be deemed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(4) on grounds of embezzlement.

Section 523 excepts a debt from discharge under the false-pretenses and embezzlement provisions when facts established in a prior judgment satisfy their elements.

Warren v. Warren · filed 2022-12-06(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Based upon the state court’s findings, all elements necessary to establish Plaintiff’s “false pretenses” claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied. ... Based upon the state court’s findings, all elements necessary to establish Plaintiff’s “embezzlement” claim under § 523(a)(4) are satisfied.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loan debt when repayment in full would impose an undue hardship.

Randall v. Navient Solutions · filed 2021-06-21(a)(8)

Such a partial discharge in the face of undue hardship is permissible and, in this Court’s view, aligns with the objectives of both sections 727(a) and 523(a)(8) of the Code.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loan debt when repayment in full would impose an undue hardship.

Loyle v. United States Department of Education · filed 2022-02-24(a)(8)

Discharge of student loan debt is not necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition. Alderete held that courts may grant a partial discharge, provided debtors show that the portion being discharged imposes an undue hardship.

Section 523(a)(8) permits a partial discharge of student loans when repayment of the full debt would impose undue hardship.

Longo, Jr v. Discover Bank · filed 2023-07-13(a)(8)

This Court is persuaded by these decisions and the lack of a statutory prohibition on partial discharge such that it may properly accord measured relief under these circumstances.

Sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) can except a conspiracy debt from discharge when the debtor knowingly participates in fraud and willful injury.

Mullins v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado · filed 2021-06-30(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

We therefore affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the debt to Trans-West is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) for actual fraud and false representation and under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) requires proof that the debtor intentionally caused an injury with malice; liability for conspiracy alone does not establish the exception.

Anderson Tooling, Inc. v. Anderson · filed 2022-04-01(a)(6)

Following the conclusion of the trial in this adversary proceeding, and as noted above, this Court does not believe that the evidence presented to this Court showed that there was a “willful and malicious injury by [Lori]” or that Lori acted with malice, wickedness, or a deliberate intent to injure ATI.

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

CACI, Inc. -- FEDERAL v. Ngo · filed 2021-07-02(a)(6), (a)(4)

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, and the Judgment will be declared to be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and 523(a)(4).

Sections 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) require proof of culpable defalcation or willful and malicious injury, respectively; a debtor’s reasonable belief that the creditor had been paid can defeat both exceptions.

DR. GIL CENTER FOR BACK, NECK AND CHRONIC PAIN REL v. Rigney · filed 2021-08-27(a)(4), (a)(6)

Consequently, the court finds that the plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the defendant willfully or maliciously injured the plaintiff and declines to hold that the defendant’s indebtedness to the plaintiff is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). ... Consequently, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the defendant committed a defalcation by a preponderance of the evidence and declines to declare the defendant’s indebtedness nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a fiduciary relationship owed to the creditor and defalcation, while § 523(a)(6) requires injury that is both willful and malicious.

Presbyterian Home for Central NY, Inc. v. DeFazio · filed 2022-06-23(a)(4), (a)(6)

Even if Plaintiff had established a fiduciary relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff, Defendant did not commit defalcation, and Plaintiff’s cause of action must fail. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted on Plaintiff’s first cause of action under § 523(a)(4). ... Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant’s breach of contract was both willful and malicious. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second cause of action under § 523(a)(6) is granted.

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

Lucas v. Lakota · filed 2022-08-17(a)(4), (a)(6)

The court having reviewed the evidence (the court’s rulings on evidentiary objections stated on the record at trial), assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and applying the applicable law to the transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant-Debtor and the debt arising therefrom; the court determines that the debt owed by Defendant-Debtor is nondischargeable, and that damages of $3,931.71, punitive damages of $6,068.29, and prejudgement interest of $1,022.12 are nondischargeable, based on the separate independent grounds of (1)(a) Defendant-Debtor’s breach of fiduciary duty and (b) embezzlement, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), and (2) willful and malicious injury to Plaintiff by the taking of Plaintiff’s property, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(4) requires facts supporting fraudulent intent or a qualifying fiduciary relationship, while § 523(a)(6) allows a claim based on knowing misuse of funds when injury is substantially certain.

Glen Meadow Holdings, LLC v. Storm · filed 2024-03-27(a)(4), (a)(6)

The simple fact that someone failed to pay money to its rightful owner does not establish that he did so with fraudulent intent. ... As the Complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to establish a claim under § 523(a)(4), the Motion will be granted as to Count VI. ... The § 523(a)(6) claim, however, is sufficiently pled. ... Again, from these facts, the Court can infer that Defendant knew that the funds did not belong to BinaNat or Defendant and, therefore, it was a substantial certainty that failure to remit the funds to Plaintiff would injure Plaintiff’s property interest.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) bar discharge of debts arising from deceptive advertising when the fraud and willful, malicious injury requirements are met.

State of Tennessee v. Hale · filed 2021-07-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the state is entitled to summary judgment on its 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the state is entitled to summary judgment on its 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) claim.

Section 523 excepts debts obtained through false representations or actual fraud, and debts for willful and malicious injury, from discharge.

Weyauwega Star Dairy, Inc. v. Loehrke · filed 2021-09-28(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: the debt owed to Weyauwega Star Dairy, Inc. by Randal L. Loehrke and Marjorie K. Loehrke in the amount of $366,833.22 is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires actual fraud to except a debt from discharge, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; a breach of contract alone does not satisfy either provision.

Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA v. Duvall · filed 2022-05-19(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

There is no evidence the loans herein were obtained by actual fraud or that any action by the Debtors subsequent to issuance of the loans amounts to anything more than breach of contract, not actual fraud. Accordingly, the claim for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) must be denied. ... While these actions constitute a breach of contract with Farm Credit, they do not fall within the willful and malicious injury requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires fraud in obtaining the debt, while § 523(a)(6) requires willful and malicious injury; a later refusal to pay does not alone satisfy either exception.

Myer's Lawn Care Services, Inc. v. Fragala · filed 2022-09-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Thus, the services provided by Myer’s to Landscape were not “obtained by” false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud by Fragala. ... The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to prove willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires knowing deception, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury, to except a debt from discharge.

Sevadjian v. Duntov Motor Company, LLC · filed 2023-11-28(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his burden to establish that the Defendants made representations that they knew were false and with the intent to deceive Mr. Radenne. ... Based on the Court’s review and analysis of the credible evidence in the record, the Court finds and concludes that Mr. Radenne failed to offer adequate credible evidence to satisfy his burden to establish that the Defendants willfully and maliciously caused Mr. Radenne to suffer an injury. Therefore, Mr. Radenne’s claim seeking a nondischargeable judgment against Duntov under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) is DENIED and DISMISSED.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intentional deception and justifiable reliance; § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury.

Maxwell v. Cain, II · filed 2025-07-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The Maxwells failed to prove the elements of §523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Here, the Plaintiffs failed to show willful or malicious injury by Cain.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of intentional deception, while § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury; negligent performance of a contract does not satisfy either exception.

Stanley J Cain, II · filed 2025-07-07(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The Maxwells failed to prove the elements of §523(a)(2)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Here, the Plaintiffs failed to show willful or malicious injury by Cain.

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

Tkach v. Kristul · filed 2025-09-02(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Mr. Muzichenko and Ms. Tkach have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that their debt totaling $232,180.32 is nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a debt obtained through fraud, false pretenses, or false representations; § 523(a)(6) requires a willful and malicious injury.

Nguyen · filed 2025-12-22(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The Court finds that summary judgment is appropriate against Plaintiffs’ non-dischargeability claims under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... Here, because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate there is any evidence Ms. Nguyen willfully and maliciously converted the property—an essential element under § 523(a)(6)—there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) permit a judgment debt to be held nondischargeable when the record supports that determination.

Polaroid Corp. v. Spalter · filed 2002-06-13(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

The bankruptcy court’s determination that Polaroid’s judgment against Spalter is non-dischargeable is supported by the record evidence. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) require sufficient proof of a false representation or willful and malicious injury to except a debt from discharge.

Triumphant Gold Limited v. Matloff · filed 2023-06-01(a)(2)(A), (a)(6)

Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that Appellee’s debt was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the amounts due did not arise from a willful and malicious injury inflicted through Appellee’s breach of contract; ... Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that Appellee’s debt owed through his personal guarantee of a loan made by Appellant was dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the guaranty was based on Appellee’s alleged false representation of his intent to repay; ... Because the Bankruptcy Court conducted an extensive evaluation of the evidence presented at trial and did not draw unreasonable conclusions, this Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment as to each of Appellant’s claims was proper.

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of wrongful taking and fraudulent intent for larceny, and Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of fraudulent intent for the alleged fraud; disputed intent prevents summary judgment.

Ideal Development Concepts, LLC v. Gross · filed 2021-08-26(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)

Thus, Ideal has failed to meet its burden in establishing the absence of a genuine material fact; accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted under Section 523(a)(4). ... Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(8) undue hardship is a factual question; unsupported allegations do not establish entitlement to summary judgment.

White v. U.S. Department Of Education · filed 2022-05-24(a)(8)

Intrinsic in the Section 523(a)(8) analysis is a general rule that undue hardship determinations are questions of fact. ... The record in this case contains only bare allegations of undue hardship by Plaintiff, without support in the form of affidavits or other offers of proof. ... Accordingly genuine issues of material fact exist, rendering summary judgment inappropriate as to the remaining counts in this adversary proceeding—the second Count 8, Count 7, and Count 9.

Disputed facts about the nature and purpose of a divorce-related obligation can prevent summary judgment on whether it is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(15).

Street · filed 2026-03-16(a)(15)

Furthermore, material factual disputes exist regarding the nature and purpose of the obligations at issue under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) ... IT IS ORDERED that Ex-husband’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

A § 523(a)(2)(A) claim may proceed to trial when factual disputes remain over false pretenses or actual fraud, even if the false representation theory might fail.

D'Saachs · filed 2026-03-17(a)(2)(A)

Because the overall claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) remains, resolution of the narrow issue of the viability of a claim for fraudulent representation is best left for trial.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a misrepresentation to be in writing; an oral statement can qualify.

Fuller v. Givens · filed 2021-08-30(a)(2)(A)

Here, although the record reflects that the only reference to insurance within the Contract is the requirement for Plaintiffs to maintain a fire policy during construction, misrepresentations under § 523(a)(2)(A) are not required to be in writing, and verbal representations that Defendant made to Plaintiffs concerning insurance qualify under the statute.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove actual reliance on false pretenses before the court considers whether that reliance was justifiable.

Casper v. O'Sullivan · filed 2021-09-01(a)(2)(A)

As stated previously, the applicable standard under § 523(a)(2)(A) is justifiable reliance, not reasonable reliance, and courts consider whether reliance is justifiable only after having first determined there was actual reliance.

Reliance by the creditor is required for the § 523(a)(2)(A) claims at issue.

The Huntington National Bank v. Mosby · filed 2022-09-01(a)(2)(A)

Both of those claims require a showing of reliance by the bank.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) makes a debt obtained through false representations nondischargeable when the debtor intended to deceive the creditor and the creditor relied on those representations.

Capozzolo v. Grow America Fund, Inc. · filed 2022-09-08(a)(2)(A)

This Court finds that, considering the numerous representations Capozzolo made as to Buffalo Forklift’s ownership of the inventory, GAF established the lack of a question of material fact as to Capozzolo’s intent to deceive and as to its reasonable reliance on Capozzolo’s assertions. For the same reasons as detailed above, therefore, this Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in finding Capozzolo’s debt nondischargeable pursuant to § 523 (a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires creditor reliance, which a lender cannot establish for an unsolicited live check through prior transactions or the debtor’s later endorsement.

Gulfco of Alabama, LLC d/b/a Tower Loan of Prattvi v. Northington · filed 2023-09-25(a)(2)(A)

For the sake of clarity, the Court now states in no uncertain terms its position that it is impossible for a plaintiff in an action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) to establish reliance on a debt resulting from an unsolicited live check, whether through prior transactions, endorsement of the check itself, or a combination thereof.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a creditor to prove actual reliance on a debtor’s false representation to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Cassouto-Noff & Co. v. Diamond · filed 2024-01-30(a)(2)(A)

Consequently, Cassouto-Noff fails to satisfy the fourth element, that it actually relied on the Debtor’s promise of personal liability when it provided legal services to the Bandel Group.

Section 523(a)(2) requires a creditor seeking to except a debt from discharge for misrepresentation to show reliance on the debtor’s statement.

Pacesetter Corp. v. Eby (In re Eby) · filed 1993-04-06(a)(2)

The Court disagrees. Recovery under either subsection requires reliance on the part of the victim. ... In this proceeding the distinction is immaterial because creditor showed neither reliance nor grounds therefor.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a nondischargeability claim only against a debtor in bankruptcy.

SLK Capital, LLC v. Beach · filed 2021-10-21(a)(2)(A)

The only remaining claim over which this Court has jurisdiction is for the determination of the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). This cause of action, by its nature, may be asserted only against a debtor in bankruptcy—meaning that defendants Beach’s Steak & Spirits, LLC, Louis Reimer, and Mary Lou Reimer are not proper defendants in this proceeding.

Section 523(c)(1) allows only a creditor owed the debt to seek a determination that the debt is nondischargeable.

Skinner v. Skinner (In re Skinner) · filed 2015-05-27(c)(1)

However, a debt of the kind specified in these subsections is dischargeable unless, “on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed,” the court determines the debt is non-dis-chargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except a receiver’s fees and expenses from discharge when they compensate the receiver and are paid for his own benefit.

Keena, II v. Zhiry · filed 2023-03-14(a)(7)

The debt must be penal, not compensatory. ... While argument might be interposed that the City of Sacramento benefits by shifting the costs of remediation to the landowner that, alone, does not make these fees and costs penal in nature.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except from discharge a debt that compensates an individual for actual pecuniary loss.

Maria Louisa Sage · filed 2022-06-15(a)(7)

Third, the evidence indicates that the debt to the Plaintiff is for an actual pecuniary loss, making the sum ineligible for §523(a)(7) relief.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except an attorney’s obligation to reimburse the California State Bar’s Client Security Fund from discharge when the reimbursement compensates the fund’s actual pecuniary loss.

Kassas v. State Bar of California · filed 2022-08-01(a)(7)

We reverse the bankruptcy court’s judgment that an obligation to reimburse the State Bar for payments by the CSF is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Postpetition interest accrued under state law on a debt nondischargeable under § 523(a)(15) remains the debtor’s personal liability.

Nonte v. Burstein · filed 2022-06-15(a)(15)

However, a debtor is liable for post-petition interest accrued under state law on nondischargable debts because such interest is a personal liability of the debtor and is not chargeable to the estate. ... Accordingly, as the Court has already determined the Debt is nondischargeable, interest continued to accrue on the Debt post-petition.

Section 523(a)(6) can except a debt arising from conversion of property from discharge when the debtor causes a willful and malicious injury.

Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC v. Whitfield · filed 2022-06-30(a)(6)

Conversion of property may fall within the § 523(a)(6) exception to discharge. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that RMH’s debt is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a) nondischargeability claims become moot when the bankruptcy case is dismissed because the debts can no longer be discharged in that case.

Matthew August Le Fande · filed 2022-07-08(a)

The dismissal of the Main Case leaves District Title without standing to seek relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a). Nondischargeability claims concern whether debts owed to a creditor are dischargeable in the debtor’s bankruptcy case, but with the Main Case dismissed, the debts Le Fande owes District Title cannot be discharged.

Section 523(a)(6) permits emotional distress damages to be included in a nondischargeable judgment when the state court record connects them to willful and malicious conduct.

Smith, Jr. v. Lookofsky · filed 2022-08-04(a)(6)

In order to include the emotional distress damages, it must be clear from the state court record that these damages relate to one of the non-dischargeable causes of action.

Section 523(a)(4) permits a nondischargeability claim for breach of fiduciary duty only against a debtor, not a nondebtor third party.

Clark v. Farris-Ellison · filed 2022-09-28(a)(4)

A claim for a breach of fiduciary duty under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) can only be made against a debtor in a bankruptcy case, and not against non-debtor third parties.