11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepted disability benefits paid while the debtor worked at Pepsi Bottling from discharge.

United States of America (SSA) v. McClelland · filed 2022-10-21(a)(2)(A)

The Court finds, however, that SSA has met its burden under section 523(a)(2)(A) for DIB disbursed while Debtor worked at Pepsi Bottling Co.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts unemployment benefit overpayments from discharge when the debtor obtained the benefits by intentionally concealing wages.

State of Connecticut Department of Labor v. Granahan · filed 2022-11-23(a)(2)(A)

Here, the court concludes the Plaintiff met its burden to establish the elements for a determination under § 523(a)(2)(A) through its Affidavit stating the BPCU’s final determination that the Defendant intentionally, deliberately and with the intent to obtain unemployment compensation benefits by fraud, did not report his earned wages to the Plaintiff as was required for those weeks.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits and related costs from discharge, while § 523(a)(7) excepts the resulting civil penalty.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development v. Varenza Lavonda Miller · filed 2026-05-15(a)(2)(A), (a)(7)

The resulting debt for $1,811 attributable to benefit overpayments, $71.94 in pre-petition collection costs, plus the $350.00 filing fee in this proceeding, for a total of $ 2,232.94, is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), while the unpaid civil penalty balance of $724.40 is not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

A creditor may assert laches against a debtor’s § 523 dischargeability action, but must show demonstrable prejudicial delay, extraordinary circumstances, and a compelling reason to bar the action.

Steven Alan Stein · filed 2022-12-06

Although laches is potentially available under Beaty as a defense in an action by a bankruptcy debtor seeking a determination that a debt was discharged, that case also requires that a creditor asserting laches make a particularized showing of demonstrable prejudicial delay and a heightened showing of extraordinary circumstances and a compelling reason why the action should be barred.

A debtor’s action to determine whether an educational loan was discharged under § 523(a)(8) may face a laches defense, but the creditor must show demonstrable prejudicial delay and extraordinary circumstances.

Stein v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-2 et a · filed 2022-12-06(a)(8)

Although laches is potentially available under Beaty as a defense in an action by a bankruptcy debtor seeking a determination that a debt was discharged, that case also requires that a creditor asserting laches make a particularized showing of demonstrable prejudicial delay and a heightened showing of extraordinary circumstances and a compelling reason why the action should be barred.

A debtor’s §523(a)(1) action to determine whether tax debts are dischargeable can be ripe upon filing an eligible Chapter 7 petition, before a discharge order is entered.

Anthony J. Wallace - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-08-18(a)(1)

A final judgment will determine the rights of the Debtor under §§523(a)(1) and 727(b), statutes intended to provide the honest debtor with a fresh start. ... The Debtor’s complaint was ripe as soon as he filed a petition seeking a discharge of prior debts under §727 as a person eligible for relief under Chapter 7.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii)’s two-year lookback period for late tax returns is equitably tolled while an automatic stay is in place in a prior bankruptcy case.

RADER v. Internal Revenue Services · filed 2023-04-19(a)(1)(B)(ii)

For the reasons stated, the Court holds that equitable tolling applies to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) such that the two-year lookback period is tolled while the automatic stay is in place in a prior bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires a court to establish that a debt exists under applicable law before deciding whether fraud makes it nondischargeable.

Guinn v. CDR Investments, LLC · filed 2023-09-01(a)(2)(A)

There is no dispute that the Bankruptcy Court was required to engage in a two-step process: first, determining whether a debt exists under applicable law (Nevada state law), and then determining whether the debt is excepted under discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) allows a creditor to seek a discharge exception for a debt arising from a debtor’s fraudulent receipt of money even when the trustee seeks to avoid the same transfer.

PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. v. William W. Cole, Jr. · filed 2023-11-02(a)(2)(A)

No Code provision extinguishes a creditor’s right to seek a discharge exception under § 523(a)(2)(A) because the Trustee seeks to avoid a fraudulent transfer under § 544(b) or § 548(a) or the full denial of discharge under § 727(a).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of damages caused by a fraudulent transfer before those damages can be excepted from discharge.

The Danberry Co., Realtors v. Nadeau · filed 2024-11-21(a)(2)(A)

Danberry needed to establish damages that resulted from the transfer of the Bury Road property to the Trust. Attorney fees, filing fees, and other costs or damages directly attributable to the transfer of the property had to be proven at trial. No such proof was offered. Accordingly, there are no proven damages for the court to find nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make an existing debt nondischargeable because the debtor later transfers assets to frustrate collection; the debt must be obtained by or traceable to the fraud.

Tortola v. Wilson · filed 2025-03-24(a)(2)(A)

Section 523 does not include actions to collect a debt as one of the bases to find the original debt nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) permits a claim that a debtor’s personal liability arising from a fraudulent transfer is excepted from discharge, even without a false statement.

Jarrett · filed 2025-12-22(a)(2)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim that the Obligation created by the Superior Court Order and Superior Court Judgment was obtained by fraud and is subject to exemption from discharge herein under Section 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts a fraudulent-transfer debt from discharge only if the transfer involved actual fraud rather than merely constructive fraud.

Hang · filed 2026-03-31(a)(2)(A)

To prevail on their nondischargeability claim, the Lee Parties must prove that the Debtors are liable for an actual fraudulent transfer, as opposed to a constructive fraudulent transfer.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires proof of an actual fraudulent transfer, rather than a merely constructive fraudulent transfer, to except the resulting debt from discharge.

Vang · filed 2026-03-31(a)(2)(A)

To prevail on their nondischargeability claim, the Lee Parties must prove that the Debtors are liable for an actual fraudulent transfer, as opposed to a constructive fraudulent transfer.

Section 523(d) requires a creditor to pay the debtor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fee when its unsuccessful challenge to the discharge of a consumer debt under § 523(a)(2) was not substantially justified, unless special circumstances make the award unjust.

The Golden 1 Credit Union v. Fiedler · filed 2023-11-02(d)

A creditor who requests determination of dischargeability of a “consumer debt” under § 523(a)(2) that ultimately is discharged is liable for the debtor’s costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee for the proceeding if the court finds that the position of the creditor was not substantially justified, unless special circumstances would make the award unjust. 11 U.S.C. § 523(d). ... A reasonable estimate of the total § 523(d) costs is $450.00, which shall be paid to her by Golden One.

Debts alleged to fall under § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) remain presumptively discharged while an appeal of a dischargeability ruling is pending.

Daren C. Daly · filed 2025-01-09(c)(1)

Here, this Court has already made a dischargeability determination, concluding that the Dalys and Sealcoating failed to prove the Debtor owed them any debts excepted from discharge under sections 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). Although that decision is on appeal, these debts are nevertheless “presumptively discharged,” for the same reasons articulated in Pacheco.

Section 523(a)(4) does not support summary judgment on fiduciary misconduct or embezzlement when the evidence is insufficient to establish either ground.

EBE, Inc., d/b/a EBE Technologies v. Wilhelms · filed 2025-03-03(a)(4)

The summary judgment evidence submitted, read in the light most favorable to Defendant, is insufficient for a finding of breach of fiduciary duty or embezzlement under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a plausible allegation of defalcation while acting as a fiduciary or embezzlement of the creditor’s property with fraudulent intent to except a debt from discharge.

Spaulding · filed 2026-06-16(a)(4)

For these reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief under section 523(a)(4). Accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the Complaint does not plausibly allege all the requisite elements that Defendant committed defalcation while acting as a fiduciary. Likewise, the Complaint fails to plausibly allege Defendant committed embezzlement, as it does not plead specific facts demonstrating the funds were property of Plaintiff or the requisite fraudulent intent and deceit.

A debtor may raise a creditor’s unclean hands as a defense to nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B), even when the debtor cannot challenge the underlying judgment.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2025-05-30(a)(2)(B)

Although Ms. Smith cannot collaterally attack the Judgment with her affirmative defenses, she can use the substance of affirmative defenses three through five as part of an “unclean hands” challenge that, if successful, could prevent Tower from seeking declaratory relief that its debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts California tax debts from discharge when a debtor fails to give the Franchise Tax Board a required notice of a federal tax change.

Mendoza v. Franchise Tax Board · filed 2025-05-30(a)(1)(B)(i)

In deciding to grant the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the First Claim for Relief, the court considered the plain language of Federal and California Statues, the rulings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the undisputed evidence that the Plaintiff-Debtor did not provide notice to Defendant-FTB as required by California Law. Based on that, the court has granted Partial Summary Judgment on the First Claim for Relief that Plaintiff-Debtor’s 2012 and 2013 tax debts to the State of California are nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a state tax debt from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required report of changes to federal taxes.

Mendoza v. Franchise Tax Board · filed 2025-05-21(a)(1)(B)(i)

According to established caselaw in Berkovich, Debtor failing to make the reporting requirements pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 18622(a) violates 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) may bar discharge of tax debts when the debtor filed returns only after the IRS prepared substitute returns; a genuine dispute about when the debtor filed precludes summary judgment on that basis.

Young · filed 2026-01-21(a)(1)(B)(i)

There is also no question that his assertion about when he mailed the returns is material. If credited, the statement could mean that the fourth Payne factor is satisfied because the IRS would have received the returns before it prepared the § 6020(b) returns in August.

Section 523(a)(6) excepts monetary sanctions for intentionally violating a court order from discharge.

Campbell · filed 2026-01-12(a)(6)

It follows, therefore, that monetary sanctions levied against a party for intentionally violating a court order are per se nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require proof that every individual consumer relied on the debtor’s misrepresentations in a State consumer protection action.

Beck · filed 2026-02-09(a)(2)(A)

The CCPA does not require the State to name specific aggrieved parties, nor does it require proof of reliance upon the Debtor’s misrepresentations by every individual consumer for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A).

A debtor's admission that a debt should not be discharged under § 523(a)(2)(A) can support summary judgment excepting the debt from discharge.

Vision Bank v. Freeman · filed 2026-06-23(a)(2)(A)

Therefore, the Court concludes that they should be bound by their admission that they should not be granted a discharge of the debt owed pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A).