§ 523(a)(2)(A)

Barber v. Banker (In re Banker)

Plaintiff former wife sued defendant debtor, seeking a determination that a judgment debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 and that the findings of fraud by the California state court in the judgment established the nondischargeability of the judgment debt. The wife moved for summary judgment. The court held an evidentiary hearing.
Ruling: 
Judgment debt was deemed nondischargeable and debtor was collaterally estopped from challenging state court fraud findings since state common law fraud elements were virtually identical to those found in section 523(a)(2)(A).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Barber v. Banker (In re Banker). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

AttorneysTitle Ins. Fund Inc. v. Zecevic (In re Zecevic)

Plaintiff title insurance company filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor seeking a determination that its debt was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). An order of default was entered in favor of the creditor. The creditor sought to prove up its case by affidavit and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law seeking a judgment by default that its debt was nondischargeable.
Ruling: 
Debtor fraud was not shown and motion for default judgment was denied since bank opted not to cancel credit line even after it knew of property sale.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of AttorneysTitle Ins. Fund Inc. v. Zecevic (In re Zecevic). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Am. Express Ceturion Bank v. Chowdhury (In re Chowdhury)

Plaintiff creditor filed an adversary proceeding against defendants, debtors, seeking a determination that its debt was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The creditor filed a motion for default judgment.
Ruling: 
Creditor was granted motion for default judgment since debtors lacked ability to pay credit card charges at time they made them and subsequently.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Am. Express Ceturion Bank v. Chowdhury (In re Chowdhury). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Chapman v. Fuget (In re Fuget)

Plaintiff creditor asserted that defendants, debtors, fraudulently acquired over $50,000 in cash, two automobiles, and her home from her. The creditor asked that the debt be determined to be $128,000 and that this amount be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6).
Ruling: 
Court excepted from discharge an amount representing the money and property the debtors acquired from the creditor based on false representations.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Chapman v. Fuget (In re Fuget). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Ostlund v. Isfan (In re Isfan)

Plaintiff, the victim of defendant debtor's misrepresentations, brought an adversary complaint against debtor, the president of a construction company, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The matter was before the court for decision.
Ruling: 
Debt was deemed nondischargeable due to the debtor's intent to defraud.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Ostlund v. Isfan (In re Isfan). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Sec. Bank v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez)

Plaintiff bank filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor, claiming that the debtor's obligation to the bank should be declared nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B). The bank filed a motion for summary judgment.
Ruling: 
Bank was denied summary judgment since the debtor's alleged fraudulent intent was at issue.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Sec. Bank v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Prairie Constr. Co. v. Ring (In re Ring)

Plaintiff creditor filed an adversary proceeding objecting to discharge and to determine the dischargeability of a debt.
Ruling: 
Debt for supplied flooring was nondischargeable since the supplier relied on representations made in a guarantee that was signed with implicit authority and that proved to be false.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Prairie Constr. Co. v. Ring (In re Ring). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Jaffe v. Dawson (In re Dawson)

Plaintiff creditor filed an adversary proceeding against defendants, debtors, seeking a determination that the debt owed to him was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The creditor moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel.
Ruling: 
Debt was deemed nondischargeable since the creditor met the creditor's burden of showing that a state court judgment was preclusive on the dischargeability issue.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Jaffe v. Dawson (In re Dawson). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Cit GroupSales Fin. Inc. v. Kim (In re Kim)

Plaintiff creditor, which financed defendant debtor's purchase of a motor home based upon debtor's misrepresentations as to the purchase transaction, sought an order of nondischargeability of the purchase debt under either 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), or (a)(6). The creditor moved for summary judgment.
Ruling: 
Debt was deemed nondischargeable where a debtor made misrepresentations to secure financing and the creditor justifiably relied on these representations.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Cit GroupSales Fin. Inc. v. Kim (In re Kim). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Mitchell (In re Mitchell)

Plaintiff creditor filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor, claiming that the debtor's obligation under a construction loan entered into between the debtor and the creditor was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), or (a)(2)(B), or (a)(6). The creditor filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
Ruling: 
Summary judgment was denied to a creditor claiming loan obligation nondischargeability since the creditor presented insufficient evidence regarding alleged false statements in the loan application and reliance on these statements.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Mitchell (In re Mitchell). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Pages

Subscribe to § 523(a)(2)(A)