11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(2)(A)

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Hunter v. Hunter
  771 F.2d 1126· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 27×
  The court held that foreclosure sale proceeds should be allocated proportionally between dischargeable and nondischargeable debts when consolidated into a single note, and remanded for determination of ancillary fees and interest.
• In re Halpern v. First Ga. Bank
  810 F.2d 1061· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-20 ·cited 21×
  The bankruptcy court properly applied collateral estoppel to the factual findings in a state court consent judgment to determine nondischargeability of a debt.
• In re Shuler v. Simpson & Co.
  722 F.2d 1253· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-20 ·cited 9×
  A bankruptcy court is not bound by a state court's conclusory finding of false pretenses in a default judgment when determining debt dischargeability, as the state court record must contain specific facts demonstrating the false pretenses under federal bankruptcy standards.
• Engler v. van Steinburg
  744 F.2d 1060· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 5×
  Oral misrepresentations about a debtor's property being unencumbered constitute statements respecting financial condition and must be in writing to prevent debt discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B).
• Fuller v. Johannessen
  180 B.R. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1995-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of the debtors' claims, holding that the debtors failed to state causes of action for nondischargeability under the relevant Bankruptcy Code sections.
• Smith v. Beeson (In Re Smith)
  128 B.R. 488· S.D. Fla.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly applied collateral estoppel to find a debt non-dischargeable, as the elements of the prior common law fraud judgment were identical to those required for non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A) and the parties intended the cons
• In re Denis Edward Bowyer v. Denis Edward Bowyer
  932 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's findings, when given proper deference, support the conclusion that the debtor did not intend to defraud creditors by converting non-exempt assets to exempt property before filing bankruptcy.
• Newcom v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-16
  The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, holding that the restitution debt was not barred by a statute of limitations and was nondischargeable due to fraud, as the prior Sanctions Order had collateral estoppel effect.
• In re Edmond v. Consumer Prot. Div.
  934 F.2d 1302· 4th Cir.· 1991-05-28
  The court should not affirm the lower courts' holding that numerous individual claims are nondischargeable without considering class action treatment under Rule 23.