Fraud Exception In Bankruptcy

Summary

The Supreme Court in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley ruled that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. The Court emphasized that the liability for fraud is defined and limited by state law, highlighting the importance of Massachusetts usury laws in your case. This decision underscores that while federal bankruptcy law provides a framework, state law governs the specifics of fraud liability.

Full Conversation

Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision. ---

It sounds like you're working on a case involving fraudulent actions by a lender, and you're drawing a parallel to the *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* decision. Including the specific language from Section * of the Bankruptcy Code is a good idea to bolster your argument.
Do you need help with any other sections of your motion or specific points of law?

Yes I wish to really focus on this case because it is extremely similiar to my case so i would like to section the similarities ok?

Got it! It sounds like you're dealing with a case involving fraudulent actions by a lender and you want to draw parallels with *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* to strengthen your argument.
To help you better, could you specify any particular similarities or sections you want to focus on in your case?

Ok! Heres the case briefly:Here follows:Supreme Court Holds that Fraud Exception To Debt Discharge can Include Fraud by Someone Other Than The Debtor in Re Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. *-* , " Section * of the bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge "any debt ...for money , property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refiancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation , or actual fraud... "* U.S.C. Section * (a)(*)(A).

To bolster your argument using the *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* case, you could outline the following similarities:
- Both cases involve fraudulent actions by parties other than the debtor.
- The debts in question were obtained through false representations.
- The application of Section *(a)(*)(A) to make the debts nondischargeable.
Do you need help drafting any specific sections or points for your motion?

Kate and David Bartenwerrfer were sued by Kieran Buckley, who obtained a damages award against them for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts. The Bartenwerfers then filed for bankruptcy. Buckley brought an adversary proceeding against them and argued that the state court judgment he had obtained was nondischargeable under section *(a)(*)(A) because it was a debt that had been obtained through fraud.Kate Bartenwerfer (“Bartenwerfer”) argued that because she had no knowledge of the false representations, the debt she owed pursuant to the judgment was not covered by section *(a)(*)(A) and was dischargeable. The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that section *(a)(*)(A)’s application did not depend on the debtor’s knowledge of the fraud, and so was applicable to Bartenwerfer. The Supreme Court affirmed.

It sounds like you have a strong argument by drawing parallels to *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*. Including the specific language from Section * of the Bankruptcy Code is a smart move.
Here are some bullet points you might consider including:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent actions taken by the lender in your case, similar to the nondisclosure and misrepresentations in *Bartenwerfer*.

- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: Emphasize that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in *Bartenwerfer*, the debtor’s lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: Clearly state that Section *(a)(*)(A) applies in your case because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
Would you like help refining any other sections of your motion?

Im going to keep providing information and once gathered you can create a polished section.Debtor got a state court judgement based on fraud and filed in Bankr court. (Like me)

It sounds like you have a compelling case. Drawing parallels to *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* is a smart strategy. Here’s a polished section for your motion:
---
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate’s lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
Application to My Case:
Just as in *Bartenwerfer*, where the debt was obtained through fraud, my case involves fraudulent actions by the private lender. According to Section * of the Bankruptcy Code, “any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud...* U.S.C. Section *(a)(*)(A) is exempt from discharge.”
Key Similarities:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent actions taken by the lender in my case, similar to the nondisclosure and misrepresentations in *Bartenwerfer*.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision in *Bartenwerfer*, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: Clearly state that Section *(a)(*)(A) applies to my case because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or points in your motion?

The Supreme Court affirmed. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, and particularly that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor Finally, the Court rejected Barternwerfer’s arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law

It seems like you have a strong argument by drawing parallels to *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*. Including the specific language from Section * of the Bankruptcy Code is a smart move. Here's a polished section for your motion:
---
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate’s lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
Application to My Case:
Just as in *Bartenwerfer*, where the debt was obtained through fraud, my case involves fraudulent actions by the private lender. According to Section * of the Bankruptcy Code, “any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of creditto the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud...* U.S.C. Section *(a)(*)(A) is exempt from discharge.”
Key Similarities:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent actions taken by the lender in my case, similar to the nondisclosure and misrepresentations in *Bartenwerfer*.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision in *Bartenwerfer*, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: Clearly state that Section *(a)(*)(A) applies to my case because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or points in your motion?

The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were held liable for a damages award despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, as Section *(a)(*)(A) is written in the passive voice and does not specify an actor. The Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests and that liability for another's fraud is defined and limited by state law.

It seems like you're on the right track by drawing parallels to *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*. Here's a refined section you can use:
---
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were held liable for a damages award despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, as Section *(a)(*)(A) is written in the passive voice and does not specify an actor. The Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests and that liability for another's fraud is defined and limited by state law.
Application to My Case:
Just as in *Bartenwerfer*, where the debt was obtained through fraud, my case involves fraudulent actions by the private lender. According to Section * of the Bankruptcy Code, “any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud... * U.S.C. Section *(a)(*)(A) is exempt from discharge.”
Key Similarities:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent actions taken by the lender in my case, similar to the nondisclosure and misrepresentations in *Bartenwerfer*.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision in *Bartenwerfer*, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: Clearly state that Section *(a)(*)(A) applies to my case because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or points in your motion?

Massachusetts law criminalizes usury, which is defined as charging interest on a loan that is more than *% per yera, This includes brokerage, recording fees, commissions, services , loan extensions and forbearanc to enforce payment. Ms Merritt 's like Kate Bartenwerfer lack of knowledge about the false representation , as defined in Section * a 2a , and that liability for my financial adviosor's fraud who orginated loan for *% and in continuance the private lenders and their attorney compounded that to a *% interest rate that was used to forclose on Ms. Merritt's property . Massachusett usry laws are a public policy law.

It sounds like you have a well-developed argument. Here are some key points you might want to consider including:

Key Points:
- Massachusetts Usury Law: Charging more than *% annual interest is illegal.
- Fraudulent Actions: Your financial advisor and lenders compounded the interest rate to *%, which is illegal and fraudulent.
- Section *(a)(*)(A): As in *Bartenwerfer*, your lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Public Policy: Massachusetts usury laws are public policy laws that override private contracts.
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: The state court’s lack of final judgment on usury means this doctrine cannot be used to waive the fraud exception.
Would you like to refine any other sections or need more information?

Meaning it is iregardless of private parties contracts the sate prohibts the charging of excess interest. In addition this was never adjudicated in the state court. I repeat that the violation of criminal usuary was never made to a final judge which further unders scores that the Rooker Feldman Doctrine can not be used to assist these claimants in waiving the fraud expection rule Section * a *.

It sounds like you have a compelling argument by drawing parallels to *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* and highlighting the usury laws in Massachusetts.

Key Points to Include:
- Massachusetts Usury Laws: Prohibits charging interest over *% per year.
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Emphasize the fraudulent acts and excessive interest rates.
- Lack of Knowledge: Highlight that the debtor’s knowledge of fraud is irrelevant under Section *(a)(*)(A).
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: Note that the state court never adjudicated the usury claim.
Do you need help refining any other sections or points?

*. Evidence of Usury: *. Exhibit A: Note Signed by Ms. Merritt - Interest Rate: *% - Violation: Massachusetts Predatory Lending Practices Act, Chapter * - Violation: Massachusetts Usury Law, Chapter *, Section * *. Exhibit B: Financial Advisor Charges - Commission Fee: $*,* (*% of the $*,* debt amount) - Total Interest Rate: *% *. Exhibit C: Confession - The private lender's testimony under oath in federal court admitting to inflating the debt. *. Exhibit D: Accounting Document - The final accounting record showing that the compounded *% interest rate was the rate used to foreclose on the property. *. Exhibit E: Fraudulent Foreclosure Deed - Used to illegally foreclose on the property.

You have a substantial amount of evidence that supports your case involving usury and fraudulent actions by the lender. Here are the key points related to Massachusetts usury laws and Section *(a)(*)(A):

Key Points:
- Massachusetts Usury Laws: Charging interest over *% per year is illegal.
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent acts and excessive interest rates.
- Lack of Knowledge: The debtor’s knowledge of fraud is irrelevant under Section *(a)(*)(A).
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: Emphasize that the usury claim was never adjudicated in state court.
Would you like assistance with any specific section or further refinement on any of these points?

Can I send you what we have and you can polish it section by section?

Sure, I'd be happy to help you polish your sections. You can start by sending me one section at a time, and I'll provide feedback and revisions. To begin, do you have a specific section you'd like to start with?

Can I send you what we have and you can polish it section by section?

Sure! Feel free to share the sections that need polishing, and I'll help refine them. What's the first section you'd like to work on?

Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay I. Introduction: This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence. Pursuant to Rule *(b)(*), (*), and (*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment is void ab initio as it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and violated due process. Additionally, under the fraud exception to debt discharge in Section *(a)(*)(A), as reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, this motion argues that the debt was obtained through fraudulent actions by parties other than the debtor, further justifying relief.

Your motion is off to a strong start. Here's a polished version of your introduction:
---
Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence. Pursuant to Rule *(b)(*), (*), and (*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment is void ab initio as it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and violated due process.
Additionally, under the fraud exception to debt discharge in Section *(a)(*)(A), as reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, this motion argues that the debt was obtained through fraudulent actions by parties other than the debtor. Fraud is defined and limited by state law, specifically Massachusetts state usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *, which have not been adjudicated in a state court despite the claimant's claims otherwise, further justifying relief.
---
Would you like to continue with the next section or need further refinements on this one?

Fraud is defined and limited by state law, whereby the debt the claimant is seeking ownership to title is in violation of Massachusetts state usury laws defined under MGL Chapter *, Section *, and has not been adjudicated in a state court despite the claimant's claim otherwise,further justifying relief.

It sounds like you have a strong foundation for your motion. Here's a polished version of your introduction:
---
Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence. Pursuant to Rule *(b)(*), (*), and (*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment is void ab initio as it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and violated due process. Additionally, under the fraud exception to debt discharge in Section *(a)(*)(A), as reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, this motion argues that the debt was obtained through fraudulent actions by parties other than the debtor, further justifying relief.
Fraud is defined and limited by state law, whereby the debt the claimant is seeking ownership to title is in violation of Massachusetts state usury laws defined under MGL Chapter *, Section *, and has not been adjudicated in a state court despite the claimant's claim otherwise, further justifying relief.
---
Would you like to proceed with refining another section?It sounds like you have a strong foundation for your motion. Here's a polished version of your introduction:
---
Motion to Void Judgment That Lifted Automatic Stay
I. Introduction:
This motion seeks to void the judgment dated [date], in which Honorable Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay based on incorrect facts and fraudulent evidence. Pursuant to Rule *(b)(*), (*), and (*) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the judgment is void ab initio as it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and violated due process. Additionally, under the fraud exception to debt discharge in Section *(a)(*)(A), as reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, this motion argues that the debt was obtained through fraudulent actions by parties other than the debtor, further justifying relief.
Fraud is defined and limited by state law, whereby the debt the claimant is seeking ownership to title is in violation of Massachusetts state usury laws defined under MGL Chapter *, Section *, and has not been adjudicated in a state court despite the claimant's claim otherwise, further justifying relief.
---
Would you like to proceed with refining another section?

Next section:I. Background: *. Timeline of Events: - [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy. - [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant. - [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.

Sure! Here's a polished version of your background section:
---
I. Background:
*. Timeline of Events:
- [Date]: Filed for Chapter * bankruptcy.
- [Date]: Motion to lift the automatic stay filed by the claimant.
- [Date]: Judge Panos lifted the automatic stay.
---
Would you like to work on the next section or refine any specific part further?

Should the next section be Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision. Application to My Case:

Yes, including the Supreme Court Ruling would be a logical next step to strengthen your argument. Here's a polished version for your next section:
---

II. Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

III. Application to My Case
Just as in *Bartenwerfer*, where the debt was obtained through fraud, my case involves fraudulent actions by the private lender. According to Section * of the Bankruptcy Code, “any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud... * U.S.C.§ *(a)(*)(A) is exempt from discharge.”

Key Similarities:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Highlight the fraudulent actions taken by the lender in my case, similar to the nondisclosure and misrepresentations in *Bartenwerfer*.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision in *Bartenwerfer*, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: Clearly state that Section *(a)(*)(A) applies to my case because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or points in your motion?

Can you provide more details including what I sent to you?

Absolutely, here's a polished version of the section you provided:
---

Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Application to My Case:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
Would you like to proceed with refining another section? If so, please share the details.

Id like to include this because the eir ruling was based is defined and limited by state law. The Supreme Court affirmed. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, and particularly that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor Finally, the Court rejected Barternwerfer’s arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.

Sure, here's a polished version of the section that includes your additional details:
---

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on Section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, particularly noting that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor. Additionally, the Court rejected arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competinginterests, and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.

Application to My Case
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
- Defined by State Law: The scope of liability for the lender’s fraud is defined and limited by Massachusetts state law, specifically the usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
Would you like to proceed with refining another section? If so, please share the details.

YES! Thats what i want to highlite. MGL Chapter * Section * is the governing law in my case. Then we prode the law. Can you please just provide me Supreme Court Ruling section polished?

Sure, here's the polished Supreme Court Ruling section:
---

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on Section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, particularly noting that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor. Additionally, the Court rejected arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, and notingthat the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.

Application to My Case
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
- Defined by State Law: The scope of liability for the lender’s fraud is defined and limited by Massachusetts state law, specifically the usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
---
Would you like to proceed with refining another section? If so, please share the details.

Can you please just provide me Supreme Court Ruling section polished?

Sure, here's the polished Supreme Court Ruling section:
---
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on Section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, particularly noting that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor. Additionally, the Court rejected arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests,and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.
Application to My Case:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
- Defined by State Law: The scope of liability for the lender’s fraud is defined and limited by Massachusetts state law, specifically the usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
---
Would you like to proceed with refining another section?

I think we must establish the rule first:Here follows:Supreme Court Holds that Fraud Exception To Debt Discharge can Include Fraud by Someone Other Than The Debtor in Re Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. *-* , " Section * of the bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge "any debt ...for money , property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refiancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation , or actual fraud... "* U.S.C. Section * (a)(*)(A). T

Sure, here's a polished version that establishes the Supreme Court ruling as a foundation for your argument:
---

Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. Section * of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge "any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud... " * U.S.C. Section *(a)(*)(A).
In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on Section *(a)(*)(A)’s text, particularly noting that it is written in the passive voice:the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor. Additionally, the Court rejected arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.

Application to My Case:
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
- Defined by State Law: The scope of liability for the lender’s fraud is defined and limited by Massachusetts state law, specifically the usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *.
---
Would you like to proceed with refining another section?

Could you please explain to me in layman's terms what this means: Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

Sure! In simple terms:
- Kate didn't know about the false information that was given.
- Despite this, the Ninth Circuit Court said that the specific part of the bankruptcy law (Section *(a)(*)(A)) still applied.
- This meant that the debt couldn't be wiped out in bankruptcy.
- The Supreme Court agreed with this decision.

What does it mean?

Sure! In simple terms, this means that even though Kate Bartenwerfer didn't know about the false information that was given, the court decided that it didn't matter. The law (Section *(a)(*)(A)) says that if a debt was obtained through fraud, it can't be wiped out in bankruptcy. The higher court agreed with this decision.

So my dbet obtained by fraud can not be wiped out by bankruptcy so then how does Section * help me?

Section * can help you by making the debt owed to you by the fraudulent party nondischargeable in their bankruptcy. This means that even if the person who committed fraud against you files for bankruptcy, they will still owe you the debt because it was obtained through fraudulent means.
Is there anything specific you need help with regarding your case?

So this to follow is the main point Finally, the Court rejected Barternwerfer’s arguments based on the fresh start policy of bankruptcy law, reasoning that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, and noting that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law? The state law is the controlling factor. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley* emphasized that the liability for fraud is defined and limited by state law. This means that while federal bankruptcy law provides the framework, the specifics of what constitutes fraud and the extent of liability are governed by state law. In your case, Massachusetts state law, particularly the usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *, will play a crucial role in defining and limiting the liability for the fraud committed against you.
Would you like to proceed with refining any other sections of your motion?

I want to emphasise the above and not the fact that a debt created by fraud is not dischargeable. Should we edit?

Sure, you can emphasize the point that the Supreme Court ruling supports the balance of multiple competing interests and the importance of state law. Here’s a refined section that focuses on that:
---

Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court in *Bartenwerfer v. Buckley*, No. *-*, held that the fraud exception to debt discharge under Section *(a)(*)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code can include fraud by someone other than the debtor. Section * of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge "any debt ... for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit to the extent obtained by false representation, or actual fraud..." * U.S.C. Section *(a)(*)(A).
In this case, Kate and David Bartenwerfer were sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nondisclosure of material facts, resulting in a damages award. Despite Kate's lack of knowledge about the false representations, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Section *(a)(*)(A) applied, making the debt nondischargeable. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court focused on Section *(a)(*)((A)’s text, particularly noting that it is written in the passive voice: the section refers to a debt “obtained by” fraud without specifying an actor. The Court rejected Bartenwerfer’s arguments that context limited “obtained by” to actions of the debtor. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code balances multiple competing interests, reasoning that the actual scope of liability for another’s fraud is defined and limited by state law.

Application to My Case:
- State Law as a Controlling Factor: Massachusetts state usury laws under MGL Chapter *, Section *, define and limit the scope of liability for the lender’s fraud.
- Fraudulent Actions by Lender: Similar to *Bartenwerfer*, my case involves fraudulent actions by a private lender.
- Lack of Knowledge Irrelevant: As per the Supreme Court's decision, my lack of knowledge about the fraud does not exempt the debt from being nondischargeable.
- Section *(a)(*)(A) Application: This section applies because the debt was incurred through false representations or actual fraud.
---
Would you like to refine any other sections or focus on another aspect of your case?

Fraud Exception In Bankruptcy

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats