Debt not excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A). Breach of contract, but no false representation
You are here
Opinions
United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Action to determine lien validity & priority. Bank lending money to individual partner did not intend loan to be for partnership and received no security interest in partnership property. Discusses Iowa UCC & partnership law
After a trial, the court ruled that the debt owed to the debtor's former spouse was not dischargeable under section 523(a)(5) as a debt in the nature of support and under section 523(a)(15) as a division of marital property which the debtor was capable of paying.
Under Nebraska rules of contract construction, the language of the loan documents at issue was unambiguous and the intent of the parties could be determined from the actual language of the documents. The debtor's objection to the claim was sustained
After a trial, the court excepted from discharge a debt to the debtor’s former wife arising from her payment of a marital debt assigned to him in the parties’ divorce. She established that it was a non-support debt that fell within the ambit of § 523(a)(15), and the burden shifted to the debtor to prove that he did not have the ability to pay or that the benefit to him of a discharge would be greater than the detriment to his former wife. Financial records indicated the debtor could pay at least a nominal amount each month to his former wife. The former wife also demonstrated a significant detriment to herself – after turning over cash and collateral worth more than $3,500 on the joint debt the debtor was ordered to pay – while the debtor put forth little evidence of a significant benefit to himself if the debt were discharged or a material drop in his standard of living if the debt were not discharged.