After a trial, the court sustained the debtors’ objection to a claim because there was no underlying basis for the debt. The creditor argued it was on account of a breach of contract, but he had no separate judgment on that basis, nor did he plead it in the associated adversary complaint he filed.

The court also ruled in favor of the debtors in the adversary proceeding, which sought to except the debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A). The issue of fraudulent intent came down to the credibility of the parties’ testimony, and the court found the debtor’s explanations to be more believable.