Deodati v. M.M. Winkler & Associates (In Re M.M. Winkler & Associates)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• considering Supreme Court precedent and clarifying that § 523(a)(2)(A) does not require a “receipt of benefit” to except a debt from discharge
• rejecting a “receipt of benefits” requirement and holding that an innocent partner’s debt was nondischargeable regardless of whether the innocent partner received any benefit from his partner’s fraud
• if 2 debtor liable to defrauded party for money obtained by fraud, obligation is non-dischargeable
• “The plain meaning of the statute . . . argues against a receipt of benefit requirement.”
• “Strang is still good law. In recent years, [the Fifth Circuit] and others have relied on it to bar discharge on behalf of innocent debtors for a partner’s fraud.”
• “[W]e hold that § 523(a)(2)(A) prevents an innocent debtor from discharging liability for the fraud of his partners, regardless whether he receives [directly or indirectly] a monetary benefit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).