Michael Ackerman v. Jose Eber

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the bankruptcy court presiding over the debtor’s case has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and resolve questions of nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4) and (6)
• recognizing that bankruptcy courts have “special expertise to decide” core matters (emphasis added)
• holding that bankruptcy courts “have exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability of debts under §§ 523(a)(2) (fraud and deception); (a)(4) (fiduciary fraud, embezzlement, or larceny); and (a)(6) (willful and malicious injury to person or property).”
• holding that claims were core nondischargeability claims regardless of how they were pled and that “[allowing an arbitrator to decide issues that ai-e so closely intertwined with dischargeability would ‘conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.”
• stating that “§ 524 does not enjoin creditors who have successfully invoked § 523, which provides a list of exceptions to discharge, from taking action”
• allowing arbitrator to decide issues of dischargeability conflicts with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).