21bk05434, 21ap00117
On a creditor’s complaint seeking a determination of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) on a debt arising out of a contract dispute with an entity controlled by the debtor over renovations that entity had or should have performed, held: The creditor has failed to elevate its complaint beyond that of a simple contract dispute. The obligations owed by the creditor were ones pursuant to a contract, the propriety of which the creditor does not challenge. Payments made by the creditor were pursuant to that contract. While it does appear that the debtor and the debtor’s entity thereby made certain misrepresentations in the course of the contract, payments were not obtained by such misrepresentations so as to satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69 (2023), upsets the case law in this regard. Further, the creditor has failed to establish the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). While the court does not condone the sloppy business practices of the debtor and the puffery engaged in in his business relationship with the creditor, those alone are not enough to satisfy the statute. As a result, judgment in favor of the debtor will be entered on all existing counts of the complaint.