Creditor adversary complaints to except a specific debt from discharge: the 60-day post-341 deadline for Section 523(a)(2), (4), (6), and (15); standing; Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud claims; and the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governing all dischargeability subsections.
A dischargeability complaint asks the bankruptcy court to declare that a particular debt is not discharged in the debtor's case, leaving the creditor free to collect on it after the bankruptcy concludes. Section 523 lists nineteen categories of nondischargeable debts; some require an adversary complaint within a deadline (the so-called "self-effectuating exceptions" do not). A successful complaint produces a money judgment that survives discharge and is collectible post-bankruptcy on the debtor's exempt and post-petition assets.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) imposes a strict 60-day filing deadline for complaints under four Section 523 subsections:
If a complaint under any of these subsections is not filed by the deadline, the creditor's claim is discharged regardless of how meritorious the substantive theory would have been. The remaining Section 523 subsections (most notably tax debts under (a)(1), domestic support obligations under (a)(5), student loans under (a)(8), DUI debts under (a)(9), and many others) are "self-effectuating": no complaint is required, and the dischargeability question can be litigated later in a state-court collection action.
The 60-day deadline runs from the first date set for the meeting of creditors under Section 341(a), not from the date the meeting actually occurs. Continuances of the 341 meeting do not extend the Rule 4007(c) deadline. Extensions are granted only on motion filed before the deadline expires and only for cause shown. The Supreme Court has emphasized the strict, jurisdiction-like character of the deadline; courts treat untimely complaints as time-barred even when the delay results from minor calendaring errors.
The clerk of court issues a notice of the deadline shortly after the petition is filed. Creditors who fail to track the deadline in calendaring systems frequently lose substantively winnable claims. See the full Rule 4007 deep-dive for the deadline-extension mechanics.
Standing to file a dischargeability complaint generally requires (1) a claim against the debtor that (2) falls within the substantive coverage of the Section 523 subsection invoked. The creditor need not have first liquidated the claim in another forum; the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine both the existence of the debt and its dischargeability in the same adversary proceeding. The United States Trustee and case trustee do not have standing under Section 523 (their role is primarily under Section 727); only the affected creditor may file.
The Supreme Court in Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991), held that the standard of proof for dischargeability exceptions under Section 523 is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The Court reasoned that the Bankruptcy Code's plain language contains no heightened-proof requirement and that the fresh-start policy of the Code does not require courts to read one in. The preponderance standard applies uniformly across all Section 523 subsections, including the fraud-based subsections.
Some lower courts had previously applied a clear-and-convincing standard derived from common-law fraud doctrine. Grogan displaced that practice and made dischargeability litigation easier for creditors than its common-law-fraud analogs.
Fraud-based dischargeability claims (Section 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(4) fraud or embezzlement) are subject to the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), incorporated through Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7009. The complaint must plead the time, place, content, and identity of the persons making each alleged misrepresentation, the speaker's knowledge of falsity, the speaker's intent to induce reliance, the creditor's actual and justifiable reliance, and damages.
Willful-injury claims under Section 523(a)(6) are not technically fraud claims and may not require Rule 9(b) particularity in all circuits, but the better practice is to plead the underlying acts and the intentional/substantially-certain-result theory with detail.
Three doctrinal anchors govern Section 523(a)(2)(A):
Bullock v. BankChampaign, 569 U.S. 267 (2013), held that "defalcation" under Section 523(a)(4) requires a culpable mental state similar to that required for embezzlement or larceny: actual knowledge of, or gross recklessness with respect to, the impropriety of the conduct. Pure negligence is insufficient. The "fiduciary capacity" element requires a technical or express trust, not merely a relationship of trust and confidence; the Section 523(a)(4) "fiduciary" inquiry is narrower than common-law fiduciary doctrine.
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998), held that Section 523(a)(6) requires a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that produces injury. Negligent and reckless conduct, even if grossly so, does not satisfy the "willful" requirement. Malice may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and does not require ill will in the colloquial sense; substantially certain knowledge of the injury suffices in most circuits.
Post-BAPCPA, Section 523(a)(15) makes nondischargeable in Chapter 7 (and Chapter 11) any debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor incurred in the course of a divorce or separation, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree, or other order of a court of record. The pre-BAPCPA balancing test (undue hardship; benefit-to-debtor-versus-detriment-to-creditor) was eliminated for Chapter 7 cases. Chapter 13 still discharges (a)(15) debts that are not also (a)(5) domestic-support obligations.
Dischargeability actions are filed as adversary proceedings under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(6). The complaint must satisfy Rule 8 notice pleading (or Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud claims), a summons issues under Rule 7004, the defendant-debtor answers, and the matter proceeds through discovery and trial like any other federal civil action. Removed actions and related state-court litigation may be transferred to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452.
A creditor extended credit based on a debtor's representations about the debtor's financial condition. After the bankruptcy filing, the creditor files a Section 523(a)(2)(A) complaint within the 60-day Rule 4007(c) window. The complaint pleads each misrepresentation with Rule 9(b) particularity, scienter, justifiable reliance under Field v. Mans, and damages. Discovery focuses on what the debtor knew at the time of each representation.
A former employer files a Section 523(a)(4) complaint alleging the debtor-employee embezzled funds. The complaint pleads the embezzlement with particularity, alleges the requisite culpable mental state under Bullock, and seeks a money judgment for the embezzled amount. Discovery focuses on the debtor's access, the diversion of funds, and the debtor's contemporaneous explanations.
Dischargeability litigation is the principal mechanism by which individual creditors carve their claims out of the bankruptcy discharge. The 60-day deadline is unforgiving: most district clerk's offices issue a notice setting the date, but the creditor bears the responsibility to calendar and file timely. Substantive doctrine is heavily Supreme Court-driven; the doctrinal anchors (Grogan, Field, Kawaauhau, Bullock, Husky, Lamar) define the actual contours of the most heavily litigated subsections. Counsel approaching a dischargeability complaint should map each element of the chosen subsection against the available evidence before drafting, because the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) leaves little room to amend after the 60-day deadline expires.
The 60-day deadline is the most-missed deadline in bankruptcy practice. Creditors with strong substantive cases regularly lose them by failing to file within Rule 4007(c)'s 60-day post-341 window. Extension motions must be filed before the deadline expires; once it passes, no extension is available. Calendar conservatively.
This page provides general information about dischargeability adversary proceedings. It is not legal advice. Section 523 litigation is fact-specific and deadline-driven; consult qualified bankruptcy counsel promptly upon learning of a debtor's bankruptcy filing.