Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Case Overview
Kate Bartenwerfer sought to discharge in bankruptcy debts arising from her husband's fraudulent misrepresentations in the sale of a house, arguing she was unaware of the fraud. The Supreme Court held 9-0 that the bankruptcy exception for debts incurred through fraud applies even where the debtor herself did not commit the fraud, if the debt is attributable to a partner's or agent's fraud.
The Facts
Kate and David Bartenwerfer sold a house and failed to disclose known defects. David made fraudulent misrepresentations; Kate claimed she was unaware of the concealed problems. The buyer obtained a state court judgment against both. Kate sought to discharge her share of the debt in bankruptcy. David's fraud-based debt was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A); the question was whether Kate's debt was also nondischargeable.
The Application
Kate Bartenwerfer's liability for the judgment arose directly from the fraudulent sale of a house where her co-obligor David made material misrepresentations about the property's condition, regardless of whether Kate personally knew of or participated in the deception. Under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the relevant inquiry is the source of the debt - whether it originated in fraud - not the personal knowledge or culpability of the debtor seeking discharge. Because the judgment debt was attributable to fraud committed by her partner in a joint transaction, Kate's obligation remained nondischargeable in bankruptcy even absent her personal participation in the fraud.
The Conclusion
**Bartenwerfer v. Buckley established that the fraud discharge exception in bankruptcy law is not limited to debtors who personally committed the fraud.** Imputed fraud from a partner or agent is sufficient to render a debt nondischargeable. The ruling has practical consequences for spouses and business partners who may find debts arising from another's fraud nondischargeable in their own bankruptcy proceedings.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Facts
Kate and David Bartenwerfer sold a house and failed to disclose known defects. David made fraudulent misrepresentations; Kate claimed she was unaware of the concealed problems. The buyer obtained a state court judgment against both. Kate sought to discharge her share of the debt in bankruptcy. David's fraud-based debt was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A); the question was whether Kate's debt was also nondischargeable.
Issue
Whether the exception to bankruptcy discharge for debts obtained through fraud under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) applies to a debtor who was unaware of her partner's fraudulent conduct and did not personally commit the fraud giving rise to the debt.
Rule
Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge any debt for money obtained by fraud. The text focuses on the origin of the debt, not the debtor's personal culpability. Where one partner in a business or marital relationship commits fraud, debts attributable to that fraud are nondischargeable as to all partners whose liability flows from the fraud, regardless of personal knowledge or participation.
Analysis
Kate Bartenwerfer's liability for the judgment arose directly from the fraudulent sale of a house where her co-obligor David made material misrepresentations about the property's condition, regardless of whether Kate personally knew of or participated in the deception. Under Section 523(a)(2)(A), the relevant inquiry is the source of the debt, whether it originated in fraud, not the personal knowledge or culpability of the debtor seeking discharge. Because the judgment debt was attributable to fraud committed by her partner in a joint transaction, Kate's obligation remained nondischargeable in bankruptcy even absent her personal participation in the fraud.
Conclusion
**Bartenwerfer v. Buckley established that the fraud discharge exception in bankruptcy law is not limited to debtors who personally committed the fraud.** Imputed fraud from a partner or agent is sufficient to render a debt nondischargeable. The ruling has practical consequences for spouses and business partners who may find debts arising from another's fraud nondischargeable in their own bankruptcy proceedings.
Notes
OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Overview
Kate Bartenwerfer sought to discharge in bankruptcy debts arising from her husband's fraudulent misrepresentations in the sale of a house, arguing she was unaware of the fraud. The Supreme Court held 9-0 that the bankruptcy exception for debts incurred through fraud applies even where the debtor herself did not commit the fraud, if the debt is attributable to a partner's or agent's fraud.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support