Opinion ID: 803883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relevant Provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

Text: [1] When a bankruptcy petition is filed, § 362 automatically provides the debtor with a broad stay against certain actions by creditors. Section 727(a) states that “[t]he court shall grant the debtor a discharge” unless certain circumstances existed, none of which was applicable in this case. If 7896 IN THE MATTER OF EBER and when a debtor is granted discharge, as Eber was here, § 362’s automatic stay dissolves and is replaced by a permanent injunction under § 524. Section 524(a) in relevant part provides that a discharge under Title 11:
extent that such judgment is a determination of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any debt discharged under section 727 . . . ; (2) operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor, . . . . The permanent injunction under § 524(a)(2), therefore, enjoins creditor actions related to discharged debts. But § 727(b) provides in pertinent part: Except as provided in section 523 of this title, a discharge under subsection (a) of this section dis- charges the debtor from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief under this chapter, .... As such, § 524 does not enjoin creditors who have successfully invoked § 523, which provides a list of exceptions to discharge, from taking action. See also In re Aldrich, 34 B.R. at 779 (explaining how §§ 362, 523, 524, and 727 work together). Exceptions to discharge under § 523 fall into two major categories: debts over which the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability, and those that it does not. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(c)).5 Bankruptcy courts have 5 Section 523(c)(1) provides in relevant part: “the debtor shall be discharged from a debt of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of subIN THE MATTER OF EBER 7897 exclusive jurisdiction to determine dischargeability of debts under §§ 523(a)(2) (fraud or deception); (a)(4) (fiduciary fraud, embezzlement, or larceny); and (a)(6) (willful and malicious injury to person or property). Id.; see In re Aldrich, 34 B.R. at 781 (explaining that claims that debts are nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) “may not be pursued in the state court as a result of the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the bankruptcy court by the bankruptcy code”); see also Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284 n. 10 (1991) (“The 1970 amendments took jurisdiction over certain dischargeability exceptions, including the exceptions for fraud, away from the state courts and vested jurisdiction exclusively in the bankruptcy courts.”) (citations omitted). With respect to all other subsections of § 523(a), bankruptcy courts have concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a debt is excepted from discharge. In re Aldrich, 34 B.R. at 780.