They Might Be, Inc. v. Carter (In re Carter), 593 B.R. 354

Nerdapalooza, LLC (organized by John T. Carter and others) contracted to pay band They Might Be Giants (TMBI) $50,000 to headline Nerdapalooza 2013; payments were staged (two prepayments and remaining on night of performance).
Nerdapalooza made a late first payment, missed the second $12,500 prepayment, but TMBI still traveled and performed.
On the day of performance Carter told TMBI's tour manager statements like "everything is great" and issued two checks (one before performance for $25,000 and one after for $37,500); the post‑performance check bounced.
TMBI sued in state court, obtained a default judgment (including treble damages under Fla. Stat. §68.065), and Carter later filed Chapter 7; TMBI brought an adversary to except the debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6).
Trial evidence showed poor ticket sales, prior festival losses, member resignations, Carter and his family personally contributed funds, and Carter falsely represented in dissolution filings that creditors were paid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carter made false representations with intent to deceive under §523(a)(2)(A)	Carter knowingly misrepresented financial ability and issued bad checks to induce performance	Carter honestly (though perhaps negligently) believed gate sales would cover obligations based on research and prior draws	No nondischargeability; court found no subjective intent to deceive (at most negligence/recklessness)
Whether TMBI justifiably relied and was proximately harmed by Carter's statements/checks under §523(a)(2)(A)	TMBI relied on Carter’s assurances and the checks to perform	TMBI’s agent remained concerned, knew Nerdapalooza was already in default, and could have investigated or refused to play	No justifiable reliance; reliance was unreasonable and proximate causation was questionable; claim fails
Whether issuance of bad checks alone constitutes a "representation" for §523(a)(2)(A)	Checks implied representation of funds and so support fraud claim	Even if checks are representations, other §523 elements (intent, reliance) not met	Court assumed (without deciding the split) checks could be representations but ruled claim fails on other elements
Whether debt is nondischargeable as a "willful and malicious" injury under §523(a)(6)	Carter’s conduct was intentional/willful and caused injury to TMBI	Carter lacked intent to harm; conduct was negligent/reckless at most	Claim fails; injury was not shown to be willful and malicious

Hope v. Walker (In re Walker), 48 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1995) (standards construe discharge exceptions narrowly and define willful/malicious requirement)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (creditor bears burden to prove nondischargeability by preponderance)
SEC v. Bilzerian (In re Bilzerian), 153 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1998) (intent-to-deceive standard for fraud)
Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) (§523(a)(6) requires intentional act leading to injury)
Equitable Bank v. Miller (In re Miller), 39 F.3d 301 (11th Cir. 1994) (recklessness and scienter analysis in nondischargeability context)
City Bank & Trust Co. v. Vann (In re Vann), 67 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1995) (post‑performance checks cannot be basis for obtaining debt by fraud)