Page:Bartenwerfer v. Buckley.pdf/16

Rh

, with whom joins, concurring.

The Court correctly holds that 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(2)(A) bars debtors from discharging a debt obtained by fraud of the debtor’s agent or partner. Congress incorporated into the statute the common-law principles of fraud, Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U. S. 356, 360 (2016) (citing Field v. Mans, 516 U. S. 59, 69 (1995)), which include agency and partnership principles,. This Court long ago confirmed that reading when it held that fraudulent debts obtained by partners are not dischargeable, Strang v. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555, 559–561 (1885), and Congress “embraced” that reading when it amended the statute in 1898,.

The Bankruptcy Court found that petitioner and her husband had an agency relationship and obtained the debt at issue after they formed a partnership. Because petitioner does not dispute that she and her husband acted as partners, the debt is not dischargeable under the statute.

The Court here does not confront a situation involving fraud by a person bearing no agency or partnership relationship to the debtor. Instead, “[t]he relevant legal context” concerns fraud only by “agents” and “partners within the scope of the partnership.” With that understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.