Archer v. Warner

538 U.S. 314, 123 S. Ct. 1462, 155 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2003)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Archer v. Warner

United States Supreme Court
538 U.S. 314, 123 S. Ct. 1462, 155 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2003)

Facts

In 1991, Leonard and Arlene Warner (debtors) bought the Warner Manufacturing Company for $250,000. Six months later, the Warners sold the company to Elliott and Carol Archer (creditors) for $610,000. The Archers subsequently sued the Warners in state court, alleging that the Warners had committed fraud in connection with the sale. The Archers and Warners settled the lawsuit and entered into a settlement agreement providing that the Warners would pay the Archers $300,000 to compensate the Archers for emotional distress and personal-injury-type damages. The Warners paid the Archers $200,000 and executed a $100,000 promissory note for the remaining amount. In return, the Archers executed releases discharging the Warners from every claim that the Archers had or could have against them, except for claims relating to the Warners’ promissory-note-based obligations. In November 1995, the Warners failed to make a required payment on the promissory note, and the Archers sued the Warners in state court. The Warners filed for bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy court ordered liquidation under Chapter 7. The Archers brought a claim for $100,000 in the bankruptcy action and asked the bankruptcy court to find the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because the debt was for money obtained by fraud. The bankruptcy court denied the Archers’ claim and found the promissory-note debt dischargeable, and the district court affirmed. The Fourth Circuit also affirmed, holding that the settlement agreement, releases, and promissory note had effectuated a novation that replaced the Warners’ original fraud-based debt to the Archers with a new debt. The court reasoned that the new debt had not been obtained by fraud and rather was merely money promised in a settlement agreement. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

Dissent (Thomas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership