American Express Centurion Bank, Optima Account v. Losanno (In Re Losanno)

ORDER WILLIAM C. HILLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge. On July 3, 2002, American Express Centurion Bank, Optima Account (the “Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint to Determine Dis-chargeability of Debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (the “Complaint”) against Angelo M. Losanno, Jr. (the “Debtor”). The Complaint sought a non-dischargeable judgment in the amount of $11,536.37 plus interests, costs and attorney fees. On July 17, 2002, I entered an Order Discharging the Debtor. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts (“Motion for Summary Judgment”) in which it prayed for a judgment of non-dischargeability in the amount of $12,186.37, including costs and fees. On December 10, 2002,1 held a hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Debtor failed to respond. Because I found that the Plaintiff satisfied its burden of proof, I ruled that the Debtor’s obligations to the Plaintiff were non-dischargeable. The Plaintiff filed American Express’ Motion to Clarify Judgment of Nondis-chargeability (the “Motion”) on December 31, 2002. In the Motion, the Plaintiff wishes to clarify whether included in the judgment of non-dischargeability was a money judgment for a sum certain. While I have the authority to determine whether a debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523,1 hold that I have no authority to enter a money judgment on the judgment of non-dischargeability. See Porter Capital Corp. v. Hamilton (In re Hamilton), 282 B.R. 22 (Bankr.W.D.Okla. 2002); First Omni Bank, N.A v. Thrall *2 (In re Thrall), 196 B.R. 959 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1996); Barrows v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n (In re Barrows), 182 B.R. 640 (Bankr.D.N.H.1994); Eckel v. Narciso (In re Narciso), 146 B.R. 792 (Bankr. E.D.Ark.1992). The Plaintiff may pursue its claim for a money judgment in the state court which is the proper venue for its action.