while acting in a fiduciary capacity. The Court explained: The federal courts are not in perfect agreement as to the requirements necessary to prove defalcation under § 523(a)(4). A review of the eases reveals that the courts generally agree that defalcation requires: i) a fiduciary relationship; 2) breach of that fiduciary relationship; and 3) a resulting loss. They often' differ, however, as to the nature of the fiduciary relationship necessary to trigger the defalcation provision of § 523(a)(4). Some federal courts construe the term “fiduciary capacity” found in the defalcation provision of § 523(a)(4) narrower than they construe the term “fiduciary relationship” as used in the legal professional generally. Fowler Bros. v. Young (In re Young), 91 F.3d 1367, 1372 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Clark v. Allen (In re Allen), 206 B.R. 602,
holding a duty of care without more insufficient to satisfy the fiduciary relationship element of  523a4 the federal courts adopting this narrow interpretation of fiduciary for purposes of the bankruptcy code gen erally hold that an express or technical trust is necessary to trigger the defalcation provision of  523a4 holding that the general meaning of fiduciary as a person representing confidence trust and good faith is far too broad for the purposes of bankruptcy law holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding general fiduciary duties of confidence trust loyalty and good faith insufficient to establish the necessary fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding that an attorney is a fiduciary under section 523a4