Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Hadley COHEN; Melinda K. Cohen, Debtors Hadley Cohen, Appellant v. Third Coast Bank, SSB, Appellee.
    No. 14-40760.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 8, 2015.
    Charles E. Lauffer, Jr., Esq., Ritcheson, Lauffer & Vincent, P.C., Tyler, TX, for Appellant.
    Michael James Durrschmidt, Esq., Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons.

Appellant concedes that his representations to the bank of his assets and liabilities were false. The bankruptcy court trying the case found that the bank justifiably relied on the false representation to its damages, as found.

Plaintiff argues that the finding of reliance was clear error because the bank had knowledge of the risk of accepting the representations without conducting an investigation that would reveal the falsehood. This court will not impose on banking officials this requirement. Under all of these circumstances and the customary practice of lending institutions, it is necessary for them to be able to accept what Plaintiff signed as true. The finding stands.

The Plaintiff also seizes on the language in the statute § 528(a)(2)(A), excluding discharge for “a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition.” Because the borrowing base certificates are statements of financial condition, the argument is that for Plaintiff to be discharged the court has to go to the following statutory requirement and require a finding of reasonable reliance. He misreads Bandi v. Becanel where this court distinguished statements that are only about general conditions of the borrower from specific falsifications on the ability to repay the lender, misstatements of inventory and denial of other secured creditors with priority — as was true here — that are not dischargeable.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.