may please the court john held on behalf of country credit l l c from the debtors initial phone call to country credit up until he signed the loan documents and received a long phones he made materially false statements with the intent to  country credit under section five twenty three a to b the debt is not the star jubal the bankruptcy court and district courts judgments to the contrary should be reversed first with respect to the child support statements the debtor made any family financial issues such as child support and he said no then he was asked if he had listed all of his debt which was defined as including but not limited to not limited to child support and he said that he had so disclosed and he admitted didn't need a reasonable lender might want to know you to eight hundred dollars a month in child support your honor he he did make that representation twice and he loan documentation that's correct on him in none of the application forms did their disclose his child support he was also twice asked to list payments that had not been disclosed elsewhere in the loan application documents under the other monthly payments and other long items although he listed a couple of things he did not with his eight hundred forty dollars monthly child support payment now the bankruptcy court nor the district court addressed either of those provisions nor did they address the two occasions on which the debtor was asked if there was any other information a little would want to know about so there was no ambiguity in the loan documents with respect to child support obligations and based on the royal conclusion that there was ambiguity in the loan documents the bankruptcy court aired concluding that the debtor all black intent to deceive as already mentioned in response to the six years in doing what about it erred in concluding that the debtor lacked intent to deceive country through determination when you agree it certainly is fact intensive your are however is as mentioned to the extent as it was informed by the bankruptcy courts the legal conclusions that there is ambiguity in the loan documents there's a with the bank of russia the court said that found that family financial issues he said that was qualified in some fashion but actually what it said it did not say family financial issues with child support it said family financial issues such as child support so that the term was defined as including child support same thing with respect to the question if you had listed all of his de but even under that subjective understanding he was in arrears at the time by i believe over fifteen thousand dollars in child support payments which surely it was garnered from an overweight withholding water on his paycheck true in chapter thirteen i mean the reason countrywide i mean aside from being intelligent creditor wanted to know about this is said i believe it's also true in chapter thirteen is it not but child support obligations are paid out of a bankruptcy we as state in priority to everything including attorneys fees that's my understanding up the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that although these statements the debtor made were materially false that he lacked intent to deceive in making them intent to deceive is inferred from the debtors reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of these statements in light of the numerous and play requests for the bear shall support information and his like number of false responses in combination with the sheer magnitude of his child support payments the eight hundred forty dollars a month that was one third of his net monthly income and for other cations he was asked what other ways have the debtor indicate he understood what the other monthly payments and other line items and because he answered them but he didn't listen child support the bankruptcy court nor the district court addressed any of those four provisions he also falsely stated that his net disposable income after monthly expenses was six hundred fifty four dollars when in fact it was negative given his child or child support obligations and he also said he was not delinquent on a bill when in fact as i mentioned he was fifteen thousand in arrears on child support payments and then the bankruptcy court mentioned that the pre approval of the loan somehow in the gated intent to deceive there is zero evidence that the debtor thought that song the all documents was nothing more than a formality as the bankruptcy court concluded you the bankruptcy court nor the district court nor the debtor cite any portion of the record that would support that conclusions judge elec ever found that in any other case your honor i'm i'm unaware i mean i can't i can't believe that that's a fact pacific determination that you're pretty you're approved for a loan by a phone conversation and the underlying documentation has nothing to do with your and your mama i do not know the half of the question but to the contrary all the evidence in the record indicated that country credit in fact would not have made the loan had the debtor not come in and to sign the note and the other loan documents and it said it would not have made the loan had the debtor it minted that he had had such child support responsibilities but you close statement was not even faults although it was bound to apply in mississippi all of the bank bankruptcy court recorded the word dependence of the technical legal definition from the i r s code rather than mississippi supreme court ordinary objective meaning as a person who relies on another for support from the d m or a longer case and under that ordinary meaning the debtor state when he had no dependents was false because in fact he had five children who were counting on him receiving child support and it was materially so because country credit testify that it would not have made the long had it known about that number of dependen there you have five children now your honor in the long gone documents he indicated he had zero dependence there was no mention of of children all where's the difference between five and six and that one of the major the bankruptcy court did not address and tapped to deceive element you know address the material falsity element which is is not subjective and is determined by ordinary contract interpretation preston's here mississippi law unless the court has further questions at this time the judgment of the bankruptcy court and district court should be reversed and that that help not discharge  over the repayment of this eighteen hundred dollar loan we're actually fighting over is the repayment of this what it took twenty three point thirty three percent interest rate attached to the loan  matter the judges saw the demeanor of the witnesses the judge weight the evidence are you saying that his hundred percent plan includes the eighteen hundred dollars for the heating system but not be interest found in there was some question brought up well and the bankruptcy schedules that he did in this city hit five or six dependents just like found it for bankruptcy purposes the regardless of how unreasonable mr martin's belief is if if the court finds that it was and is it does not rise to the level of it into the sea next to look at the mystic support in child support issue mr martin testified dead on the loan application the question was an ex do you have any family financial issues such as child support he testified did not view his child support as an issue his child support was being payroll deducted from his chit so in his mind he did not think it infected his bottom line also the question was  have any did such as child support again mr martin testified that he did not feel his child support is a big let me ask you this phone number one why did it just so happen well you know why did it just so happen that when the he did the pro forma budget for the lender he under other expenses he included fifty dollars for his cellphone but not eight hundred dollars so deducted each month from his paycheck was what kind of oversight is explained flat on your honor actually it wasn't a record but i could speculate that the paid this the cell phone payment he was personally painted every month but he was not personally paying this child ok so again with the with the issue of this to miss its domestic support whether or not he lists the the court has found it as long as it is an honest belief regardless of how there was nothing to stop them from asking for an additional cheat the timing of the only issue now as far as a timeline of the law we gather mr moore testified that he thought he had been approved for this loan the country credit representative even testified herself that she told him he had been approved the bankruptcy court found that it was reasonable for mr maher to believe that he had been approved for this long and the only thing he had to do when he went into the store the next day was to sign off on the loan so the judge found that you know pretty much his signature was just a mere formality i mean that's the thing you know we don't reverse findings we reverse a judgment but i just cannot believe that a bankruptcy judge says that the prove or by phone of a loan of any sort at all is verbal or by substitutes for signing the representative testified that she told mr martin his loan had been approved achree approved i understand but you still have to sign a promissory even if she had given him the money when he walked in he said it it wouldn't be enforceable at all unless under the statute of frauds unless he signed a promissory note and your right your honor but the case now sais that where there is a question of a close call with the question is closed the courts have determined that the debt to be dischargeable in this is in frazier the frazier case now as far as the ordinary meaning of the country country credit is saying that the judge should have acquired the ordinary meaning when you look at the record in its and just davis in your case of denver merchandise mart you said that we had to look at the applicable state law so if we look at the applicant state law in this case in the case of dalton vs sell yourself it tells us that once a contract is found to be ambiguous they and it is construed against the drafter here concha credit created this country so if the m b do it see if any should be construed against  but assuming argue window they all like erred on this particular point you still have to go back to the intent element country credit has not proven insane they didn't do it and they can't do it part of mr martin thinking that his loan had been pre approved goes directly to his and ted not the fact that it had in fact been pre approved if he had the intent to as judge graves wrote in the black versus city polk case where in that case just granted reverse and found a clear error had been made the difference between that case in our case before the court today is that in the black case there were no facts in the record to support the lower court's fund additionally the district court judge next case made it implicit finding of fact that one supported by the record what do we know here today factually we know that as it relates to the child support issue as mr eubanks pointed out mr moore and testified that he thought that he didn't have to disclose to child support because he did review it as a day because it was automatically coming out of his chair just oleic her testimony and he gave credibility to that test as to the pre approval issue scratch through every thirty six hundred dollars that was on the budget she wrote out to the side what the net was so mr martin did not have an attempt to deceive them when he told them how much he may because obviously we had to speculate because it's not in the record but obviously they had a conversation about gross and net i know seem to be too difficult with you but the fact is if he had told me at eighty eight hundred plus deducted from each of its paychecks ordinarily he'd had a negative amount each month which surely would have been material to country credit where you are yet again it is material but the question is whether or not he had an intent to  see any case law that says that the judge have to not do that in other words that he has to to look at the contract look at a contract and try to determine whether or not m a year to a record as a whole and found that there was no intent to the se supported by the record is self and that's where this court has to look to see whether or not there's sufficient evidence in the record is set up to support joe its own legs finding that there was no intent to deceive perhaps one or two if this is a case of there are one or two statements of the issue maybe it might make a difference but here there are eight or nine statements made by the better in the long documents and the sunrays one thing that with that many false statements that they are is the debtor is merely being unreasonable on this yet on reasonable and there's also no explanation has been offered by the debtor in his testimony or otherwise any belief that he had with respect to the other other monthly payments on items or with respect to the representations he made as to what a reasonable winter would want to know before making the on again there's there's no evidence on that he clearly understood those he answered them answered the other monthly payments and other with the amounts of bills he was paying that were not listed elsewhere with respect to the payroll deduction a payroll deduction is no less  payment the conditionally improved well the debtor still had to bring the checks to b m which he did which shows he didn't merely view it as a formality and he also has had to sign the statements there and were true and with the with respect to the payroll deducted issue there was no testimony from the debtor himself keeping in mind the intent to deceive so this is  not have been required to interpret contract documents he in fact did engage in contract interpretation he found ambiguity in them to the extent those conclusions affected his findings of the expect intent to deceive they are for this and in some if i can just leave the court with three takeaways at least six times in the loan documents both explicitly and in other ways the debtor was asked to but did not disclose his child support obligations he'd been paying child support for seventeen years he was currently paying for five children who depended on him second the base eight hundred forty dollars monthly obligation was one third of the debtors net monthly income and he was often paying more than that song to reduce his fifteen thousand dollars rears contraire the bankruptcy courts conclusion the debtor was making arrears payments the past two months he had paid eleven hundred eighty four and nine hundred sixty one dollars which was in excess of his base eight hundred four dollar obligation the excess we had to reduce his arrears and last you know the truism that bankruptcy is for the honest debtor if dishonest debtors are to be held accountable for their false statements on this record intent to deceive must be inferred and the debt held non to stores but otherwise it would be next to impossible to find intent to deceive absent a confession by