Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04020/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arvest Bank
Appellee
Vernon Andrew Lane
Appellant
John T. Lee
Not Party

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4020

___________

In re: Vernon Andrew Lane, *

*

Debtor, *

-------------------------------------- *

*

Arvest Bank of Huntsville, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Vernon Andrew Lane; *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant, *

*

John T. Lee, *

*

Trustee. *

___________

Submitted: July 28, 2004

Filed: August 12, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 03-4020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2004 Entry ID: 1798660 
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

Vernon Andrew Lane (Lane) appeals following the district court’s1 reversal of

the bankruptcy court’s order denying Arvest Bank of Huntsville’s (ABH’s) objection

to Lane’s discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (debt is excepted

from discharge to extent debt was obtained by false pretenses, false representation,

or fraud other than statement respecting debtor’s financial condition). We affirm the

judgment of the district court.

Upon independent review of the bankruptcy court’s order, see In re Waugh, 95

F.3d 706, 710 (8th Cir. 1996), we agree with the district court that the bankruptcy

court clearly erred in finding, after a bench trial, that Lane had not intended to

deceive ABH as to the condition of collateral for purposes of obtaining a refinancing

loan. Contrary to Lane’s assertion on appeal, the bankruptcy court’s factual findings

were subject to clear-error review. See id.

We also conclude that ABH met its burden as to the remaining elements of a

section 523(a)(2)(A) claim, namely, Lane made a false representation by omission,

he knew the representation was false when he made it, ABH justifiably relied on

Lane’s representation, and ABH was injured as a result. See In re Maurer, 256 B.R.

495, 500 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000) (elements of § 523(a)(2)(A) claim); In re Van Horne,

823 F.2d 1285, 1288 (8th Cir. 1987) (deceit may be by omission or commission),

abrogated on other grounds, Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991). Thus, ABH was

entitled to judgment on its claim that Lane’s debt to it was nondischargeable under

this section. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2004 Entry ID: 1798660