[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14922

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 6:15-cv-00187-ACC; 6:11-bkc-16036-KSJ

In re:

 ROGER W. SODERSTROM,

 TANSEY M. SODERSTROM,

 

 Debtors, 

__________________________________________________________________

ROGER W. SODERSTROM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. THOMPSON INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

JOAN THOMPSON, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 6, 2016)

Case: 15-14922 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Roger W. Soderstrom appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of J. Thompson Investments, LLC and Joan 

Thompson for $811,000 and the bankruptcy court’s holding that the judgment is 

not dischargeable pursuant to the fraud exception, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 

Soderstrom contends the bankruptcy court erred by finding justifiable reliance 

notwithstanding allegedly contradictory information, by finding causation despite 

insufficient evidence, and by making an erroneous finding of fact regarding 

whether Soderstrom actually made the allegedly fraudulent representation. After 

review,1 we affirm.

As the bankruptcy court noted, the underlying fraud claim presents “a true 

‘he-said-she-said’ factual dispute.” Thompson insists Soderstrom misrepresented 

that her investment was needed to complete construction and build-out of the 

office space. Soderstrom denies making this statement. After hearing live 

testimony from the parties and considering the parties’ extensive evidentiary 

submissions the bankruptcy court found Thompson to be more credible than 

Soderstrom. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court found that Soderstrom in fact 

 1 When reviewing a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court order, we review for 

clear error the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact, and we review de novo the legal conclusions 

of both the bankruptcy court and the district court. In re Fisher Island Invs., Inc., 778 F.3d 1172, 

1189 (11th Cir. 2015). 

Case: 15-14922 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

made the alleged misrepresentation. We defer to the bankruptcy court’s credibility 

determination and find no clear error. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 

U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the 

factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”); In re T & B Gen.

Contracting, Inc., 833 F.2d 1455, 1458 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[D]ue regard shall be 

given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of 

witnesses.”). The testimony of Scott Buono on which Soderstrom relies is 

equivocal and fails to directly contradict Thompson’s testimony. See Dist. Ct. 

Doc. 15-6 at 35 (“Q. Do you know if Roger Soderstrom made any representations? 

A. Not that I’m aware of. Not other than I think what’s in -- in the operating 

agreement and the subscription agreement.” (emphasis added)). Even if Buono’s 

testimony contradicted Thompson’s, because the bankruptcy court’s finding of fact 

remains a permissible view of the evidence, it would not be clear error. See 

Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574.

We likewise find no error in the bankruptcy court’s determination that 

Thompson justifiably relied upon Soderstrom’s misrepresentation. While the 

parties’ subscription agreement and operating agreement together created a 

mechanism for Soderstrom to repay himself with invested funds, the bankruptcy

court correctly observed that the parties’ subscription agreement permitted 

repayment only to the extent the money was not needed for build-out. Because 

Case: 15-14922 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Soderstrom represented to Thompson that he needed to and would use the 

investment to pay for construction and build-out of the office space, the contract 

provisions did not contradict Soderstrom’s misrepresentation. Although it would 

have been more prudent for Thompson to inquire further before making the 

investment, she was justified in relying upon Soderstrom’s misrepresentation. See 

In re Vann, 67 F.3d 277, 283 (11th Cir. 1995) (“To constitute justifiable reliance, 

the plaintiff’s conduct must not be so utterly unreasonable, in the light of the 

information apparent to him, that the law may properly say that his loss is his own 

responsibility. This conclusion, however, does not mean that the reliance must be 

objectively reasonable.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). 

Finally, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Thompson’s 

justifiable reliance on Soderstrom’s misrepresentation proximately caused her loss. 

The finding that Thompson lost $811,000 is not challenged on appeal. The only 

causation dispute is whether Thompson would not have made the investment but 

for Soderstrom’s misrepresentation. Thompson testified that had she known buildout was nearly complete and Soderstrom intended to pay himself, she would have 

perceived the investment to be a sinking ship and would have not invested. The 

bankruptcy court did not clearly err in crediting this testimony.2

 See Anderson, 

 2 Soderstrom’s contention that other testimony refutes causation lacks merit. The fact that 

Thompson conducted additional due diligence before investing and had other sources of 

information does not alter the causative effect Soderstrom’s misrepresentation had on 

Case: 15-14922 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
5

470 U.S. at 574. The fact that Soderstrom did not completely cash out of the 

business does not undermine the bankruptcy court’s causation finding. Soderstrom 

invested approximately $1,050,000 between his two tiers of membership in the 

business and ultimately withdrew over $900,000, much of it from money that 

Thompson invested. Thompson’s testimony does not suggest that she was any 

more likely to make the investment had Soderstrom told her he would use her 

investment to recoup most but not all of his investment, and the bankruptcy court

could properly consider Soderstrom’s paying himself with Thompson’s investment

to be the very thing she wished to avoid. 

AFFIRMED.

 

Thompson’s decision to invest. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 704 (2004) (“[A] 

given proximate cause need not be, and frequently is not, the exclusive proximate cause of 

harm.”). The information to which Soderstrom refers would be probative of the justifiable 

reliance element but does not refute the bankruptcy court’s causation finding. As discussed 

above, this information does not render Thompson’s conduct “so utterly unreasonable . . . that 

the law may properly say that [her] loss is [her] own responsibility.” In re Vann, 67 F.3d at 283.

Case: 15-14922 Date Filed: 07/06/2016 Page: 5 of 5