* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10169

Summary Calendar

In The Matter Of: LONDREW GLENN TERRELL

Debtor

The Cadle Company,

Appellee,

VERSUS

Londrew Glenn Terrell,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:01-CV-399-E)

July 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Cadle Company (“Cadle”) is a credit or of debtor Londrew

Glenn Terrell (“Terrell”) by way of Cadle’s purchase of an unpaid-2-

judgment entered against Terrell on February 12, 1990 by the United

States Di strict Court for the Southern District of Texas. On

February 22, 2000, Terrell filed for bankruptcy protection pursuant

to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Cadle filed an adversary

proceeding objecting to Terrell’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 727(a)(3), on grounds that Terrell failed to retain records from

which his financial condition could be ascertained. Both parties

filed cross motions for summa ry judgment. The bankruptcy court

granted summary judgment in favor of Terrell finding that the 1990

judgment was no longer valid. Cadle then appealed to the district

court. The district court reversed the granting of summary

judgment if favor of Terrell, and granted summary judgment in favor

of Cadle. The district court found that the 1990 judgment was

still valid and that Terrell’s discharge should be denied pursuant

to § 727 (a)(3).

Section 727 “makes complete financial disclosure a ‘condition

precedent’ to the privilege of discharge.” U nited States v. Ellis

,

50 F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir. 1995). S ee also Meridian Bank v. Alten

,

958 F.2 d 1226, 1230 (3rd Cir. 1992)(debtor's disclosure of

financial condition is a prerequisite to obtaining a di scharge);

In re Sigust

, 255 B.R. 822, 827 (Bankr. W.D. La. 2000),(purpose of

§ 727(a)(3) is to test the completen ess of the disclosure

requirements to a discharge.) (quotations omitted), aff’d sub nom.

Sigust v. McDonough

, 281 F.3d 1280 (5th Cir. 2001) (Table, No. 01-

30583); Matter of Hughes

, 184 B.R. 902, 908 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1995)

(“disclosure of the debtor's financial condition is a prerequisite

to obtaining a discharge”). The law does not require an impeccable

system of bookkeeping. M edian Bank

, 958 F.2d at 1230. However, at-3-

the very least a debtor has a duty to disclose all of the records

available to him.

In this case, Cadle has established that Terrell did not meet

his duty of complete disclosure. Cadle satisfied its burden by

showing that Terrell failed to keep and provide credit card records

and bank statements from his wife’s checking account. Terrell

notes in his bankruptcy sch edule that he had at least $59,000 in

credit card debit, but he failed to provide any documentation to

substantiate this debt. The record indicates that credit card

records w ere kept on microfilm by the credit card companies.

Terrell could have obtained these records from the credit card

compa nies. Additionally, he could have obtained past bank

statements from his wife’s bank account. It is true, that Terrell

did provide copies of tax returns, bankruptcy schedules, copies of

automobile insurance records, and his L ast Will and Testament;

however, his withholding of some of the available records

demonstrates that he failed to meet his duty of complete disclosure

as required to gain a discharge.

Nonetheless, the debtor is still entitled to a discharge if

his failure to keep records can be justified. In re Grisham , 245

B.R. 65, 75 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2000). The burden is on the debtor

to justify his failure to keep records. If the debtor fails to

sustain his burden, and does not provide a sufficient explanation,

the debtor does not receive the discharge. I n re Sigust

, 255 B.R.

at 827. Here, Terrell fails to provide any justification for his

failure to completely disclose and keep financial records. Terrell

only argues that what he disclosed was sufficient. Terrell also

argues that Cadle never asked for any additional records. Neither

of these arguments address the issue of providing a justification-4-

why Terrell failed to meet his original duty. Therefore, for the

above reasons, and those set forth by the district court, we find

that Terrell is not entitled to a discharge.

After careful review of the Appellant’s claims, the briefs,

and the record, the well reasoned opinion of the district court is

affirmed on all issues presented on appeal.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.