UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: SALVATORE TRIVISANI, JR.,

Debtor.

AT&T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES

CORPORATION, No. 99-1766

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SALVATORE TRIVISANI, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-98-3472-AW, BK-97-21323-PM,

BK-98-1A045-PM)

Argued: March 1, 2000

Decided: March 24, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and KING,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Kevin Michael Fitzpatrick, KEVIN M. FITZPATRICK,

P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. John Randall Owen, Jr., Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

AT&T Universal Card Services Corporation (AT&T) appeals an

order of the district court affirming a bankruptcy court order determining that a credit card debt that Salvatore Trivisani, Jr. ("Debtor")

owed to AT&T was dischargeable in bankruptcy. Finding no error,

we affirm.

I.

The events underlying this appeal began on December 2, 1993,

when Debtor was issued an AT&T credit card. He made the necessary

payments on the credit card through August 1997. Debtor's only

source of income--retirement disability payments--amounted to

approximately $1,650 per month. Although Debtor's monthly living

expenses exceeded his monthly income, Debtor was able to stay current on his credit obligations by using one credit card to pay off

another, and by January 1997, he had accumulated significant credit

card debt.

On May 14, 1997, Debtor had a balance of $94.74 on his AT&T

card. Between May 14, 1997 and June 5, 1997, Debtor obtained

$4,300 in cash advances and made $442.89 worth of purchases on his

AT&T card. Debtor loaned the $4,300 to his daughter to assist her in

paying legal fees she had incurred in a divorce action. His daughter

had promised to repay him approximately $315 per month, which he

in turn intended to use to make payments on the AT&T card. His

daughter expected to realize the $315 as the result of savings she

would receive from removing her husband from her medical insurance policy. After accepting the $4,300, however, it was discovered

that she would not be able to remove her husband from her policy

after all, and therefore would not be able to repay her father. Debtor

made one $10 payment in June 1997. He subsequently contacted

 2
bankruptcy counsel on July 20, 1997, and on August 2, 1997, advised

AT&T that he intended to file bankruptcy. Debtor eventually filed a

bankruptcy petition in October 1997.

AT&T objected to the discharge of $4,742.89 ($4,300 plus

$442.89) of the debt Debtor owed to AT&T, contending that Debtor

did not intend to repay the debt when he incurred it and thus had

obtained the credit through false pretenses. See 11 U.S.C.A.

§ 523(a)(2)(A) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). Following a trial, the

bankruptcy court determined the debt to be dischargeable. The bankruptcy court specifically found that the Debtor was credible and that

he intended to repay the $4,742.89 when he incurred the debt. AT&T

then appealed to the district court, which affirmed, concluding that the

bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that when Debtor

incurred the debt he intended to repay it.

II.

On appeal to this court, AT&T contends that the district court erred

in affirming the bankruptcy court order, arguing primarily that the

bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that Debtor intended to

repay the debt to AT&T when he incurred it. Having had the benefit

of oral argument and the parties' briefs, and after careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See AT&T Universal

Card Servs. Corp. v. Trivisani (In re Trivisani), No. AW-98-3472 (D.

Md. May 3, 1999).

AFFIRMED

 3