the statutory requirements, we need not address the remaining requirements. We do not determine whether the Security Agreement was a statement "respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition." Furthermore, we need not review the additional issues of material fact the Unterreiners raise, including whether the Trust is a creditor to whom the Unterreiners
Although Glen involved § 523(a)(2)(A), and not § 523(a)(2)(B), both sections share the requirement under subsection (2) that the debt be for "money, property, services or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit."
are liable and whether the Unterreiners made the misrepresentation with intent to deceive.6
III.
The Trust is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it cannot meet all the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(B) to except a debt from discharge. The Unterreiners did not obtain money, property, or services from the Trust, and the Trust did not rely on the Unterreiners' misrepresentation when it guaranteed DQSTL's obligations. We affirm the BAP's ruling, vacate the award of summary judgment to the Trust, and direct judgment for the Unterreiners. ______________________________
We dismiss the Trust's argument that it may recover from the Unterreiners on the basis that "a guarantor who satisfies a judgment which has been rendered against other coguarantors jointly and severally, is subrogated to creditor's rights as judgment creditor against the other coguarantors." The Trust has not satisfied any judgment against the Unterreiners. We also dismiss the suggestion that the Trust may recover from the Unterreiners by standing in the shoes of Cass as a creditor. The Trust received no assignment from Cass. Moreover, even assuming the Trust could raise Cass's rights against the Unterreiners, Cass released the Unterreiners from any further liability for the loan - Cass has no surviving rights against the Unterreiners, so the Trust would have no rights to assert.