Case Name: In the Matter of: Vernon Lee LAUX; Pamela Sue Laux, Debtors. Buckeye Retirement Co. LLC Ltd., Appellant v. Vernon Lee Laux; Pamela Sue Laux, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-15
Citations: 303 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 08-40444
Parties: In the Matter of: Vernon Lee LAUX; Pamela Sue Laux, Debtors. Buckeye Retirement Co. LLC Ltd., Appellant v. Vernon Lee Laux; Pamela Sue Laux, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
In the Matter of: Vernon Lee LAUX; Pamela Sue Laux, Debtors. Buckeye Retirement Co. LLC Ltd., Appellant v. Vernon Lee Laux; Pamela Sue Laux, Appellees.
No. 08-40444
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2008.
Andrew Franklin Emerson, The Emerson Law Firm, Bruce K. Thomas, Law Office of Bruce Thomas, Dallas, TX, for Appellant.
Gerrit M. Pronske, Pronske & Patel, Dallas, TX, for Appellees.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Buckeye Retirement Co. LLC, Ltd. ("Buckeye"), as successor in interest to the Cadle Company, appeals the judgment of the bankruptcy court, as affirmed by the district court, rejecting Buckeye's claim that a debt owed to it by Appellees Vernon Lee Laux and Pamela Sue Laux ("Debtors") should not be discharged in their bankruptcy. The gravamen of Buckeye's contention is that the Debtors' original Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs were knowingly false by virtue of omissions and misrepresentations and that these errors should not be deemed cured by revised filings.
We are satisfied by our review of the record on appeal, including the facts and the law as set forth in the briefs of the parties, the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the district court's Memorandum Opinion & Order affirming the bankruptcy court's rejection of Buckeye's opposition to the discharge of the subject debts, that the rulings of those courts are correct. For essentially the reasons set forth by the district court in its careful and exhaustive opinion, the judgment of the bankruptcy court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.