Case: 14-40760 Document: 00512998076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40760 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
In the Matter of: HADLEY COHEN; MELINDA K. COHEN, April 8, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Debtors Clerk
------------------------------
HADLEY COHEN,
Appellant
v.
THIRD COAST BANK, SSB,
Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CV-610
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons.
*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-40760 Document: 00512998076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 14-40760
Appellant concedes that his representations to the bank of his assets and
liabilities were false. The bankruptcy court trying the case found that the bank
justifiably relied on the false representation to its damages, as found.
Plaintiff argues that the finding of reliance was clear error because the
bank had knowledge of the risk of accepting the representations without
conducting an investigation that would reveal the falsehood. This court will
not impose on banking officials this requirement. Under all of these
circumstances and the customary practice of lending institutions, it is
necessary for them to be able to accept what Plaintiff signed as true. The
finding stands.
The Plaintiff also seizes on the language in the statute § 523(a)(2)(A),
excluding discharge for “a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s
financial condition.” Because the borrowing base certificates are statements of
financial condition, the argument is that for Plaintiff to be discharged the court
has to go to the following statutory requirement and require a finding of
reasonable reliance. He misreads Bandi v. Becanel where this court
distinguished statements that are only about general conditions of the
borrower from specific falsifications on the ability to repay the lender,
misstatements of inventory and denial of other secured creditors with priority
– as was true here – that are not dischargeable.
AFFIRMED.
2