Steen
Steen v. Brooks
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Richard A. Steen appeals the judgment of the bankruptcy court that his debt to Mary Brooks was nondischargeable under *857 11 U.S.C. § 528 (a)(2)(B) as a result of his fraud. The district court affirmed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
I
Steen argues that the bankruptcy court’s findings that Brooks reasonably relied on Steen’s misrepresentations in his credit application were not supported by the evidence and therefore were clearly erroneous. We review the bankruptcy court’s determinations of fact for clear error. See Graves v. Myrvang (In re Myr-vang), 232 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2000); La Trattoria, Inc. v. Lansford (In re Lansford), 822 F.2d 902, 904 (9th Cir. 1987).
The evidence before the bankruptcy court established that (1) Brooks was an individual ereditorAessor and not a routine institutional lender; (2) Brooks considered the credit application important in deciding whether to lease her home to Steen; (3) there was nothing in the application that would have caused Brooks to question Steen’s statements in the application; and (4) Brooks reasonably relied on the credit application.