Buckeye Retmnt Co v. Laux, et al, No. 08-40444 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED _____________________ December 15, 2008 No. 08-40444 Summary Calendar _____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 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 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (4:07-CV-181) Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
