Hadley Cohen v. Third Coast Bank, SSB, No. 14-40760 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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, Debtors April 8, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
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.
