See e.g., § 521; Beach v. Morris (In re Beach), 281 B.R. 917, 921 (10th Cir. BAP 2002). United States v. Ellis, 50 F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing G & J Invs. v. Zell (In re Zell), 108 B.R. 615, 627 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989)). In re Sears, 565 B.R. at 187.

Regardless of which articulation of the plaintiff's burden is accepted, once the opponent to discharge meets its burden of proving a substantial loss of assets by the Debtor, the burden shifts to the debtor to provide a satisfactory explanation for the loss of the assets. Chalik, 748 F.2d at 619; In re Zell, 108 B.R. 615, 628 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989); and In re Hendren, 51 B.R. 781, 788 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn. 1985).

In making its determination, the court may consider such things as the nature of the debtor's business, as well as his education and his financial and business sophistication. SeeG. & J Invs. v. Zell (In re Zell ), 108 B.R. 615, 629 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989).A. Disputed Assets were not Too Remote As he did before the bankruptcy court, Debtor argues on appeal that the 2010 Lally Loan and the 2011 Loftin Line of Credit were too remote in time from when the petition was filed to require him to provide a satisfactory explanation under § 727(a)(5).

r's failure to keep records under the particular circumstances of the case: debtor wife reasonably relied on husband to keep records, Cox, 41 F.3d at 1298-1300; debtor running small concrete business was poorly educated, unsophisticated and had little business experience, Eggert v. Sendecky (In re Sendecky), 283 B.R. 760, 764 (8th Cir. BAP 2002); destruction of records not debtor's fault and debtor lacked ability or knowledge to establish or maintain bookkeeping system for real estate business, Hunter v. Kinney (In re Kinney), 33 B.R. 594, 596 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 1983); self-employed debtor running gas station with very little formal education was justified in keeping records that were not "a paragon of clarity." Energy Marketing Corp. v. Sutton (In re Sutton), 39 B.R. 390, 398 (Bankr. M.D.Tenn. 1984); medical problems arising from auto accident, Benningfield, 109 B.R. at 293; and unsophisticated businesswoman relied on bookkeeper to maintain books and records, G J Investments v. Zell (In re Zell), 108 B.R. 615 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989). The evidence in this case offers three justifications for Defendant's missing recorded information: he lacked the ability to prepare his own tax returns and organize and maintain records due to his limited education; he depended on others to assist him; and the documents disposed of were discarded not by him but by a friend to whom he turned for assistance. The court finds that the evidence establishes all three facts, and further that they justify Defendant's failure to keep records under all of the circumstances of the case.

In Re Trogdon, 111 B.R. 655, 658 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1990) (citations omitted). See also Graham, 111 B.R. at 806 (§ 727(a)(3) requires that Debtor present sufficient written evidence that will enable creditors reasonably to ascertain his present financial condition and to follow his business transactions for a reasonable period in the past); In Re Rusnak, 110 B.R. 771, 775 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Pa. 1990) (the main thrust of objections to discharge is to furnish a vehicle whereby abusive conduct by Debtor can be dealt with through denial of discharge); In Re Zell, 108 B.R. 615, 627 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1989) (the purpose of § 727(a)(3) is to assure the trustee and creditors that they will be provided with sufficient information with which they can assess Debtor's estate and general financial posture); In Re Dias, 95 B.R. 419, 422 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Tex. 1988) (the records must at least reasonably allow for reconstruction of Debtor's financial condition). In order to prevail, plaintiff must establish:

In re Kinney, 33 B.R. 594 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1983). See, also In re Zell, 108 B.R. 615 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) (debtor's business office was vandalized and all records were stolen and her computer destroyed); In re Branch, 54 B.R. 211, 215 (Bankr.D.Colo. 1985) (records were accidentally lost in a fire caused through no fault of the debtor); In re Cohen, 47 B.R. 871 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1985) (robberies, vandalism and fires occurred at property where the records were located).

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U.S. 365, 367 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); Peters v. Michael (In re Michael), 433 B.R. 214, 220 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2010). Central to this policy is the bankruptcy discharge, which prohibits creditors from collecting on many prepetition debts. 11 U.S.C. § 523, 727(a); G & J Invs. v. Zell (In re Zell), 108 B.R. 615, 622 (S.D. Ohio 1989). However, receiving a bankruptcy discharge is not automatic, and § 727(a) lists twelve situations that can result in the complete denial of a debtor's discharge.

Section 727(a)(5) does not require that the explanation itself be meritorious, or that the loss or other disposition of assets be proper; it only requires that the explanation satisfactorily account for the disposition. G J Investment v. Zell (In re Zell), 108 B.R. 615, 629 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989); Peoples State Bank of Mazeppa Minn. v. Drenckhahn (In re Drenckhahn), 77 B.R. 697, 709 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1987).

A determination under section 727(a)(3) must be made on a case-by-case basis, with special consideration being given to debtor's occupation, business, and personal financial structure. In re Zell, 108 B.R. 615, 627 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989). The complexity of the transactions may be a key factor with regard to the duty to keep records.

We agree that an inquiry into such factors is appropriate; to the extent that the factors are relevant to the debtor's stated justification. See, e.g., Floret, L.L.C. v. Sendecky (In re Sendecky), 283 B.R. 760, 764 (8th Cir. BAP 2002) (finding that the debtor was justified in not maintaining records for his small business because he was poorly educated, unsophisticated and had little business experience); Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benningfield (In re Benningfield), 109 B.R. 291, 293 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) (finding that medical problems arising from an auto accident justified the debtor's failure to maintain records); G J Invs. v. Zell (In re Zell), 108 B.R. 615, 627 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1989) (finding that an unsophisticated businesswoman was justified in relying on a bookkeeper to maintain books and records); Energy Mktg. Corp. v. Sutton (In re Sutton), 39 B.R. 390, 398 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn. 1984) (finding that a self-employed debtor with very little formal education did not need to keep records that were "a paragon of clarity" for his business); Hunter v. Kinney (In re Kinney), 33 B.R. 594, 596 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1983) (finding that the debtor lacked the ability or knowledge to establish or maintain a bookkeeping system for real estate business). In particular, we consider the Ninth Circuit's holding in Cox v. Lansdowne (In re Cox), 904 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Cox I"), that one partner's reliance on another partner's record-keeping "is relevant in determining `justification' under § 727(a)(3)."