From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Paterson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 22, 2001
4 F. App'x 468 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


4 Fed.Appx. 468 (9th Cir. 2001) In re: William J. PATERSON; Nancy J. Paterson Debtors. William J. Paterson; Nancy J. Paterson, Appellants, v. Plaza Associates, an Arizona general partnership, Appellee. No. 00-15927. D.C. No. CV-99-01048-PGR. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 22, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny appellants' request for oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Debtors appealed pro se from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Paul G. Rosenblatt, J., affirming bankruptcy court's decision to except from discharge a loan that debtors had obtained for their corporation by false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud. The Court of Appeals held that loan was not dischargeable where debtors intentionally made false representations about security for loan, and lender reasonably relied on those representations.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

William J. and Nancy J. Paterson appeal pro se the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's decision to except from discharge a loan that the Patersons had obtained for their corporation by false pretenses, false representation or actual fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court's conclusions of law and review for clear error its factual findings. See Britton v. Price (In re Britton), 950 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

We agree with the bankruptcy court that the loan was not dischargeable because the Patersons intentionally made

Page 469.

false representations about the security for the loan, and Plaza Associates reasonably relied on such representations. See Ashley v. Church (In re Ashley), 903 F.2d 599, 604-05 (9th Cir.1990). We reject as unpersuasive the Patersons' contentions that Mr. Paterson's medical condition prevented him from forming the intent to defraud, that Mrs. Paterson made no false representations, that there were no written misrepresentations, or that Richard Sanders provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re Paterson

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 22, 2001
4 F. App'x 468 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

In re Paterson

Case Details

Full title:In re: William J. PATERSON; Nancy J. Paterson Debtors. v. Plaza…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 22, 2001

Citations

4 F. App'x 468 (9th Cir. 2001)