Dupre v. Schott

*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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 29, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30274
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: CHARLES DUPRE,
Debtor.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CHARLES DUPRE,
Appellant,
versus
MARTIN A. SCHOTT,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 3:03-CV-68)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Reviewing under the same standard as the district court, we affirm the Bankruptcy
Court’s denial of debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2) and (4) for the
following reasons:
1. Because there is significant record evidence that Dupre knowingly failed to
make a full and complete disclosure of his assets, we find no clear error in
the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact supporting denial of discharge
under both subsections.
2. Specifically, we find the cumulation of Dupre’s repeated schedule
omissions and inconsistent testimony regarding the ownership and
possession of certain assets to evidence a pattern of disregard for the truth
that supports fraudulent intent. See In re Sholdra, 249 F.3d 380, 382-83
(5th Cir. 2001) (finding that the cumulative effect of a series of falsehoods
in a bankruptcy proceeding indicates a pattern of “reckless and cavalier
disregard for the truth” supporting fraudulent intent).
3. We find no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court’s rejection of Dupre’s
reliance on counsel as a valid defense to his omission of assets from the
schedules.
4. Specifically, there is record evidence that Dupre did not make a full
disclosure of all pertinent facts about his assets to his attorney. See
Dillworth v. Boothe, 69 F.2d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 1934) (stating that a
reliance-on-counsel defense to asset omission requires full disclosure to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
attorney). Further, Dupre’s statements during the trustee’s inventory and
his trial testimony belie his claim of ignorance as to the ownership of
marital assets. Finally, even after learning of his obligation to report certain
property, Dupre failed to include property in his amended schedules.
Because of Dupre’s failure to fully inform his attorney, his inconsistent
statements regarding asset ownership, his persistent omissions, and his
previous experience with bankruptcy proceedings, Dupre’s claim of
reliance on counsel is neither reasonable nor credible.
Affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --