Peter G. Berman and Raskin & Berman, Providence, Rhode Island, were on brief for Appellant.
Gregory W. Hamilton, Providence, Rhode Island, was on brief for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. The chapter 7 trustee commenced this adversary proceeding objecting to discharge pursuant to 727(a)(5), alleging that the Debtor had failed to satisfactorily explain what happened to certain jewelry purchased with a credit card and $25,000 in cash advances. At trial Judge Votolato found the Debtor's testimony credible but found as a fact that the Debtor had failed to explain what happened to the assets. The debtor appealed.
Whether the explanation proffered by the Debtor is satisfactory is a determination of fact and is reviewed for clear error. In re D'Agnese, 86 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 1996). This standard applies to the question of whether debtor has satisfactorily explained the loss of assets. Id. See also In re Hawley, 51 F.3d 246, 258 (11th Cir. 1995).
"[A] reviewing court ought not to upset findings of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on the whole of the record, the appellate judges form a strong, unyielding belief that a mistake has been made." Brandt v. Repco Printers & Lithographics, Inc. (In re Healthco International, Inc.), 132 F.3d 104, 109 (1997) (internal punctuation and citation omitted). We have reviewed the record and the arguments advanced by Debtor's counsel before us and find no error.