Filed: Nov. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: and Lipez, Circuit Judge. was on, brief, for appellant., John R. Mayer, with whom Robert D. Friedman and Perkins, Smith, & Cohen, LLP were on brief, for appellee.debtor protests the denial of a discharge in bankruptcy.clear error either in the court's findings or in its conclusions. See 1st Cir.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION — NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1748
IN RE: RICHARD J. LAMBERT,
Debtor.
_____________________
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU,
Objector, Appellee,
v.
RICHARD J. LAMBERT,
Debtor, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Carol J. Kenner, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Stephen M. Sheehy, with whom Stephen M. Sheehy, P.C. was on
brief, for appellant.
John R. Mayer, with whom Robert D. Friedman and Perkins, Smith
& Cohen, LLP were on brief, for appellee.
November 14, 2002
Per Curiam. This is a bankruptcy appeal in which the
debtor protests the denial of a discharge in bankruptcy. We have
examined the entire record, reviewed the thoughtful decisions of
the bankruptcy court and the district court, studied the parties'
briefs, and entertained oral argument. The bankruptcy court's
decision is factbound, and, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8013, we
review that court's findings under a deferential "clear error"
standard. Boroff v. Tully (In re Tully), 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st
Cir. 1987). In this instance, the decision turns largely on
credibility determinations, and we see nothing remotely approaching
clear error either in the court's findings or in its conclusions.
Since the district court has explained quite lucidly why the
bankruptcy court's decision must be upheld, In re Lambert, No. 01-
12174, slip op. (D. Mass. May 1, 2002), we need go no further.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-2-
