
    In re: Jerry Lee SNYDER; Pamela Ann Snyder, Debtors. Pamela Ann Snyder, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Sheila Schlesselman, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
    No. 09-1308.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 24, 2009.
    Stephen Berken, Stephen Chang, Law Offices of Stephen E. Berken, Denver, CO, for Debtors/Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
    Amy Jane Simons, Centennial, CO, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
    Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

The bankruptcy court ruled that Pamela Ann Snyder’s debt to Sheila Schlesselman was nondisehargeable under 11 U.S.C § 523(a)(2)(A). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Ms. Snyder now appeals to this court.

Ms. Snyder’s sole issue on appeal is that the lower courts should have applied § 523(a)(2)(B), rather than § 523(a)(2)(A). She asserts that “the trial court and the BAP have transmogrified the claim from one under § 523(a)(2)(B) to one under § 523(a)(2)(A),” Aplt. Br. at 7, and “t]hus, the trial court and BAP rel[ied] on the incorrect bankruptcy code subsection,” id.

We disagree. Our decision in Bellco First Federal Credit Union v. Kaspar (In re Kaspar), 125 F.3d 1358, 1361-62 (10th Cir.1997), clearly states that a claim under § 523(a)(2)(B) can be brought only if the debtor provided a written financial statement to the creditor. Here, Ms. Snyder never provided such a written statement to Ms. Schlesselman.

We AFFIRM the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the party’s request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     