
    In The Matter Of: Robert F. MEREDITH, III, Debtor. Robert F. Meredith, III, Appellant, v. Estate of John F. McKeithen, Appellee.
    No. 06-30931
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 14, 2007.
    Randy Patrick Zinna, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellant.
    Brandon A. Brown, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellee.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Meredith did not disclose certain community property in bankruptcy, including his wife’s checking account, savings account, clothing, jewelry, safety deposit boxes, partnership interest, and truck. His wife testified that she knew of Robert’s plans to file for bankruptcy but wanted no part of it. The record reflects that Robert Meredith is a sophisticated businessman. He was earning $15,000 per month at the time of his filing, and he has previously filed for bankruptcy protection in several of his past business ventures. From this, the bankruptcy court inferred that Meredith intended to conceal assets and denied discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A); see also Cadle v. Pratt, 411 F.3d 561, 565 (5th Cir.2005). The district court also denied discharge on the ground that Meredith refused to obey an order of the court, see id. § 727(a)(6)(A), and on the ground that he concealed or failed to preserve records from which his financial conditions might be ascertained. See id. § 727(a)(3).

Meredith argues that it is irrational to risk so much in order to protect so little, explaining that the community property is “of little cumulative value, and dwarfed by the debt to be discharged in the case.” Love is an irrational commitment. The bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Meredith intentionally concealed assents in order to protect his wife is supported by the record, particularly by her testimony. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     