with intent to deceive. The Plaintiff must prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). Unlike the standard for excepting a debt from discharge as a fraudulent representation within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A) which is justifiable reliance on the part of the creditor, Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 116 S.Ct. 437,133 L.Ed.2d 351 (1995), the standard for excepting a debt from discharge within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(B) requires the more demanding reasonable reliance on the representation to the creditor. Id. The conclusion of reasonableness of reliance determination is a factual one which rests on the nature of the determination. Coston v. Bank of Malvern (In re Coston), 991 F.2d 257, 260 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The reasonableness of a creditor’s reliance
holding that the issue of discriminatory intent in a race discrimination case is a factual question for the trier of fact whose findings are reviewed only for clear error holding that for purposes of section 523a2b the reasonableness of a creditors reliance is a question of fact which is reviewable only for clear error holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding it is a question of fact holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury