Debtor's ex-wife filed an adversary complaint alleging that debtor materially misrepresented his own financial condition and that of his two convenience stores in connection with the parties' divorce. After trial, the court found that plaintiff had proven the first four elements of her fraud claim (that debtor made a representation, knowing it to be false, with intent to deceive, which plaintiff reasonably relied on), but that she had failed to establish the fifth element (that her damages were the proximate result of debtor's misrepresentations). Plaintiff's 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) claim was therefore denied.