With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ... [F]or years we have ... dealt that way here” (emphasis added). Although, unlike the events in Bluebonnet Savings, there is no testimony Dickenson told Schleider the proposal had to be presented to the loan committee, Schleider testified he was aware of the provision that no modification was binding unless it was in writing. Schleider also testified he knew that the details, like the interest rate and specific due date, were still to be determined. Given Schleider’s awareness that modifications had to be in writing and given that any modification depended on the parties agreeing to an interest rate and due date, we conclude, as a matter of law, Schleider failed to prove he justifiably relied to his detriment on Dickenson’s statements. See Bluebonnet Savings, 907 S.W.2d at 909 (<HOLDING>); see also In re Absolute Res. Corp., 76

A: holding that  523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance
B: holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance
C: holding standard under section 523a2a is justifiable reliance
D: holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law
D.