Allen v. Rainsdon (In Re Allen)

Ninth Circuit

Allen v. Rainsdon (In Re Allen)

656 F. App'x 291, 561 B.R. 291

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket14-60001

StatusUnpublished

This text of 656 F. App'x 291 (Allen v. Rainsdon (In Re Allen)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Rainsdon (In Re Allen), 656 F. App'x 291, 561 B.R. 291 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce Lee Allen, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the Chapter 7 trustee’s settlement of claims that Allen asserted in state court against Zions First National Bank. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement agreement because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the settlement was fair and equitable. See Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-83 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair and equitable).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in Allen’s opening brief to the BAP. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not presented to BAP are waived unless there are “exceptional circumstances”).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Bruce Lee Allen, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the Chapter 7 trustee’s settlement of claims that Allen asserted in state court against Zions First National Bank. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by approving the settlement agreement because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the settlement was fair and equitable. See Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-83 (9th Cir. 1986) (approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair and equitable).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in Allen’s opening brief to the BAP. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues not presented to BAP are waived unless there are “exceptional circumstances”).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

In Re a & C Properties, Debtors. William W. Martin, Superseded by Gilbert Robinson, in Intervention v. William E. Kane, Barbara Kelly, K & K Properties, Inc., and Investors Replacement, Inc., William W. Martin, Objectors-Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Gilbert Robinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy, in Intervention

784 F.2d 1377 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

In Re Keith Burnett in Re Shelly Burnett, Debtors, Keith Burnett Shelly Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Services

435 F.3d 971 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Boyajian v. New Falls Corp.

564 F.3d 1088 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 F. App'x 291, 561 B.R. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-rainsdon-in-re-allen-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack