David Folsom v. Gerald Davis

513 F. App'x 651

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2013
• Docket: 11-56413
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants David Folsom (“Debtor”) and Pamela Brodwolf-Folsom appeal pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in an adversary proceeding brought by the bankruptcy trustee concerning ownership of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because, under the terms of Appellants’ pre-marital contract, the real property at issue is community property and thus Debtor’s interest is property of the bankruptcy estate. See Cal. Fam.Code § 1500 (“The property rights of husband and wife prescribed by statute may be altered by a premarital agreement or other marital property agreement.”); Estate of MacDonald 51 Cal.3d 262, 272 Cal.Rptr.153, 794 P.2d 911, 918 (1990) (transmutation requires language that expressly states that characterization or ownership of property is being changed); see also Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7056 (applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in bankruptcy adversary proceedings).

We do not consider Appellants’ arguments and documents that were not presented below. See United States v. Shaltry (In re Home Am. T.V.-Appliance Audio, Inc.), 232 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (absent exceptional circumstances, an argument is waived if it is not presented before either the bankruptcy court or the district court); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1988) (documents not filed with the district court are not part of the record on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

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