Evans v. Robertson

Ninth Circuit

Evans v. Robertson

32 F. App'x 967

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2002

DocketNo. 01-16763; BAP No. NC-00-01510-MaPK

StatusPublished

This text of 32 F. App'x 967 (Evans v. Robertson) 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

Evans v. Robertson, 32 F. App'x 967 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Ron Evans appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee in this adversary proceeding concerning Evans’ claimed entitlement to a constructive trust over the debtor’s assets. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP, Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Bd. of Equalization (In re Cool Fuel, Inc.), 210 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because the issue was fully and fairly litigated in a prior Texas state court action, Evans was precluded from re-litigating whether he was entitled to a constructive trust. Cf. First Nat’l Bank v. Russell (In re Russell), 76 F.3d 242, 244-45 (9th Cir.1996). Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact remained and summary judgment was proper. The BAP also properly concluded that Evans failed to “specifically and directly” trace the alleged trust property back to the alleged fraudulent activity giving rise to the trust. See Taylor Assocs. v. Diamant (In re Advent Mgmt. Corp.), 104 F.3d 293, 296 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Ron Evans appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee in this adversary proceeding concerning Evans’ claimed entitlement to a constructive trust over the debtor’s assets. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP, Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Bd. of Equalization (In re Cool Fuel, Inc.), 210 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Because the issue was fully and fairly litigated in a prior Texas state court action, Evans was precluded from re-litigating whether he was entitled to a constructive trust. Cf. First Nat’l Bank v. Russell (In re Russell), 76 F.3d 242, 244-45 (9th Cir.1996). Therefore, no genuine issue of material fact remained and summary judgment was proper. The BAP also properly concluded that Evans failed to “specifically and directly” trace the alleged trust property back to the alleged fraudulent activity giving rise to the trust. See Taylor Assocs. v. Diamant (In re Advent Mgmt. Corp.), 104 F.3d 293, 296 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. App'x 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-robertson-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack