Hui v. Krohn

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-707
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WAHLING HUI No. 24-707 D.C. No. Debtor. 1:23-bk-1130 __________________________________

WAHLING HUI. MEMORANDUM*

Appellant.

v.

SHELLEY D. KROHN, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Julia W. Brand, Jennifer E. Niemann, and Robert J. Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant Wahling Hui appeals from a decision by the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming a bankruptcy court order which

sustained in part and overruled in part the Chapter 7 trustee’s objections to certain

exemptions Hui claimed under Nevada law. We review the bankruptcy court’s

conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error, In re Cloobeck,

788 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

Filing a bankruptcy petition creates an estate consisting of all “legal and

equitable interest of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11

U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). The debtor may exempt certain property from the estate, but a

party in interest may also file an objection to the claimed exemption and submit

evidence that the exemption was not properly claimed. 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), (l);

Carter v. Anderson (In re Carter), 182 F.3d 1027, 1029 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999).

Hui’s primary argument concerns her claimed homestead exemption under

N.R.S. § 21.090(1)(m) in a property known as Minots Ledge. This property was the

subject of a lawsuit in which Hui did not prevail, with judgment being entered

against Hui on October 14, 2021; pursuant to the judgment, a quitclaim deed

transferring the property to Hui’s daughter Jamie Lee was recorded on December

10, 2021. Hui filed her bankruptcy petition on December 15, 2021. Thus, at the

time of her petition, Hui had no interest in the property, it never became part of the

estate, and the bankruptcy court properly sustained the objection to her claimed

2 24-707 exemption. To the extent Hui complains about the merits of the underlying state

court judgment, that issue is not properly before us.

Although Hui purports to contest the bankruptcy court’s determination that

$3,000 of Hui’s jewelry was not exempt and $3,700 in cash and deposits of money

were not exempt, she makes no argument explaining why the bankruptcy court erred

in these determinations. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,

841 F.2d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 1988) (failure to present an intelligible argument on

claim results in waiver). Hui concedes she has made no argument with respect to

the bankruptcy court’s denial of the exemption for the two watches and the Sonic

pain relief health aid. We agree with the BAP and “see no error in the [bankruptcy]

court’s well-reasoned decision with respect” to these exemptions. In re Hui, 2024

WL 374666, *5 (9th Cir. BAP 2024).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-707