In re SHON JASON TREANOR and JILL DIANA TREANOR

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 23, 2026
• Docket: 20-23267
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 FRESNO DIVISION

5 In re ) Case No. 20-23267-B-7 ) 6 SHON JASON TREANOR and ) Date: June 9, 2026 JILL DIANA TREANOR, ) Time: 1:30 p.m. 7 ) Place: U.S. Courthouse Debtors. ) 2500 Tulare Street 8 ) Courtroom 13, Fifth Floor ) Fresno, California 9 ) ) Honorable René Lastreto II 10

11 RULING ON SHON TREANOR’S PETITION TO SUBMIT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED FRAUD AND OTHER CRIMES DIRECTLY TO 12 THE U.S. ATTORNEY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Co-debtor Shon Treanor (“Shon” or “Treanor”) petitions the 16 court to refer Shon’s evidence of alleged fraud and other crimes 17 to the United States Attorney. The court does not have 18 reasonable grounds for believing that any violation of the 19 relevant bankruptcy crime statutes has been presented. For that 20 and other reasons, the court denies the petition without 21 prejudice. 22 23 BACKGROUND 24 This bankruptcy case was filed on June 30, 2020. The 25 debtors received their discharge on February 17, 2021, and the 26 case was closed on December 27, 2022. Docket generally. At the 27 end of the case, the trustee paid Shon and co-debtor Jill Treanor 28 1 A motion to reopen the case was filed by co-debtor Jill 2 Treanor on January 21, 2026. Doc. #511. An order reopening the 3 case was entered the next day. Doc. #512. 4 Shortly after, Jill Treanor filed a handwritten “Motion to 5 Receive Proceeds from the Sale of My Home.” Doc. #514. No 6 further statement was filed in support of the motion. 7 A month and one-half later, Shon filed this “Petition to 8 Submit Direct Evidence.” Doc. #519. The hearing on both motions 9 was originally set for April 23, 2026. The hearing has been 10 continued a few times at the request of Jill Treanor. Both 11 motions were then set June 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. by order dated 12 May 20, 2026. Docs. #533, #534. Jill Treanor requested and 13 received another continuance of her motion only. Doc. #539. 14 This motion was heard June 9, 2026. 15 This bankruptcy case has been riddled with disagreements and 16 allegations of fraud by the debtors. The debtors discharged 17 counsel during the case.1 18 The alleged crimes and cover up asserted by Treanor here 19 relate to probate estate and trust litigation in both Fresno and 20 Solano counties, California. The relevant events began in 2014 21 through 2018.2

22 1 This case was originally assigned to now retired Judge Sargis. Upon Judge Sargis’ retirement, the case was assigned to the undersigned. 23 2 Shon submitted 66 exhibits consisting of over 275 pages purporting to establish the crimes committed in connection with Probate Estates and Trust 24 litigation. The court reviewed the documents in camera. Most of the documents consist of email chains between lawyers and clients, lawyers and 25 lawyers, pleadings in the probate estates involved and reports of various agencies including Adult Protective Services for Fresno County, the Fresno 26 Sheriff’s Office, the Fresno County District Attorney, the California Attorney General, County Counsel and others. Some of the language in the 27 correspondence is “rough.” The documents also include a toxicology report which Shon says has not been previously released. This report, Shon claims, 28 is evidence that the Bandys’ deaths are suspicious. The court will attach the 1 Wayne and Mary Bandy resided in Fresno County, California, 2 in what is now known as “Yokuts Valley.” Mary Bandy died on June 3 8, 2014 without a will. Wayne Bandy died a little over three 4 months later on September 21, 2014. Wayne and Mary had two 5 children: Mark Bandy and Cheryl Lynn Bandy-Gotemiller. Mark has 6 a son, James Bandy. Cheryl had no children. Cheryl was married 7 to Mark Gotemiller who died in August 2013. Cheryl predeceased 8 her parents on March 20, 2014. 9 Though Cheryl had no children, Mark had a niece, Jill 10 Treanor. Shon was Jill’s spouse. 11 The elder Bandys were cared for by Terry Novak and others. 12 Cheryl was cared for by the Treanors until her death in March 13 2014. 14 Wayne Bandy allegedly wished to disinherit Mark. So, Wayne 15 and Mary hired attorney Donna Standard to draft two wills 16 sometime in mid-2014. Mary never signed her will. Wayne signed 17 his. However, the Bandys had an existing trust since 2002. 18 Cheryl signed a trust shortly before her death giving the 19 Treanors a substantial amount if not all of her assets. Cheryl 20 resided in Solano County when she died. 21 Then the litigation circus began. Two separate probate 22 proceedings for the Bandys were started in Fresno County.3 23 /// 24 /// 25 court will seal the documents from public view subject to further court order 26 to unseal the documents for good cause. That order only affects public viewing of the documents on the docket. The order does not prevent the 27 Treanors from using their own copies as they wish. 3 Just prior to her death, a proceeding to appoint a public administrator as 28 Mary Bandy’s conservator began in Fresno County. That proceeding turned into 1 The Treanors contended that Wayne and Mary were subject to 2 undue influence when they were presented with the new wills. The 3 Treanors started a proceeding in the Solano County Superior Court 4 to confirm Cheryl’s trust which was opposed by Terry Novak who 5 was appointed executrix under Wayne Bandy’s will. Terry was 6 represented by Donna Standard. 7 The Treanors were dissatisfied with the manner in which the 8 probates in Fresno County were handled. They sincerely believed 9 that criminal activity was involved not only in the drafting and 10 presentation of the wills to the Bandys shortly before their 11 death but also in the very care given to the Bandys. Equally 12 disturbing allegations were made against the Treanors concerning 13 their alleged undue influence over Cheryl when her trust was 14 prepared. 15 The Treanors sought an investigation by the Fresno County 16 Sheriff’s Office into the Bandys’ death and alleged undue 17 influence. They were dissatisfied with the result of that 18 investigation. They went to other law enforcement agencies 19 including the Internal Affairs Division of the Fresno County 20 Sherrif’s Office without success. They submitted evidence to the 21 Fresno County District Attorney’s Office who declined to 22 prosecute finding that there was not enough evidence to establish 23 proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any criminal activity. The 24 Treanors asked the California Attorney General to review that 25 decision. The Attorney General determined that the District 26 Attorney did not abuse its discretion in declining to prosecute. 27 The Treanors had sought an investigation by the United States 28 Attorney. They have been frustrated there as well. Shon has 1 repeatedly stated an assistant U.S. Attorney needs a court 2 referral before looking into the case. 3 It is not entirely clear from a review of the documents by 4 the court in camera, but it appears that the two probate estates 5 in Fresno County and the claims involved were settled between 6 Mark Bandy and Terry Novak. Litigation in Solano County 7 continued through trial. The Treanors apparently prevailed in 8 that trial. However, it is unclear what, if anything, the 9 Treanors received as a result of their trial victory.4 10 During their bankruptcy case, the Treanors filed a motion 11 for a U.S. Attorney General criminal investigation into fraud. 12 See Docket Control Number SJT-2. Judge Sargis issued two orders 13 on that motion. First he set a hearing and invited counsel 14 involved including an Assistant United States Attorney, to 15 participate. Doc. #299. The hearing was on June 17, 2021, and 16 the court issued a ruling denying the motion/application without 17 prejudice. Doc. #306.5 18 Shon now asks the court to look again at his evidence and 19 some new evidence he claims supports an inference of criminal 20 activity surrounding the Bandys’ death. He ultimately asks again 21 for the court to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney.6 22 ///

23 4 See Complaint in Adversary Proceeding 20-2160, Sanders, et al. v. Treanor, et al. 24 5 Many of the documents the court reviewed in camera were part of the record of the motion SJT-2. See Docs. ##252-279. One of the attorneys representing 25 Mark Bandy in the probate litigation filed a declaration setting forth his version of the events. Doc. #290. 26 6 By summarizing the lengthy disputes in all the litigation matters, the court does not intend to minimize the impact of all of this on the Treanors or any 27 other participant in the litigation. The court set forth the pertinent facts and did not include much detail and many names since the court construes Shon 28 Treanor’s request for a referral, not to decide issues that have already 1 JURISDICTION 2 Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and 157(a). 3 This is a matter that this court may finally determine under 28 4 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3057. 5 6 ANALYSIS 7 I. The Controlling Statute Limits the Matters This Court Must 8 Refer. 9 18 U.S.C. § 3057 provides, in part, as follows: 10 (a) Any judge…having reasonable grounds for believing that any violation under [the 11 bankruptcy crime statutes] or other laws of the United States relating to 12 insolvent debtors…has been committed or that an investigation should be had in 13 connection therewith, shall report to the appropriate United States Attorney 14 all the facts and circumstances of the case, the names of the witnesses and the 15 offense or offenses believed to have been committed. Where one of such 16 officers has made such report, the others need not do so. 17 (b) The United States Attorney thereupon 18 shall inquire into the facts and report thereon to the judge, and if it appears 19 probable that any such offense has been committed, shall without delay, present 20 the matter to the grand jury, unless upon inquiry and examination he decides 21 that the ends of public justice do not require investigation or prosecution, in 22 which case he shall report the facts to the Attorney General for his direction. 23 24 Notably absent from that statute is any provision saying the 25 court shall report upon the application or motion of a debtor or 26 any other individual. Further, the decision whether to proceed 27 with a prosecution is made only by the United States Attorney if 28 it appears probable that an offense has been committed. The 1 Attorney General has the ultimate discretion to proceed to 2 prosecution. This court does not. 3 A debtor cannot require a court to refer matters for 4 criminal prosecution. Mays v. CitiBank, N.A., 04-20227-CIV- 5 Lenard/Simonton; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46358*10 (S.D. Fla. 2005) 6 aff’d 180 Fed. Appx. 143 (11th Circuit, 2006); Virginia Hospital 7 Center Arlington Health Systems v. Akl (In re Akl), 2010 8 Bankruptcy LEXIS 1338, (Bankr. D.C. April 23, 2010). A judge may 9 report certain conduct to the United States Attorney, but the 10 court has no authority to determine whether a prosecution should 11 occur. Gibbs v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (In re Gibbs), 19- 12 54809; 2022 Bankruptcy LEXIS 579*17 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. March 4, 13 2022). 14 So, the question is not whether the court must refer the 15 matter based upon a debtor or any party’s request. The answer is 16 no. The real question is whether this court was presented with 17 reasonable grounds for belief that a bankruptcy crime has been 18 committed. Those grounds do not exist here. 19 20 II. This court Does Not Have Reasonable Grounds to Believe a 21 Bankruptcy Crime Has Occurred. 22 The bankruptcy crimes referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3057 do not 23 relate to probate or trust proceedings predating a bankruptcy 24 case by more than six years. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 152 makes 25 it a crime for a person to “knowingly and fraudulently”:

26 • Conceal from an official property belonging to the estate; 27 • Present a false oath in relation to any case; 28 1 • Presents a false claim; 2 • Receives material property after a bankruptcy filing and conceals same; 3 • Commits bribery for acting or not acting in a 4 bankruptcy case; 5 • With intent to defeat provisions of Title 11, conceals any of its property or as an agent of a corporation; 6 • Falsifies books in contemplation of filing or 7 thereafter relating to property or the financial affairs of a debtor; 8 • After filing of the bankruptcy withholds from an 9 officer of the court any recorded information relating to property or the financial affairs of a debtor. 10 11 The court has paraphrased the proscribed activity. However, 12 alleged conspiratorial acts of fraud or other crimes relating to 13 probate or trust proceedings are not bankruptcy crimes. They did 14 not affect this bankruptcy case. As another example, 18 U.S.C. § 15 153 proscribes embezzlement from the estate by an officer of the 16 bankruptcy court. 18 U.S.C. § 154 proscribes an adverse interest 17 by an officer of the bankruptcy court. 18 U.S.C. § 157 18 proscribes devising a scheme or artifice to defraud and filing a 19 fraudulent petition; filing a document to deceive; makeing a 20 false or fraudulent representation, claim or promise concerning 21 or in relation to a proceeding under Title 11 before or after 22 filing or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be 23 pending. None of those crimes are even remotely related to the 24 alleged actions at issue here. 25 There is simply no reasonable grounds for this court to 26 refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney or another prosecutorial 27 agency. There is no reasonable grounds for belief that a 28 bankruptcy crime has been committed. Gibbs. Section 3057 is not 1 a general crime referral statute.7 It is specific to bankruptcy 2 crimes and crimes relating to insolvent debtors. 3 4 III. The Debtors Have No Standing to Request Such a Referral. 5 As mentioned above, 18 U.S.C. § 3057 does not confer 6 standing on litigants to request such a referral from the 7 bankruptcy court. In re Baroni, 643 B.R. 253, 273 (Bankr. C.D. 8 Cal. 2022). The text of the statute speaks only to the 9 obligation of a judge (or others not relevant here) to make a 10 referral if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a 11 criminal violation has occurred. It says nothing about the 12 making of a referral upon request of a party in interest. Id. 13 The statute expresses no intent by Congress to authorize any 14 party litigant to request let alone require a court or other 15 officer of the bankruptcy estate to report anything. 16 17 IV. Other Reasons Why a Referral is not Mandated Here. 18 There are other reasons why a referral is not required here. 19 First, it is unnecessary. All persons already have the 20 unfettered right to report potential bankruptcy crimes or other 21 crimes for investigation directly to the United States Attorney. 22 Baroni 643 B.R. at 275; In re Valentine, 386, 387-88 (Bankr. E.D. 23 Mich. 1996). Shon or Jill can report crimes to the appropriate 24 agency. 25 /// 26

27 v 7 . S e W e i , l s I o n n r ( e I n C a r n e o e W i M l f s g o . n ) C , o . 2 , 0 1 4 5 6 6 B a B n . k R r . . 2 L 5 E 1 X , I S 2 6 2 3 2 0 ( 5 B a * n 1 k 1 r . ( B E a . n D k . r . P a C . . D 2 . 0 1 C 2 a ) l ; . M J c u K l n y e w 2 , 28 2015); Gibbs at *17-18. Under 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3)(F), the United States 1 Second, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has 2 held that a creditor has no due process rights to or an 3 opportunity to be heard before a criminal referral is made. 4 Seidel v. Durkin (In re Goodwin) 194 B.R. 214, 223 (B.A.P. 9th 5 1996); Baroni, 643 B.R. at 275. This supports the referral 6 process based on a reasonable ground for believing certain crimes 7 are committed. It is the specified entities that have the duty 8 to report. The statute does not support a motion hearing. 9 Third, application of 18 U.S.C. § 3057 in the manner 10 requested here would upset the criminal investigative process. 11 The ultimate charging body in the federal system is the Grand 12 Jury. If 18 U.S.C. § 3057 were intended to be applied in the 13 manner asserted by Shon here, there would be a public process as 14 opposed to it being subject to restrictions on public disclosure 15 as part of the Grand Jury process. Persons names and reputations 16 could be subject to public scrutiny before the criminal process 17 plays out. If a referral is made after a motion is presented to 18 a bankruptcy judge and the Grand Jury decides not to indict, the 19 damage to the reputation may very well have already occurred and 20 be extremely difficult to reverse.8 21 Fourth, the statute of limitations for bankruptcy crimes has 22 expired. Even if any of the acts involved here amounted to a 23 bankruptcy crime – they do not – the statute of limitations may 24 have run. The statute of limitations for bankruptcy crimes with 25 the exception of concealment of assets of a debtor is five years 26 from the offense. The actions here occurred in 2014 through 27 8 Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3.10(a) provides that a lawyer shall not 28 threaten to present criminal, administrative or disciplinary charges to obtain 1 2018. The statute of limitations ran in 2023 or 2024 assuming a 2 continuing offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3284. 18 U.S.C. § 3284 provides 3 a five year statute of limitations for concealment of assets of 4 the debtor in a case under Title 11. That crime, if applicable 5 here – it is not – is considered a continuing offense until the 6 debtor shall have been finally discharged. The period of 7 limitations then begins to run. 18 U.S.C. 3284. The debtors 8 here received their discharge on February 17, 2021. The statute 9 of limitations ran February 16, 2026 and expired. As mentioned, 10 the crimes Shon alleges occurred here do not include concealment 11 of assets of a debtor. Contesting the estate’s rights to assets 12 is not concealment. 13 This court expresses no opinion on alleged non-bankruptcy 14 related crimes Shon contends may have occurred. 15 16 CONCLUSION 17 This court does not doubt the Treanors’ sincerity. Indeed, 18 they fought this fight for many years and eventually prevailed at 19 least in the Solano County matter. The court certainly 20 understands how the Treanors feel that they have not been taken 21 seriously by the various law enforcement agencies to whom they 22 have presented their facts. But this court’s authority to refer 23 this matter to the United States Attorney requires that this 24 court have a reasonable ground for believing that a violation of 25 the bankruptcy crime statutes has occurred. For the forgoing 26 reasons, this court does not have that belief. Nevertheless, the 27 court does not want to preclude the Treanors from continuing to 28 approach law enforcement agencies should they desire to do so. 1 So, this court will deny this motion without prejudice. A 2 conforming order will issue.? 3 4 | Dated: Jun 23, 2026 By the Court 6 Cra ené Lastreto II, Judge 7 United States Bankruptcy Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ° The forgoing constitutes the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52 (Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 7052). If any finding of 28 fact is deemed a conclusion of law it is adopted as such. If any conclusion of law is construed as a finding of fact, it is adopted as such.

1 Instructions to Clerk of Court Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment 2

3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the 4 parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the Order via the BNC or, if checked , via the U.S. mail. 5

6 Shon Jason Treanor 4390 Emerald Ridge Lane 7 Fairfield, CA 94534

8 Jill Diana Treanor 2100 West Texas Street #52 9 Fairfield, CA 94533

10 Office of the U.S. Trustee United States Courthouse 11 2500 Tulare Street, Room 1401 Fresno, CA 93721 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28