Jerry Greenwood v. Angelique Clark

Ninth Circuit

Jerry Greenwood v. Angelique Clark

593 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 2015

Docket12-60063, 12-60064

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 593 F. App'x 680 (Jerry Greenwood v. Angelique Clark) 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

Jerry Greenwood v. Angelique Clark, 593 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jerry and Eugenia Greenwood appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order dismissing their appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada for lack of standing. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We review the issue of whether appellants have standing de novo. Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 542 F.3d 1235, 1244 (9th Cir.2008); see also Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007). “Only persons who are directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by an order have standing to appeal the order.” Paine v. Dickey (In re Paine), 250 B.R. 99, 104 (9th Cir. BAP 2000).

The Greenwoods, Chapter 7 debtors, failed to establish an interest from which they could benefit in pursuing their appeal. Their claimed homestead exemption falls under 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(l)’s prohibition on exemption of voluntarily transferred property. See Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 60 F.3d 565, 569 (9th Cir.1995) (trustee’s mere threat of seeking avoidance sufficed to meet the threshold level of action necessary to trigger § 522(g)); Hunter v. Snyder (In re Snyder), 108 B.R. 150, 153 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1989) (settlement of an adversary proceeding suffices to invoke § 522(g)).

In order to show that their homestead exemption might be preserved under § 522(g)(1) as against the lienholder, the Greenwoods were required to demonstrate that their grant of a security interest in excess of the property’s value was not voluntary. 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1); see also Rodriguez v. Dorine’s Bail Bonds, Inc. (In re Rodriguez), 361 B.R. 887, 892 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2007). There is no evidence in the record indicating that the transfer of the deed of trust encumbering the home was involuntary, and the Greenwoods offer none. As a result, the transfer is ineligible for exemption under § 522(g)(1), and the Greenwoods lack a personal stake in the challenged settlement order and related orders sufficient to establish standing.

The motion to dismiss is 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 **

Jerry and Eugenia Greenwood appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order dismissing their appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada for lack of standing. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We review the issue of whether appellants have standing de novo. Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 542 F.3d 1235, 1244 (9th Cir.2008); see also Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007). “Only persons who are directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by an order have standing to appeal the order.” Paine v. Dickey (In re Paine), 250 B.R. 99, 104 (9th Cir. BAP 2000).

The Greenwoods, Chapter 7 debtors, failed to establish an interest from which they could benefit in pursuing their appeal. Their claimed homestead exemption falls under 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(l)’s prohibition on exemption of voluntarily transferred property. See Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 60 F.3d 565, 569 (9th Cir.1995) (trustee’s mere threat of seeking avoidance sufficed to meet the threshold level of action necessary to trigger § 522(g)); Hunter v. Snyder (In re Snyder), 108 B.R. 150, 153 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1989) (settlement of an adversary proceeding suffices to invoke § 522(g)).

In order to show that their homestead exemption might be preserved under § 522(g)(1) as against the lienholder, the Greenwoods were required to demonstrate that their grant of a security interest in excess of the property’s value was not voluntary. 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1); see also Rodriguez v. Dorine’s Bail Bonds, Inc. (In re Rodriguez), 361 B.R. 887, 892 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2007). There is no evidence in the record indicating that the transfer of the deed of trust encumbering the home was involuntary, and the Greenwoods offer none. As a result, the transfer is ineligible for exemption under § 522(g)(1), and the Greenwoods lack a personal stake in the challenged settlement order and related orders sufficient to establish standing.

The motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-greenwood-v-angelique-clark-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack