John Roberts v. Esther Andrews

Ninth Circuit

John Roberts v. Esther Andrews

668 F. App'x 757

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 1, 2016

Docket14-60047; BAP 13-1385; 14-60048; BAP 13-1403

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 668 F. App'x 757 (John Roberts v. Esther Andrews) 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

John Roberts v. Esther Andrews, 668 F. App'x 757 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants John Roberts (Trustee) and Dana Andrews (Debtor) appeal a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment for Appellee Andrews Family Revocable Trust, et al., pursuant to the application of California preclusion law.

On appeal, we review de novo. Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not recite them here.

Appellants assert that Debtor did not discover the alleged forgery in the power of attorney or the Restated Trust Agreement until after the Trust Contest Judgment had been entered. They argue that the “newly discovered facts” exception to claim preclusion applies under Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 (2005). In Allied, the court held that “[r]es judica-ta is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint is filed.” Id. at 199. However, “a plaintiff will be precluded from raising these facts later if, by exercising due diligence, he or she could have discovered the relevant information before filing the initial suit.” Id. at 200-01 (citing Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 914 (7th Cir. 1993)).

In this case, the exception does not apply because,' “with diligence,” the Debtor would have discovered the purported fraud. As the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel noted: “The POA attached to the Trust Complaint reveals the alleged fraud on its face: Pages one and two are from the general durable POA and pages three and four are from the healthcare POA.”

We have carefully considered Appellants’ additional arguments and conclude that no reversible error occurred.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants John Roberts (Trustee) and Dana Andrews (Debtor) appeal a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment for Appellee Andrews Family Revocable Trust, et al., pursuant to the application of California preclusion law.

On appeal, we review de novo. Grenning v. Miller-Stout, 739 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 2014). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not recite them here.

Appellants assert that Debtor did not discover the alleged forgery in the power of attorney or the Restated Trust Agreement until after the Trust Contest Judgment had been entered. They argue that the “newly discovered facts” exception to claim preclusion applies under Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 195 (2005). In Allied, the court held that “[r]es judica-ta is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint is filed.” Id. at 199. However, “a plaintiff will be precluded from raising these facts later if, by exercising due diligence, he or she could have discovered the relevant information before filing the initial suit.” Id. at 200-01 (citing Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 914 (7th Cir. 1993)).

In this case, the exception does not apply because,' “with diligence,” the Debtor would have discovered the purported fraud. As the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel noted: “The POA attached to the Trust Complaint reveals the alleged fraud on its face: Pages one and two are from the general durable POA and pages three and four are from the healthcare POA.”

We have carefully considered Appellants’ additional arguments and conclude that no reversible error occurred.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F. App'x 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-roberts-v-esther-andrews-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack