Marinkovic v. Midland Loan Services, Inc. (In re Marinkovic)
This text of 234 F. App'x 567 (Marinkovic v. Midland Loan Services, Inc. (In re Marinkovic)) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mel M. Marin appeals pro se from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying a motion for relief from judgment in a bankruptcy case in which Marin’s father, Milivoj Marinkovie, is the debtor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985), and we affirm.
Because Marin’s motion was made eighteen months after the bankruptcy court’s order, the BAP did not err in concluding that the motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3), which require that motions be brought within one year. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Lake v. Capps (In re Lake), 202 B.R. 751, 759 n. 8 (9th Cir.BAP 1996).
The BAP also correctly ruled that the motion did not satisfy any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b)(4), (5), and (6). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388.
Marin’s remaining contentions lack merit.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
234 F. App'x 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinkovic-v-midland-loan-services-inc-in-re-marinkovic-ca9-2007.