Sarp v. Mork

Ninth Circuit

Sarp v. Mork

321 F. App'x 600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2009

DocketNo. 07-35387

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 600 (Sarp v. Mork) 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

Sarp v. Mork, 321 F. App'x 600 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Anthony J. and Barbara A. Sarp and their marital community appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the trustee on the basis that the Sarps failed to surrender $118,229.99 in estate property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the BAP and the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and grant of summary judgment. Sigma Micro Corp. v. Healthcentral.com (In re Healthcentral.com), 504 F.3d 775, 783 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Contrary to appellants’ contentions, disputed evidence regarding whether their conduct enhanced the value of estate assets is immaterial to whether they breached their duties under 11 U.S.C. § 521(3) & (4). See Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case.”); see also 11 U.S.C. § 521(3) (requiring debtor to cooperate with trustee); 11 U.S.C. § 521(4) (requiring debtor to surrender all estate property to trustee).

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

**

Anthony J. and Barbara A. Sarp and their marital community appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the trustee on the basis that the Sarps failed to surrender $118,229.99 in estate property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the decision of the BAP and the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and grant of summary judgment. Sigma Micro Corp. v. Healthcentral.com (In re Healthcentral.com), 504 F.3d 775, 783 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

Contrary to appellants’ contentions, disputed evidence regarding whether their conduct enhanced the value of estate assets is immaterial to whether they breached their duties under 11 U.S.C. § 521(3) & (4). See Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n, 322 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.2003) (“A fact is ‘material’ when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case.”); see also 11 U.S.C. § 521(3) (requiring debtor to cooperate with trustee); 11 U.S.C. § 521(4) (requiring debtor to surrender all estate property to trustee).

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)

321 F. App'x 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarp-v-mork-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack