United States v. Chan

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Chan

243 F. App'x 262

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 2007

DocketNos. 05-10422, 05-10423, 05-10425

StatusPublished

This text of 243 F. App'x 262 (United States v. Chan) 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

United States v. Chan, 243 F. App'x 262 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[264]*264MEMORANDUM

*

This is a consolidated appeal from an order denying appellants’ various challenges to a writ of execution on the residence of appellants Lisa Chan and her husband Chris Yiu to satisfy the restitution Lisa was ordered to pay following her criminal conviction. The district court rejected all appellants’ claims, holding that there was no evidence demonstrating that Lisa’s mother, appellant Lai Heung Chan, had any ownership interest in the house; that the house was community property; and, that the restitution judgment was a debt within the meaning of California community property law. It also held that Chris Yiu was not entitled to a hearing under California law and that his federal due process rights had not been violated. We affirm.

Assuming that the money for the purchase of the home came from Lai Heung Chan, the deed was originally recorded in the names of Lisa Chan and Chris Yiu. There is no evidence to defeat the presumption under California law that the purchase was a gift to Lai Heung’s daughter. See Altramano v. Swan, 20 Cal.2d 622, 628, 128 P.2d 353 (1942). Under California law, the house was community property because' it was acquired by Lisa Chan and Chris Yiu after their marriage. Also under California law, the restitution judgment is a debt that can reach a community property for its satisfaction. See FDIC v. Soderling, 998 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.1993). The property can be reached under California law, because it is community property in which the debtor, Lisa Chan, has an undivided interest. There has been no violation of the federal due process rights of appellant Chris Yiu.

Finally, the government was not required to exhaust Lisa Chan’s separate property. The record does not even reflect that there was any. In any event, Lisa Chan cannot challenge the restitution order in this proceeding.

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

[264]*264MEMORANDUM

*

This is a consolidated appeal from an order denying appellants’ various challenges to a writ of execution on the residence of appellants Lisa Chan and her husband Chris Yiu to satisfy the restitution Lisa was ordered to pay following her criminal conviction. The district court rejected all appellants’ claims, holding that there was no evidence demonstrating that Lisa’s mother, appellant Lai Heung Chan, had any ownership interest in the house; that the house was community property; and, that the restitution judgment was a debt within the meaning of California community property law. It also held that Chris Yiu was not entitled to a hearing under California law and that his federal due process rights had not been violated. We affirm.

Assuming that the money for the purchase of the home came from Lai Heung Chan, the deed was originally recorded in the names of Lisa Chan and Chris Yiu. There is no evidence to defeat the presumption under California law that the purchase was a gift to Lai Heung’s daughter. See Altramano v. Swan, 20 Cal.2d 622, 628, 128 P.2d 353 (1942). Under California law, the house was community property because' it was acquired by Lisa Chan and Chris Yiu after their marriage. Also under California law, the restitution judgment is a debt that can reach a community property for its satisfaction. See FDIC v. Soderling, 998 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.1993). The property can be reached under California law, because it is community property in which the debtor, Lisa Chan, has an undivided interest. There has been no violation of the federal due process rights of appellant Chris Yiu.

Finally, the government was not required to exhaust Lisa Chan’s separate property. The record does not even reflect that there was any. In any event, Lisa Chan cannot challenge the restitution order in this proceeding.

AFFIRMED.

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

In Re Jay S. Soderling, Debtor. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Resolution Fund v. Jay S. Soderling, an Individual, and Evelyn Ruth Soderling, His Spouse, in Re Leif David Soderling, Debtor. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Resolution Fund v. Leif David Soderling, an Individual, and Sydney Lynn Soderling, His Spouse, in Re Evelyn Ruth Soderling, Debtor. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Resolution Fund v. Evelyn Ruth Soderling, an Individual, and Jay S. Soderling, Her Spouse, in Re Sydney Lynn Soderling, Debtor. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Resolution Fund v. Sydney Lynn Soderling, an Individual, and Leif David Soderling, Her Spouse

998 F.2d 730 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Altramano v. Swan

128 P.2d 353 (California Supreme Court, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 F. App'x 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-chan-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack