Young Kim v. Julia Riihimaki

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 15, 2019
• Docket: 17-60088
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: YOUNG HUI KIM, No. 17-60088

Debtor, BAP No. 17-1066 ______________________________

YOUNG HUI KIM; GLORY OF GOD MEMORANDUM* PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; PACIFIC EAGLE REALTY, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

JULIA RIIHIMAKI,

Appellee.

In re: YOUNG HUI KIM, No. 17-60089

Debtor, BAP No. 17-1137

------------------------------

YOUNG HUI KIM; GLORY OF GOD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; PACIFIC EAGLE REALTY, LLC,

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

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2019** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Young Hui Kim appeals the bankruptcy court’s orders, affirmed by the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, granting Julia Riihimaki’s motion to enforce

settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm.

1. We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error. In re Lee,

889 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2018). The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in

finding that Kim ratified the accepted counteroffer. See McDonnell v. Pennington,

40 Haw. 265, 268 (Haw. 1953) (ratification is a question of fact).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 605-7, an attorney may only

settle a case with the client’s written authorization. However, “a settlement will be

treated as binding even in the absence of the express written consent of the client

where the client ratifies the settlement.” Cook v. Surety Life Ins., Co., 903 P.2d

708, 716 (Haw. Ct. App. 1995); see also McKeague v. Freitas, 40 Haw. 108, 113

(1953). “[R]atification may be express or it may be implied . . . depend[ing] on the

facts of each particular case. Any failure on the part of the client to object to an

unauthorized act within a reasonable time after becoming aware of it will be

construed as a ratification of it.” Scott v. Pilipo, 25 Haw. 386, 390 (1920) (quoting

6 Corpus Juris 670 (William Mack & William Benjamin Hale eds., 1916)).

The bankruptcy court found that Kim understood the terms of the

counteroffer and orally authorized her attorney to accept it. The bankruptcy court

also found that Kim met with her attorney on multiple occasions after the

acceptance and discussed the accepted counteroffer but did not object within a

reasonable time. Testimony in the record supports the bankruptcy court’s finding

that, “[g]iven her knowledge of and acquiescence in the ongoing settlement

discussions and of the efforts that the attorneys were expending to negotiate and

document the settlement, [Kim] waited an unreasonably long time to raise her

3 objections.” Thus, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Kim

ratified the accepted counteroffer.

2. The bankruptcy court also did not err when it determined that Riihimaki was

the prevailing party, because she won the disputed main issue—whether there was

an enforceable settlement. See In re Hoopai, 581 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).

Thus, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees

to Riihimaki pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 607-14. Id. at 1095.

AFFIRMED.