IN RE: Minon MILLER, Debtor. Edward Gilliam, Appellant, v. Minon Miller, Appellee.
Decided: August 12, 2020
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Edward Gilliam, Pro Se Minon Miller, Pro Se
Edward Gilliam appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (“BAP”) judgment reversing the bankruptcy court's order granting Gilliam's motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court's ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The BAP properly concluded that Gilliam lacked standing to pursue the motion for sanctions after Gilliam failed to list the pending sanctions claim on his bankruptcy schedules. See 11 U.S.C. § 521 (debtor's duties in connection with bankruptcy filing), § 554(c), (d) (scheduled property not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor; property that is not abandoned and not administered remains property of the estate); Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining debtor's affirmative duty to schedule assets and liabilities carefully, completely, and accurately).
We reject as unsupported by the record Gilliam's contention that in reversing the bankruptcy court's order, the BAP misapplied the judicial estoppel doctrine.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.