Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Olga Vladimirovna BORDENYUK, Debtor, Olga Vladimirovna Bordenyuk, Appellant, v. Richard A. Yanagi, Chapter 7 Trustee; Benjamin Gale, Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Olga Bordenyuk (“Bordenyuk”) appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (the “BAP”) decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order approving the Chapter 7 trustee Richard Yanagi's (the “Trustee”) compromise with the personal representative for the probate estate of Karen Stirling. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm.
We review a decision by the BAP de novo. In re Arden, 176 F.3d 1226, 1227 (9th Cir. 1999). A bankruptcy court's decisions to approve a compromise and to deny a motion to alter or amend the judgment are reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re A & C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Clinton, 449 B.R. 79, 82 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011).
Bordenyuk waived her arguments that the bankruptcy court erred by approving a settlement that was not “fair and equitable,” the settlement order did not contain the proper findings to support the bankruptcy court's decision, and the bankruptcy court “ignored the fact that the probate order is probably void” because it violated the stay. She presented these arguments for the first time to the BAP in an unauthorized brief and the BAP did not consider these arguments. Accordingly, we decline to entertain Bordenyuk's challenges now. See Orr v. Plumb, 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The usual rule is that arguments ․ omitted from the opening brief are deemed forfeited.”); In re Burnett, 435 F.3d 971, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Absent exceptional circumstances, issues not raised before the BAP are waived.”).
Bordenyuk's challenges to the bankruptcy court's denial of her motion for relief from the settlement order (“Reconsideration Motion”) are not properly before the court because Bordenyuk failed to amend her notice of appeal to the BAP to include the Reconsideration Motion and therefore the BAP did not consider those challenges. See Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 8002(b)(3); see also In re Slimick, 928 F.2d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal [to the BAP] is jurisdictional.”); In re Burnett, 435 F.3d at 975–76.
AFFIRMED.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-60042
Decided: August 06, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)