FILED
JUL 19 2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK
U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BAP No. NV-22-1004-BTL
KATHARINA NANNY BLANCATO,
Debtor. Bk. No. 3:09-52203-GWZ
KATHARINA NANNY BAHNSEN, AKA
Katharina Nanny Blancato,
Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM∗
W. DONALD GIESEKE, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Nevada
Gregg W. Zive, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
Before: BRAND, TAYLOR, and LAFFERTY, Bankruptcy Judges.
Katharina Nanny Bahnsen (aka Katharina Nanny Blancato) appeals the
bankruptcy court's order approving the chapter 7 1 trustee's payment of final
compensation and reimbursement of expenses.
After filing for divorce in 2008, Blancato filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy
∗ This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for
whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential
value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1.
1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the
Bankruptcy Code,
11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
case on July 8, 2009. W. Donald Gieseke ("Trustee") was appointed as trustee.
The United States Trustee ("UST") sought to deny Blancato's discharge. In
August 2012, the bankruptcy court approved a stipulation which provided
that: (1) the UST's § 727 proceeding would be dismissed; (2) Trustee would
administer and distribute to creditors the proceeds of any nonexempt assets;
and (3) Blancato's case would be closed, without entry of discharge, upon the
court's approval of Trustee's final report. The main case remained open while
Trustee pursued litigation against various parties and collected money for the
estate.
In 2016, Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Blancato, seeking
recovery of marital real property, which Trustee maintained was property of
the bankruptcy estate. He ultimately recovered the properties and sold them.
Blancato did not appeal the sale orders.
Thereafter, Blancato claimed that she was owed child support from the
property sale proceeds. The bankruptcy court determined that the issue of
how much child support was due to Blancato, if any, was for the state court
to decide. The state court ruled that no child support was due to her on the
petition date.
Undeterred, Blancato continued to contest child support and other
issues. The thrust of her grievance was: (1) the 2012 stipulation with the UST
required that Trustee be removed from her case and replaced by the (former)
UST and that a final report be immediately filed and her bankruptcy case
closed; and (2) Trustee and estate professionals had failed to pay her for past
2
due child support. Blancato maintained that, in addition to stealing her child
support, Trustee was not the appointed chapter 7 trustee per the UST
stipulation and that he lacked any authority to act on behalf of the estate after
August 31, 2012.
The extent of Blancato's activity prompted Trustee to move for
declaratory relief in the main case, which the bankruptcy court granted. As
part of that relief, the court found: (1) Trustee was the duly appointed and
currently acting trustee and had authority to act on behalf of the estate; (2) the
2012 stipulation did not require that the bankruptcy case be closed in 30 or 60
days as Blancato contended, but rather authorized full administration of the
estate for however long that took; (3) Blancato was not owed any child
support on the petition date, she held no child support exemption, and no
property of the estate was exempt as unpaid child support; (4) Trustee and
estate professionals neither possessed nor withheld any child support of
Blancato's; and (5) Trustee and estate professionals had acted consistent with
their duties in administering the estate.
The bankruptcy court also deemed Blancato a vexatious litigant and
imposed a pre-filing restriction on any proposed motions or other papers that
could impact Trustee's administration of the estate. Exceptions to the pre-
filing order included appeals of the declaratory relief order and a summary
judgment order entered in Trustee's adversary proceeding. Blancato did not
appeal either of those orders.
On October 28, 2021, Trustee filed his final report and request for
3
compensation of $26,815.00 and reimbursement of expenses of $584.54.
Blancato did not file an objection, nor did she object at the hearing, although
she was present. The bankruptcy court entered an order approving payment
of Trustee's statutory fees and expenses in the amounts requested, and
Blancato timely appealed.
Generally, when chapter 7 trustee fees are requested at the statutory
rate, the court should approve the fees without any significant additional
review. Hopkins v. Asset Acceptance LLC (In re Salgado-Nava), 473 B.R. 911, 921
(9th Cir. BAP 2012). Blancato's standing to appeal is uncertain given Trustee's
representation that this is not a surplus estate. See Fondiller v. Robertson (In re
Fondiller),
707 F.2d 441, 442 (9th Cir. 1983) (insolvent debtor lacks standing to
appeal orders affecting size of the estate). This appeal may also violate the
bankruptcy court's pre-filing order, which Blancato did not appeal.
But, even if Blancato has standing and filing this appeal did not violate
the pre-filing order, her appeal is meritless because she failed to raise any
objection to Trustee's fees and expenses before the bankruptcy court. Thus, all
her arguments on appeal are waived. Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg.
Store, Inc.),
773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014). Finally, the only relevant
substantive argument she raises is based on the frivolous and repeatedly
rejected assertion that Trustee was not the chapter 7 trustee in her case. This
argument fails again. During all times pertinent, Trustee was the chapter 7
trustee for Blancato's case and had the authority to act on behalf of the estate.
Blancato's remaining arguments are collateral attacks on final orders
4
and rulings she did not appeal – namely, that her case should have been
closed years ago, that nothing other than a final report should have been filed
in her case after August 31, 2012, and that she is entitled to thousands of
dollars in stolen child support.
Seeing no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court in approving the
payment of Trustee's statutory fees and expenses, we AFFIRM.
5
