Yan Sui v. Richard Marshack , 691 F. App'x 372 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YAN SUI, No. 16-60049
Debtor. BAP No. 15-1336
______________________________
YAN SUI, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Landis, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui appeals pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Sui’s
claimed homestead exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).
We review decisions of the BAP de novo and apply the same standard of review
that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc.
v. Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Sui’s claimed homestead exemption
because the record shows that Sui voluntarily transferred the property prior to
filing his bankruptcy petition and failed to disclose any interest in the property or
schedule secured claims that might have alerted the chapter 7 trustee to the
transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) (allowing a debtor to exempt property
recovered by a trustee if the debtor did not voluntarily transfer or conceal the
property); Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 60 F.3d 565, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995)
(explaining requirements for 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) to apply).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).
Sui’s motion for leave to file a late filed reply brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is
granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 11.
2 16-60049
Sui’s motion to consolidate this case with Appeal Nos. 16-60065 and 15-
60066 (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-60049