Hunsdon Stewart v. Roya Batmanghelich ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: HUNSDON CARY No. 08-60012
STEWART,
BAP No. CC-07-01004-MoDBa
Debtor.
MEMORANDUM *
HUNSDON CARY STEWART,
Appellant,
v.
ROYA BATMANGHELICH,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Montali, Dunn, and Baum, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 13 debtor Hunsdon Cary Stewart appeals pro se from the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s
decision denying Stewart’s objection to a proof of claim filed by his former wife,
Roya Batmanghelich. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We
review independently the bankruptcy court’s rulings on appeal from the BAP.
Diamant v. Kasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.
1999). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not err when it denied Stewart’s objections to
Batmanghelich’s proof of claim because Stewart failed to come forward with
evidence that rebutted the proof of claim’s prima facie validity. See id. at 1248
(stating that “debtor must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of
validity” of a proof of claim).
Stewart’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
EN/Research 2 08-60012