Nauman v. Kotoshirodo (In Re Nauman) ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JAN 02 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: THOMAS GARTH NAUMAN; No. 11-15466
KIMLEY MERETE NAUMAN,
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00414-JMS-
Debtors, KSC
THOMAS GARTH NAUMAN; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Appellants,
v.
RONALD K. KOTOSHIRODO, Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Trustee,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Chapter 7 debtors Thomas Garth Nauman and Kimley Merete Nauman
(“debtors”), and Thomas’s parents, Alfred Garth Nauman and Evelyn Frances
Nauman, appeal pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s summary judgment determining that they are liable to the bankruptcy
trustee for amounts transferred both before and after the debtors filed for
bankruptcy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review
independently the bankruptcy court’s decision, without deference to the district
court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment as to the trustee’s
claim regarding the transfer of real property in Washington state because the court
found that, within two years before filing for bankruptcy, the debtors transferred
this property to the parents with the intent to avoid the claims of their creditors.
See 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(1)(A) & 550(a); see also Greene v. Greene (In re Greene),
583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2009) (bankruptcy judge’s findings of facts are
accepted unless “the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed by the bankruptcy judge”).
The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment as to the trustee’s
claim regarding the $50,000 that the debtors transferred to the parents within two
years before commencing the bankruptcy proceedings because the court found that
2 11-15466
the debtors did not receive a reasonably equivalent value for the transfer. See 11
U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); Frontier Bank v. Brown (In re N. Merch., Inc.), 371 F.3d
1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining reasonably equivalent value and the net
effect of the transaction on the debtors’ estate).
The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment as to the trustee’s
claim regarding the transfer of the car because the court found that the car was
non-exempt property transferred by the debtors to the parents after commencing
the bankruptcy proceedings and without the authorization of the bankruptcy court.
See 11 U.S.C. § 549(a); Mora v. Vasquez (In re Mora), 199 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th
Cir. 1999) (explaining that under § 549, the trustee must show that a transfer
occurred after the filing of the bankruptcy petition and that the transfer was not
authorized by either the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy code).
We reject appellants’ contentions that we should consider the arguments of
non-party Jacob Nauman and that the trustee unjustly received the benefit of the
net proceeds from the real property.
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)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15466