Regulo Sierra v. Janina Hoskins , 530 F. App'x 619 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 20 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    REGULO SIERRA,                                   No. 12-15047
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03630-CRB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JANINA M. HOSKINS, Chapter 11
    Trustee in Bankruptcy,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 18, 2013 **
    Before:        TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Regulo Sierra appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
    bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objections to Sierra’s claim and
    disallowing the claim in its entirety. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    *
    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). Accordingly, Sierra’s
    request for oral argument is denied.
    We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court.
    Latman v. Burdette, 
    366 F.3d 774
    , 781 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any
    basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 
    534 F.3d 1116
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
    The district court properly concluded that Sierra could not assert a secured
    claim as the property allegedly securing the debt had been abandoned by the
    bankruptcy trustee. See 
    11 U.S.C. § 506
    (a) (stating that secured claim is one
    “secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest” (emphasis
    added)); see also Catalano v. Comm’r., 
    279 F.3d 682
    , 685 (9th Cir. 2002)
    (“[Abandonment] is the formal relinquishment of the property at issue from the
    bankruptcy estate. Upon abandonment, the debtor’s interest in the property is
    restored nunc pro tunc as of the filing of the bankruptcy petition.”). To the extent
    Sierra contends that the trustee’s abandonment of the property is ineffective
    because of a lack of notice, this argument is waived. See Countrywide Home
    Loans, Inc. v. Hoopai (In re Hoopai), 
    581 F.3d 1090
    , 1099 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009)
    (finding an argument waived where appellant did not raise it to the bankruptcy
    court).
    Disallowance of Sierra’s unsecured claim based on his alleged
    disproportionate payment of the property’s common expenses was proper because
    2                                     12-15047
    Sierra failed to support the claim. See In re Heath, 
    331 B.R. 424
    , 437 (9th Cir.
    B.A.P. 2005) (“If the creditor does not provide information or is unable to support
    its claim, then that in itself may raise an evidentiary basis to object to the
    unsupported aspects of the claim . . . thereby coming within Section 502(b)’s
    grounds to disallow the claim.”).
    We do not address Sierra’s due process, separation of powers, illegal
    takings, or elder abuse arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v.
    Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]e will not consider arguments
    that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).
    The trustee’s motion to take judicial notice, filed on May 31, 2012, is
    granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   12-15047