Peli Hunt v. Elissa Miller

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: PELI POPOVICH HUNT, Nos. 14-56390
14-56392
Debtor. 15-55619
______________________________
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08439-MMM
PELI POPOVICH HUNT; 2007 Restated
Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et
al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the bankruptcy court’s orders granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to sell real
property and overruling Hunt’s objection to a proof of claim filed in her
bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court
and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe
Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012).
The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to approve the sale of the real property
because an order approving the sale of estate property is enumerated as a core
proceeding that bankruptcy judges are empowered to hear and determine. See 11
U.S.C. § 157(b). Hunt’s interest in the real property at issue became property of
the bankruptcy estate upon Hunt’s filing of a bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 541(a)(1); Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (all legal or
equitable interests of a debtor in property become property of the bankruptcy estate
upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case).
Because there are no exceptional circumstances indicating that this court
should consider arguments not raised on appeal to the district court, we do not
consider Hunt’s arguments challenging the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her
objection to the proof of claim. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re
Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2006).
Hunt’s pro se appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order in her capacity as the
2 14-56390
trustee of a trust is dismissed because Hunt, as a non-attorney, “has no authority to
appear as an attorney for others than [her]self.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114
F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,
818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
Appeal Nos. 14-56390, 15-55619: AFFIRMED.
Appeal No. 14-56392: DISMISSED.
3 14-56390