Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Everyone:
Judge John Ryan said something a few years ago that rang in my ears after the argument at the 9th Circuit in the Beverly case. Judge Ryan said something like, "Don't ever waive oral argument. If I am trying to convince someone on the panel about how a case should come out, I will toss you softballs and try to help you convince the other side."
We were tossed a lot of softballs at the argument and both Josh and I thought the argument went very well. Apparently we did not hit the softballs hard enough.
This case is hard to swallow, but we lost and I am sorry the lousy 8th Circuit rule will now be applied in the 9th Cir.
Eric is right, the 9th Cir only punted on the 727 issue, it ruled the "hog gets slaughtered" rule applies in the 9th Cir. Bankruptcy planning will have to be much more cautious.
dennis

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

No punt on the UFTA issue.

**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncidlcntaolcom00000026)
No punt on the UFTA issue.
New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WILLIAM J. BEVERLY, Debtor,
STEPHANIE BEVERLY, BAP Nos. Appellant,
v. EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ;
Argued and Submitted
December 10, 2008Pasadena, California
Filed December 24, 2008
Before: Melvin Brunetti and Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judges, and
Suzanne B. Conlon,* District Judge.
COUNSEL
Dennis E. McGoldrick, Torrance, California; Joshua D.
Wayser, Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, Los Angeles, California,
for the appellants.
Douglas D. Kappler, Los Angeles, California; Sidney Lanier,
Ayscough & Marar, Torrance, California, for the appellees.
ORDER
William Beverly appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's published
decision denying him a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2)
(A). In re Beverly, 374 B.R. 221 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007). However, the
Bankruptcy Court decision on the 727 claims resolved only one of
two consolidated cases and contained no Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
certification. Both the BAP and Bankruptcy Court 727 decisions are
interlocutory and we lack jurisdiction to consider the 727 claims.
In re Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661, 662 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);
Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1984); In re Mason, 709
F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1983).
William and Stephanie Beverly also appeal the BAP's reversal of the
Bankruptcy Court's grant of summary judgment in their favor in a
related adversary proceeding. The BAP held that the Beverlys'
transfer of assets through a marital settlement agreement was an
avoidable transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code
Gill v. Stern (In re Stern), 345 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), allowed
the transfer in this case. We have jurisdiction to consider the
avoidance claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1) and 1291 and adopt
as our own the well-reasoned BAP opinion, In re Beverly, 374 B.R. 221.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.