Case ID: br_572/html/0879-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Warren Charles BODEKER, Roxsanna Ryan, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. Christy L. Brandon, Trustee-Appellee.
    No. 15-35212
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Seattle, Washington
    Filed April 25, 2017
    Kevin E. Vainio, Vainio Law Office, Butte, MT, for Debtor-Appellant .
    Robert K. Baldwin, Attorney, Kyle W. Nelson, Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes, P.C., Bozeman, MT, for Trustee-Appellee
    Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker’s motion to rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a stipulation. We affirm.

First, Law v. Siegel is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this case because no court equitably surcharged Bo-deker’s homestead. See — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146, 1194-97 (2014). Even if Siegel applied, a subsequent change in law generally does not provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. In re Marriage of Grace, 198 Mont. 97, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191-92 (1982); see also Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “enforcement of settlement agreements [is]. governed by principles of local law”).

Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in favor of a creditor with an “unsecured claim.” Trustee-Appellee Christy L. Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any incidental benefit to Bo-deker’s creditors as a result of the stipulation does not render § 522(e) applicable to this case.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R. 36-3,