1 

### NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ARA ERIC HUNANYAN , Debtor

. BAP No. CC

- 23

- 101 3

- LSG

Bk. No. 1 : 21

- bk

- 10079

- MT

B k. N o. 1:21

- ap
- 01036

- MT

MEMOR AN DUM * ARA ERIC HUNANYAN , Ap pell ant , v. L UCY ME GUERIAN ; HOVIK MEGUERIAN, Appellees.
Appe al from the United States Bankruptc y Court for the District of California Maureen A. Tighe , Bankru ptcy Judge, Pres i d i ng

Be fore : LAFFER T Y, SPRAKER, and GAN , Ban krup tcy J udg es.

I N T R O DU CT ION
C hapter 7 1 debtor Ara Eric H unanyan appeals a judgment e nt ered in
his favor as well as an order denying his mo tion to recuse the bankruptcy

* Th is d i s p o s it i on is n ot a p pro p r i a t e f or pu blic ation

. Al t h o u g h i t m a y be ci ted fo r
w h a t ever pe r s u as i v e val u e i t ma y h a ve, se e F e d. R

. A p p

. P. 3 2

. 1, it has n o p rece dent ial

v al ue , see 9t h C ir. BA P R u l e 8 0 24

- 1

. 1 Unless specified o therwise, all chapter and section references are to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101

– 1532 , “Rule” reference s are to the Federal R ules o f Bankrupt cy Procedure , and “Civil Rule” r eferen ces are to the Fe deral Rules of Civil 

# FILED

NOV 16 2023
SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT2 judge that enter ed the judgment

. His arg uments have no merit and we AFF IR M

. 2
FAC T S 3
A. Background
Hun anyan was engaged in a marital dissolution proc eeding in family

court in Los Angeles with his ex

- wife , Azniv Kokikian

. Ms. Kokikian passed away during th at proceeding (and before the commencement of this bankruptcy case). T he family court entered a money j udgment against Hunanyan in th at matter in exce ss of $1 million. The family court also
ordered the sale o f t he family residence and two other real properties
determined by the family court to be community propert y

. Hunanyan filed his chapter 7 petition on J anuary 19, 2021

. M s

. Kok ikian ’ s probate estate timely filed a proof of claim No. 4 ( “ POC ” ) which

was based on the family court judgment. Hunanyan filed an objection to
the POC largel y a ttacking the family court , its jurisdiction and its findings

. The p robate estate opposed th e objection a nd the bankruptcy court
overruled the objection

. That ruling was not appealed

. While the claim objection was pending, Hunan yan filed a n adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against the two personal representati ves o f

Procedure.

2 Appellees Hovik Meguerian and Lucy Meguerian did not file br iefs nor participate in this appeal.

3 We exerci se our dis c retion to take judicial notice of d ocume nts electronically filed in the underlying b an kruptcy case a nd advers ary proceeding. See Atw ood v. Chase3 the proba te estate , Hovik Meguerian and Lucy Meguerian, and the estate ’ s attorney Lisa Rosenthal ( who also represented Ms. Koki kian in the family
law matter )

. The c omplaint again objected to the POC and also sought to
avoid a real property lien in the am ount of $130,700 alleged to have been fraudulently incurred by Ms. Kokikian. Largely repeating the arguments
made in the ob jection to the POC, the complain t attack ed the rulings of the family court and conclude d that the POC should be disallowed “ in its

en ti rety because it is based on a Judgment in the Fam ily Court

. . . which is
VOID

. . . ” Hunanya n later amende d the complaint to remove Ms. Rosenthal as
a defendant and to add a claim f or decl aratory relief seeki ng a finding that any debt he might owe t he proba te estate based on the family court judgment was discharged notwithstanding § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) (the “ Ame nded Complaint ” )

. T he def endants filed a motion to di s miss the A mended C omplaint pursuant to C ivil Rule 12(b)(6) , made applicab le to this proceeding b y Rule 7012(b), asserting that Hunanyan lacked standing to object to the POC , a nd
that issue preclusion barred him from objecting again to the POC and from relitigatin g the issues decided in t he family court proceeding

. The bankruptcy court gr anted the mot io n to di smiss the A mended C omplaint
without leave to amend.

M a nhattan Mortg. Co. (In re Atwood) , 293 B.R. 227, 233 n.9 (9th Cir. B AP 2003).4 Hunanyan also filed a “ Verified Statement to Disqualify Judge Maureen Tighe [FR BP 5004 / 28 U.S.C. 455(a ), (b1)] [ s ic ] ” (the “ First Recusal
Motion ” ). The asserted basis for recusal was that the court was biased against him and had eng aged in alleged inappropriate conduct in the c a s e

. The bankruptcy court assigned the First Re cusal Motion to a different bankruptcy judge 4 who denied the motion as meritless.
B. The f irst appeal Hunanyan appeal ed to the BAP seeking reve rsal o f both the denial of
the First Recusal M otion a nd the dismissal of his adversary complaint. T he
Panel affirm ed in part and reversed in part in an unpub lished
memorandum decision

. Hunanyan v. Meguerian ( In re Hunanyan ) , C ase No.
CC

- 21

- 1224

- SGF , 2022 WL 3012565 (9 th Cir

. BAP July 26, 2 0 22) , appeal
dismissed , Case No

. 22

- 60044 , 2023 WL 2674639, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2023)

. A s to the First R ecusal M otion , the P anel not ed that Huna nyan ’ s complaints were , at b est, based on “ mer e speculation and innuendo that cannot support recusal. ” Id. at *6. It viewed the arguments as largely an
attem pt “ to show that the co urt erred in its prior decisions. ” Id.
T he BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court ’ s decision to dismiss the first
and third cl aims set forth in the complaint : the objection to the POC , and
avoidance of th e lien. The BAP also affirmed the ruling that Hunanyan
coul d not “ relitigate the bankruptcy court ’ s denial of his claim objection b y recasting it as a claim for relief in a subse quent adversary proceeding

. ”

4 Judge Geraldine Mu nd.5 (citations omitt ed)

. Id. at *7

. T h e BAP a f f i r m e d the lien avoidance ruling , agreei ng that it was barred by c laim preclusion

. And while the BAP agr eed
that Hunanyan had a number of ar guments about why the family c ourt erred, Roo ker

- F eldman preven t ed the federal bankruptcy court from reviewing t h e family court decision

. Id. at *8.
Finall y, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court ’ s dismissal of the second claim for relief in the complaint: dec laratory relief regarding the applicabil ity of § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) to Hunanyan ’ s debt to the proba te estate , and
remanded on the basis tha t Hun anyan had state d a legally viable claim fo r relief which should not have been dismissed.
C. The bankruptcy court ’ s rulings on remand
On remand, the bankr uptcy court scheduled a status conf erence and , by later order , advised the parties that they “ may ” file a brief “ exp laining their position as t o whether the de bt to [the proba te estate ] is discharged against Debtor Ara Eri c Huna nyan under 11 U .S.C. 523(a)(15). ” N o ne of the parties filed a brief until the day of the cont inued status conference, January 9, 2023, when Huna nyan filed a brief supporti ng his position that
the debt was dis charged. 5

5 Defe ndant s ’ counsel (accor ding to the bankruptcy c ourt’s later ruling) commented a t the first status conference tha t d efendants did not file the su ggested brief
as they did not oppos e entry of judgment in Hunanyan’s favor “because he appears to be ‘judgment pr o of.’” Hunanyan d id not include the transcript s of the initial or the final status conferences in his excerpts of record

.6 At the same time , Hunanya n filed anoth er “ Verifi ed Statement to Disqual ify Judge Maureen Ti ghe [FRBP 5004/28 U.S. C 455; 28 U.S.C. 144] ” seeking , for a second time , to compel the bank ruptcy court to recuse itse lf (the “ Second Recusal Motion ”) . Hunanyan asserted that the request was timel y becau se “ it is filed with the first op portunity after the facts o f disqualifi cation b e came apparent

. . . “ The Second Recu sal Motio n again provided a laundry lis t of complaint s about the court ’ s rulings, alleged

“ cover
- up ” of various matters , violat ions of rules, and failure to provide due pr ocess , etc. It l a rgely r epeat ed the allegations in the First Recu s al
Motion includ ing repeating verbatim the s u mmary o f the specific facts alleged to esta blish the court ’s bias.
At the Jan uary 9 hearing, the ba nkruptc y court concluded that judgment would be entered in favor of H unanyan on the § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) claim
for relief

. The judgment noted the court ’ s tentative ruling which cited a
super seded version of § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) 6 as the legal bas is for the ruling a s well

as the d efend ants ’ c oncession a t the earlier h earing that the y did not
opp ose that result

. As to the Second R ec usal M otion, the court noted that the motio n was filed “ less tha n thre e hours before t he continued hearin g on o ther matters

6 The court cited a version of § 523(a)(15) which provid ed at the time that a debt described therein would be discharged on ly “ if paying the debt would reduce the debtor's income b elow that necessary for the support of t he debtor and the debtor' s dependents. . . . T he debt will a lso be discharged if the benefit to the debtor of dischargi ng it outweighs the harm to the obligee. " BAPCPA amended th e section7 in thi s adversary proceeding a nd others. ” The court denied the m otion

“ [f]or the r easons stated o n the record at the January 9, 2023 hearing. ” Hunanyan t imely a ppeale d both rulings

. J U RIS D ICTI O N
T he ba nkru p tcy co ur t h a d ju r is dict i o n un de r 2 8 U.S.C. § § 13 3 4 a nd
1 5 7 (b ) (2)( A) a nd (B)

. W e h a ve j u r is d i c tio n u nder 2 8 U .S

. C

. § 1 5 8

. I S SUE S
D id the bank ruptc y cour t err by entering judgment in Hunanyan ’ s favor ? Did the bankrupt cy court abuse its discreti on by denying th e Second
Motion to Recuse ?
S T A N DARD S OF R EV IE W
We review de novo the bankrupt cy court’s conclusions o f law,
inclu ding its interpretation of provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

. Francis v. Wallace (In re Francis), 5 05 B.R. 914, 917 (9th Cir. BAP 2014)

. When we
review a m atter de novo, we give no deference to the bankruptcy court’s
decision. Id.
We also revi ew de n ovo “ whether the trial court c omplied with an appellate mandate on remand. ” d e Jong v. JLE

- 04 Parker, L. L.C. (In re d e Jong), 588 B .R. 879 , 888 (9th Cir. BAP 2018 ) ( citing E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off

. of Admin. Hea rings, 758 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) ) , aff ’ d , 793 F. App ’ x 659 (9th Cir. 2020)

.
striking that lan guage

. PL 1 09

– 8, April 20, 2005, 119 Stat 23

.8 W e review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy co urt’s denial of
H una nyan’s Second R ecusal M o tion. Hal e v. U.S. Tr. (In re Basham), 208 B.R. 926, 930 (9th Cir. BAP 1 997) , aff ’ d sub nom. , Hal e v. U.S. Tr. (In re B yrne ), 152 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 1998)

. The bankruptcy court abused its discretion if i t applied the wrong legal standard or if i ts findings were illogical, implausible, or with out sup port in the r ecord. United S tates v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 ( 9th Cir. 2009 ) (en banc).
W e m ay affirm on any basis sup por ted by the record. Black v. Bonnie Springs Fam

. Ltd. P'ship (In re B lack) , 487 B. R. 202, 21 1 (9th Cir. BAP 2013).

D ISC USS I O N

Hunan yan ’ s arguments to the Pa nel , for the most part , repeat his
argu ments from the prior appeal. As to why the Panel should reverse a judgmen t declar ing that the family related debt he owed is discharged notwithstanding § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) , Hunan yan asserts that, on remand , the
ban kruptcy co urt should have “ reinstate [d] the dismiss ed Adversary Proceeding to conduct necessary fact findin gs, discovery, counterclaims of Appellant in for m o f recoups and/or set offs claimed b y Appellant/Defendant in F A C

. ”9 A. Hun an yan ’ s argum ent s attacking the POC and th e family court judgment have been disposed of by the BAP and may no t be relitigate d h ere . Hunanyan ’s first argument on appe al is that the “Family Court Judgment is v oid and BK Co urt [sic] s hould set it a side usin g its equi table
power. ” Th is argument is frivolous.
In the first appea l , the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy cour t ’ s previous
dismissal of Hunanyan ’ s adversary claim s objecting to the probate estate ’ s POC , and his request to avo id a lie n

. The BA P expressl y addressed his argument at that time that the state court jud gment was void stating “ we reject Hunanyan’s argumen t chall enging the bankruptcy court’s claim preclusion ruling based on the pu rported voidness of the dissolution jud gment. ” In re Hun anyan, 202 2 WL 3012565 at * 9

. T he BAP affirm ed the bankruptcy court ’ s ruling on the lien avoidance claim stat ing that the c laim

“ was barred by claim preclusi on because it should have been resolved as part of the dissolution proceed ing s. ” Id. at * 5, 8

- 9

. Hunan yan cannot treat his appeal of a judgment entered largely in
his f avor as an opportunity to reargue matters already consid ered and ruled upon by the previous Panel. Nor can he be p ermitted , via a second appeal , to contest matters he l ost the first time ; esp ec ially in a n appeal
wh ere he won on a significan t m atter , i.e., reversal of the dismissal of the declaratory relief claim

.10 B. The bankruptcy court ’s authority on remand was limited to consideration of Hunany an ’ s claim for relief under § 523 ( a) ( 15 )

. Hunan yan asserts that the bankruptcy court s hould have reinstated
“the dismiss ed Adversary Pro ceeding. ” T h is assertion m akes no sense since the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court ’s rul ing di smissing the first

two claims and we have no p ower to rehear th at appeal

. Further, the bankruptcy court ’ s jurisdiction on remand is limited to execut ing th e appellate court mandate. As th e BAP instructed in In re d e Jong : Under the “rule of mandate,” the trial court must adhere to the appellate court's decisi on: “ T h e rule of mand ate is similar to, but broader than, the law of the case doctrine. The rule provides that any district cou r t that has received the mandate of an appellate court cannot vary or examine that mandate for any purpose other than executin g i t. The tr ial court commits jurisdictional error if it takes actions tha t contradict the mandate

. ”

58 8 B.R. at 889 (cleaned up)

. Hu nanyan argue s on appeal that the bankrupt cy court had a renewed duty “ to conduct any type of further con sider ation s and/or proceedings to clarify facts and law presented by Appellant ear lier in his FAC in Adversary Proce eding pursuant th e remand order of t his Court [sic]

. ” We disagree and Hunanyan offers no l egal support fo r this positio n

. T h e BA P ’ s mandate from the first appeal was that the bankruptcy

court reinstate Hunanyan ’ s claim for relief under § 52 3 ( a) ( 15 )

. The
ban kruptcy court did t hat an d entered judgment in favor of Hunanyan.11 The bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to do anyt hing else , including

“ reinstate ” the adversary proceeding. The court had no ability to “ vary or
examine ” the BAP ’ s man date to reinstate the claim for declaratory relief
under § 523 ( a) ( 15 )

. Fu rther , o n remand to the ba nkruptcy court , Hunanyan did not
reques t or move t he bankruptcy court to “ reinstate the dismissed adversary proceeding ” e ven though the b ankruptcy court invited him to explain his posi tion on the § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) claim prior to the status conference

. Hunanyan
had th ree months between the court ’ s se tting of t he first status conference hearing on the remand order and the actual hearing on January 9, 2023 , to
make his views k nown , make this specific request, and give the bankruptcy

c ourt and the parties time to consider it. A rguments not made before th e ban kruptc y court are waived. “ A litigant may waive an issue by failing to raise it in a bankruptcy court.” Mano

- Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mo rtg. Stor e, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014). “There is no bright

- line rule to
determine whether a matte r has been properly raised. A workable standard, however, is that the argument must be raised sufficiently for the
trial court to rule on it.” O ’Rourke v . Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. F egert , Inc.), 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitt ed).
A nd a s Hunan yan did not provide us with t ranscript s of the hearing s , the Panel may assume there is nothing in the transcripts that he
believe s will help his position on appeal and may either dismiss or

s ummarily affirm the appeal for failure to provide the neces sary12 t ranscripts. 9th Cir. BAP R. 8009

- 1; Gionis v. Wayne (In re Gionis), 170 B.R. 675, 680

- 81 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) , aff ’ d , 92 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) ; California v. Yun (In re Yun), 476 B.R. 243, 253

- 54 (9th Cir. BAP 2012). On the record
be fore us , we are unable to d etermine wh at a rgumen t s were raised at the
hearin g , or the ba sis for which, if raised, they were rejected. The lack of the transcript hinder s our appellate review

. See Kyle v. Dye (In re Kyle), 317 B.R. 390, 393

– 94 (9th Cir. BAP 2004), aff'd, 170 F . App’x 457 (9th Cir. 2 006). We
discern no error on this record.
E ven if the argument was or ally r aised befor e the bankruptcy court and reject ed, the rejection was appropriate as the B AP ’ s mandate limited the bankruptcy court to cons ideration of the sin gle issue noted. The
b ankrup tcy court had no legal authority to r econsider the arguments rejected previously by it and affirmed by the BAP.
C. The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Hunanyan ’ s S econd Recusal Motion

. Hunanyan ’ s S econd Recusal Motion repea ted th e same arguments rejecte d by the BA P in t he first appeal as “ baseles s. ” In re Hunanyan, 2022
WL 3012565 at *17. We will not revisit th ose arguments

. His argume nt to
the Panel is limited to the bankruptcy cour t ’ s use of a super s eded st atute
from which he co ncludes tha t the court w as th erefore prejudiced against
hi m. H e offers no factual o r legal support for thi s argument in the brief
filed in this appeal

.13 Further , Hunanyan again did not include t he transcript of the hearing in which the bankrup tcy court exp lained its ruling

. We are therefore unabl e
to review the court ’ s reasoning for its denial of the motion

. W hen findi ngs of fact and conclusion s of law are ma de orally on the record, a transcript of
those findi ngs is mandatory for appellate revi ew. McCarthy v. Prince (In re McCarthy), 230 B.R. 414, 416

- 17 (9th Cir. BAP 1999).
D. The bankruptcy court ’s mis

- citation of § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) is harmless
error. As Hunanyan notes, the bankrupt cy court ci ted a super s ed ed version
of § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) as the l egal support for the judgment in Hunanyan ’ s favor.
Hun anyan argue s t h at the debt to his former spouse was disc harged , not on the super seded language but on the current iteration of § 523 ( a) ( 15 )
which states: [a debt is n ot discharged if it is owed ] to a s pouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor and not of the kind describe d in paragraph (5) that is incur red b y the debtor in the c ourse of a divorce or sep aration or in connection with a separation agreemen t, divorce d ec ree or other order of a court of re cord, or a determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit

.
11 U.S. C. § 523(a)(15). Hunan yan argues, and we agree, th at § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) does not apply
when the debt is owe d , not to th e form er spouse , but to a probate esta te.
See Hisaw v. Hisaw ( In re Poppleton ) , 382 B.R. 455 , 459 (Bankr. D. I daho 2008) ( “ While state law may gra nt the probate estate the legal right to colle ct a14 debt arising under the divorce decree, such an obligation is subject to discharge in Defendant's bankr uptcy case. ” ) The statutory language “ to a
sp ou se, former spouse, or child of the debtor ” was not chang ed in the
BAP CPA amendments in 2 005

. T herefore the legal basis for the bankruptcy

court ’ s ruling, that the debt is no longer owed to the former spouse and
therefore § 523 ( a) ( 15 ) does not apply, is correct irrespective of the ver sion
of the B ankruptcy C o de then in effect.
Accordin gly, the ba nkrupt cy court ’ s citation to the wron g version of § 523 ( a ) ( 15 ) is harml ess error

. C O N C L US ION
For these reasons set f ort h abov e, w e AF FIRM

.