* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BRET JAMES HAMEL, Debtor,

JAMES HAMEL; et al., Appellants,

v. LINDA LALLISS, FKA Linda Hamel, Appellee. No. 09-60025 BAP No. AZ-08-1290-PaDJu
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Dunn, and Jury, Ba nkruptcy Judges, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 10, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: B. FLETCHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO, ** District Judge. 

# FILED
MAR 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 Nor have the Parents included the tr anscripts in the record before us. 2 Diane and James Hamel (“Parents”) co mmenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case of their son, Debtor Bret James Hamel. Naming Hamel’s exwife Linda Lalliss as Defendant, the Pare nts sought turnover of property that they claimed they had purchased in an earlie r order of sale. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Lalliss. In their record on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), the Parents di d not include transcripts of the hearings in which the bankruptcy court interpreted its earlier orders. 1 The BAP summarily affirmed, reasoning that th e missing transcripts were necessary for proper appellate review. See 9th Cir. BAP R. 8006-1 (“The excerpts of the record shall include the transcripts necessary for ad equate review . . . .”). We review for abuse of discretion the BAP’s decision to summarily affirm for non-compliance with procedural requirements. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey) , 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). The Parents argue that the transcripts were unnecessary for the BAP’s decision because the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment was subject to de novo review. But while the bankruptcy court’s ultimate ruling is subject to de novo review, its interpretation of its earlier orde r of sale is owed some deference. Cf.3 Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr. v. L. A. County Metro. Transp. Auth. , 564 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (although a district court’s ultimate interpretation of a consent decree is reviewed de novo, the court of appeals gives deference based on the district court’s oversight of and experience with the decree). The Parents also argue that deferen ce is unnecessary because the order of sale is unambiguous. Even if the order of sale might be unambiguous in isolation, it is ambiguous in context. We cannot be sure what property was included in the order of sale. A later order that aba ndoned property to Hamel and Lalliss appears to abandon any interest in the residence, whether exempt or not, and all household goods, whether exempt or not. If, as the Pare nts claim, the order of sale transferred to them the nonexempt equity in the residence and the nonexempt portion of the household goods, the estate could not have later abandoned a ny nonexempt interest in the residence or household goods. Thus, reading the order of sale and the abandonment order together, it is not clear whether the order of sale was intended to sell the estate’s interest in the resi dence and household goods to the Parents. In this circumstance, the bankruptcy court wa s in a much better position than the BAP (or we) to determine what property the order of sale covered. Because the BAP owed deference to th e bankruptcy court’s interpretation of its own orders, ascertaining that interpretation was essential to its appellate review.4 Without the missing transcripts, which the Parents concede they could have ordered, it was impossible to understand how the bankruptcy court interpreted its orders and why. For that reason, “the in adequacy of the record. . . afforded the BAP little choice but to affirm summarily.” Morrissey , 349 F.3d at 1191. The BAP did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the omission of the transcripts as egregious and declining to c onsider alternative sanctions. AFFIRMED.