N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : JAC QUIE C HANDLER , De

btor, JAC QUIE C HANDLER , Appe lla

nt, v. DEUTSC HE B ANK NATIONAL TR UST C OM PANY, Appe lle e . No. 14-60036 B AP No. 14-1014 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Kirsc he r, Jury , a

nd Ta y lor, B an kruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

9, 2016 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Ja c quie C ha ndle r, a C ha

pte r 11 de btor, a

ppe a ls the B a

n kruptc y Appe lla te Pa ne l’ s (“ B AP” ) orde r aw arding a ttorne y ’ s fe e s to De utsc he B ank Na tiona l Trust C o. (“ De utsc h e ” ) an d

de ny ing he r m otion for re c onside ra tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d)(1). W e a ffirm . 1. The B AP did not a

buse its disc re tion in a

warding De utsc he a ttorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts unde r Fe de ra l R ule of B ankruptc y Proc e dure 8020(a ). R ule 8020(a ) provide s: “ [i] f the distric t c ourt or B AP de te rm ine s tha t a n a p pe a l is frivolous, it m ay , a fte r a

se pa ra te ly file d m o tion or notic e from the c ourt a nd re a sona

ble opportunity

to re spond, a

ward just da

m a ge s and singleor double c osts to the a ppe lle e .” Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 8020(a ). “ An a ppe a l is frivolous if the

re sults a re obvious, or the

argum e nts of e rror a re wholly without m e rit.” Ge orgev . C ity of Morro Bay (

In re Ge orge ), 322 F.3d 586, 591 (9th C ir. 2003) (orde r) (pe r c uriam ) (quota tion m arks om itte d). C ha ndle r ha d no le gitim a te ba sis to a sse rt a c la im to the p rope rty

a t issue during he r C ha

pte r 11 proc e e dings a fte r m u l tiple c o urts ha d de te rm i ne d tha

t the fore c losure sa le of this prope rty wa s prope r. As a re sult, the ba nkruptc y c ourt wa s pla inly

c orre c t to find tha

t C ha ndle r’ s c la i m

re ga rding the va lidity of the fore c l osure sa le wa s “ ba rre d by re s judic a ta ” and to gra

nt De u tsc he re lie f from

an a utom a tic sta

y of its proc e e dings a ga inst C ha ndle r. C ha

ndle r’ s argum e nts to theB IA we re “ w holly without m e rit” an d the re fore frivolous. Id. -2-2. C ha ndle r wa ive d the issue whe the r the B AP’ s a ward of attorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts wa s e xc e ssive by fa iling to ra ise it with the B A P. “ A bse nt e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s , issue s not ra i s e d be fore the B AP are wa ive d.” Burne tt v . Re surge nt C apital Se rv

s. ( In re Burne t t

), 435 F.3d 971, 975–76 (9th C ir. 2006). C ha ndle r ha s not ide ntifie d a

ny e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

n c e s tha t justify he r fa i lure to c ha lle nge the a m ount of fe e s a

nd c osts a warde d to De utsc he . The re fore , C ha n d le r ha s wa ive d this issue . AFFIRM E D.

-3-