NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BARBRA WILLIAMSON,

Debtor,

------------------------------ BARBRA WILLIAMSON,

Appellant,

v. PARS, Appellee. No. 18

- 60062
BAP No. 17

- 1375

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Lafferty III, Spraker, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2020

Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, BERZON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Barbra Williamson appeals a decision by the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, concluding that PARS, the administrator of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 26 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Williamson’s pension plan, did not violate the automatic stay triggered by
William son’s chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court concluded that PARS’s post

petition withholding of Williamson’s monthly pension payments to recoup pre

petition overpayments constituted equitable recoupment , which is not subject to the automatic stay

. It denied Will iamson’s motion for sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for violation of the stay. We affirm. “We review de novo the scope or applicability of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, because it is a question of law.” In re
Palmdale Hills Prop ., LLC , 654 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2011).
1. Williamson’s argument that the doctrine of equitable recoupment is invalid because it is a judicially created exception to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the statute providing for the automatic stay, is foreclosed by binding precedent. T he common law doctrine of equitab le recoupment is valid even though it “does not owe its legitimacy to anything in the Bankruptcy Code.” See In re TLC Hosps., Inc. , 224 F.3d 1008, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000). Use of recoupment in bankruptcy has been approved by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Ci rcuit. See, e.g. , Reiter v. Cooper , 507 U.S. 258, 265 n.2 (1993) (observing that the use of recoupment is permitted in bankruptcy cases); In re TLC Hosps. , 224 F.3d at 1011; Newbery Corp. v.
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co ., 95 F.3d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1996). Binding precedent further makes clear that the equitable recoupment is not3

subject to the automatic stay. In re TLC Hosp itals noted that “ [a] s applied in bankruptcy, recoupment is an equitable doctrine that ‘exempts a debt from the automatic stay ’” when it applies. 224 F.3d at 1011 (quoting United States v. Consumer Health Servs. of Am., Inc ., 108 F.3d 390, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). In re TLC Hosp ital

s held that because the doctrine did apply, the party seeking
recoupment “ may recoup its overpayments b y applying them against its post

petition underpayment liabilities to [debtor], without being affected by the automatic stay .” Id . at 1014 (emphasis added). Bound by these decisions, we reject Williamson’s argument that the doctrine of equitable recoupment is an invalid exception to the automatic stay

. 2. Equitable recoupment is permissible only where mutual debt s arise
from “ the same transaction ,” and where “it would . . . be inequitable for the debtor to enjoy the benefits of that transaction without meeting its obligations.” See Newbery , 95 F.3d at 1399 , 1403 (citations omitted)

. Williamson does not distinctly
contest in her brief that the test for equitable recoupment was met here, and appears to have waived this point at oral argument. In any event, t he court here properly applied the logical relationship test
used in this circuit to determine whether the two claims ar o se from the same
transaction

. S

ee In re TLC Hosps ., 224 F.3d at 101 2; Newbery , 95 F.3d at 140 2

. PARS’s obligation to pay Williamson pension benefits and Williamson’s debt for4

prior overpayment s “logically relate to one another,” In re TLC Hosps ., 224 F.3d at
1012 , as they both “arise[] from the same aggregate set of opera tive facts , ” see In
re Lazar , 237 F.3d 967, 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted)

. Both debts
arise from Williamson’s pension plan ; the errors in her signed enrollment packet resulted in the miscalculation of her monthly benefit ; and the subsequent correction
of that miscalculation demonstrated that Williamson had already received the amount due each month by virtue of the earlier overpayment

. The court also properly concluded that the equities favor recoupment

. Equitable recoupmen t is thus appropriate.
AFFIRMED

.