T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n th e Ma tt e ro f: DO NA L D B R I AN D O L P H , D ebt or,

JI M S C H A C H E R , i n h i s c apac i ty a s P e r s ona l R e pr e s e nt a t i ve of the E s t a t e of P atri ci a M . S chac her, A p p e lla n t, v. DO NA L D B R I AN DO L P H, A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35425 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 5 1 1 - BR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nnaJ . B r ow n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 5, 2010

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: P A E Z , T A L L M A N an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

C r e di t or - A ppe l l a ntJ i m S c ha c he r , a dm i ni s tr a t orof the e s t a t e of

de c e de nt P atricia S ch ac h er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s af firm an ce o f th e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n t o i mp o s e ac o n s tru c t i v e tru s to n D e b t o r - A p p e l l e e D o n a l d D o l p h ’ s h o me i n the a m ountof

$1, 840. 07. A s the f

a c t s a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t orya r e f a m i l i a rt o the pa rt i e s , w e r e c i t e the m he r e onl ya s ne c e s s a ryt o e xpl a i n ourde c i s i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. A l though m os tof S c ha c he r ’ s i s s ue s on appeal ar e i nadequ at el y pre se nt ed for app el l at e r evi ew and cou l d b e dee m ed w a iv e d f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p lyw ith o u rp r o c e d u r a l ru le s , se e F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 ; 9 th C i r . R . 28- 2, hi s a r gum e nt s a l s o f a i l on the m e r i t s . W e r e a c h the m e r i t s , a nd a f f irm . D o l p h w as un

j ust l y e nr i c he d onl ybythe di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n the a m ounthe in f a c t r e c e iv e d , a n d th e a m o u n t h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n title d to in h e r it a c c o r d in g to th e v a lidte rm s o f

P a tr ic ia ’s w ill. Se e P hi l l i ps v . R athbone , 93 P . 3d 83 5, 84 1 (O r. C t . A pp . 20 04 ). T o cal cul at e the un j ustenri chm ent , the bank rupt cycourtes t i m at ed the va l ue of

D olph’ s f

utur e s ha r e a nd ga ve hi m apr e s e ntc r e di tf ori tbe c aus e the a lte rn a tiv e — w a itin g f

o rth e m ir e d p r o b a te litig a tio n to c o n c lu d e — w a s u n te n ab le . T h e d e c is io n to g iv e D o lp h th e p r e s e n t c r e d it, a n d th e c o rr e s p o n d in g d e c is io n to forc e D ol ph t o aband on any i nt er es ti n rec ei vi ng a f uture s hare of P atri ci a’ s e st at e,3

w er e notan abuse of di sc re t i on because tho se deci si on s perm i tt ed the bank rupt cy c o u rt to e n te ra n e q u itab le a n d im m e d ia te f in a l ju d g m e n t. See J

oh nson v. St ee n , 5 7 5 P .2 d 1 4 1 , 1 4 7 ( O r . 1 9 7 8 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t c o u rts h a v e b r o a d d is c r e tio n in cr af t i ng equi t abl e r em edi es ); se e al so Ston e v . C i t

y of Sa n Francisc o , 968 F . 2d 850, 86 1 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( sam e) . A s f orthe e s t i m a t e d am ount of D ol ph’ s f

utur e s ha r e t o be us e d a s apr e s e nt c r e di t , the ba nkrupt c yc ourtba s e d i t s c a l c ul a t i ons on Scha cher ’s ow n evi dence of th e v a lu e o f

th e S c h a c h e rp r o b a te e s ta te : th e a m o u n t a lle g e d in th e p r o o f o f c la im . S c h a c h e r , h a v in g in tr o d u c e d a n d r e lie d o n th e p r o o f o f c la im , c a n n o t n o w c o m p la in th a t th e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt s h o u ld n o t h a v e u s e d it. Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc h a

ff , 948 F . 2d 50 1, 50 6 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( ho l di ng thatun der the i nv i t ed-e rr or do ctri ne, errors caused by the com pl ai ni ng party w i l l on l y w arrantre vers al i n except i on al c i r c um s t a nc e s ) . F urthe r , r e ga r dl e s s of w ho bor e the bur de n t o pr ove the a m ountof th e p re se n t cre d it , th e p ro o f o f c laim w as su ff icien t t o p ro v e th e a m o u n t o f D o lp h ’s shar e. If S chac her had w ant ed the bank rupt cycourtt o rel y on al t ernat i ve evi dence, h e s h o u ld h a v e p r o d u c e d it. See O .R .S . § 4 0 .1 1 5 ( 1 ) . T h e o n lyc o g n iz ab le c a lc u la tio n e rr o ris th a t th e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt s h o u ld h av e su b tract ed th e $ 2 2 , 4 8 3 . 5 7 i n p rej u d g m en ti n t erestS ch ach er cl ai m ed ag ai n st D o lp h o u t o f th e to tal v alu e o f S ch ac h er ’s es ti m atio n o f th e v alu e o f P atricia’s4

e s t a t e . T ha ti nt e r e s tha d notm a t e r i a l i z e d, a nd w oul d ne ve rdo s o gi ve n the ba nkrupt c yc ourt ’ s othe rrul i ngs . H ow e ve r , S c ha c he rpr ovi de s no c i t a t i on t o the r e c or d of the pr oc e e di ngs t o s how tha the s pe c i f i c a l l yobj e c t e d t o i nc l us i on of the in te r e s t, o ro f

f e r e d ac o rr e c t c a lc u la tio n . A s s u m in g w e c a n e v e n r e a c h th is q u e s tio n , se e F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 ( a ) , o u rr e v ie w is o n lyf o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni ted State s v . Sant i ago , 46 6 F . 3d 80 1, 80 3 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). W e do n otfi nd that i ncl usi on of the i nt er es t , w hi ch af t erre ca l cul at i on re sul t s i n o nl y am i no r di ff er ence i n the val ue of D ol ph ’ s s hare , l ed t o a re sul tthatnegat i vel y a ff ec t s s ub st ant i al r ig h ts o ru n d e rm in e s th e in te g r ityo f th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se e i d. ; Set t legoo de v. P o rt la n d P u b . Sch s. , 37 1 F . 3d 50 3, 51 6-17 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). S om ew hatre l at edl y, S chac her argues thathe shou l d h ave been aw ar ded prej ud gm enti nt er es t , or appreci at i on , on the am ou nthel d i n con struct i ve trust . In lig h t o f o u rd e c is io n th a t D o lp h w a s u n ju s tlye n r ic h e d b yo n ly$ 1 ,8 4 0 .0 7 , S c ha c he r ’ s a r gum e nt s tha tP a tr i c i a ’ s e s t a t e i s e nt i t l e d t o r e c ove ra l l of the $58, 495 i n e qui tyi n D ol ph’ s hom e , orthe hom e i t s e l f , obvi ous l yf

a i l s . A l though O r e gon la w m ig h t s u p p o rt S c h a c h e r ’s e n title m e n t to s o m e ap p r e c ia tio n , se e J i m enezv. L ee , 5 4 7 P .2 d 1 2 6 , 1 2 9 - 3 0 ( O r . 1 9 7 6 ) , S c h a c h e rf a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te h o w m u c h , if a ny , of the appr e c i a t i on of

D ol ph’ s hom e c oul d be di r e c t l ya ttr i but e d t o the un j ust l y a cqui re d $ 1, 84 0. 07 . S i m i l ar l y, even i f w e a ss um e, w i tho utdeci di ng , that5

O r e gon l a w w oul d pe rm i tS c ha c he rt o r e c ove rpr e j udgm e nti nt e r e s ton a c o n s tru c tiv e tru s t, s e e G e r b e rv . O ’ D o n n e ll , 7 2 4 P . 2 d 9 1 6 ( Or . C t . Ap p . 1 9 8 6 ) , we c a nnotc onc l ude tha tS c ha c he ri s e nt i t l e d t o pr e j udgm e nti nt e r e s ton the $1, 840. 07, be c aus e tha ts um w a s nota s c e rt a i ne d unt i l the ba nkrupt c yc ourte nt e r e d j udgm e nt o n it. Se e i d. AF F I RME D.