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 : RER I NANILEI SEPTIM O, De

btor, RER I NANILEI SEPTIM O, Appe lla

nt, v. DAVID C . FARM ER , C ha pte r 7 Truste e , Appe lle e . No. 12-15754 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00315-DAERLP M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii David A. Ezra , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 19, 2014 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED APR 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.C ha

pte r 7 de btor R e ri Na

nile i Se ptim o a

ppe a ls a distric t c ourt orde r that a ffirm e d a

ba nkruptc y c o urt orde r, whic h c o m pe lle d Se ptim o to c oope rate with the c ha pte r 7 truste e of Se ptim o’ s e sta te (the “ T ruste e ” ). Se ptim o sc he dule d he r re side nc e a s re a l prope rty on Sc h e dule A to he r volunta ry pe tition for ba

nkruptc y and c la im e d a

n e xe m ption for he r re side nc e . The Truste e obje c te d to thee xe m p tion, a n d the ba nk ruptc y c ourt sustai ne d the Truste e ’ s obje c tion. Theba nkruptc y c ourt disc ha

rge d Se ptim o pursua

nt to 11 U.S.C . § 727. The Truste e pla

nne d to tra

nsfe r Se ptim o’ s hom e , whic h wa s pa rt of the e sta te . Se ptim o de nie d the re a ltor for the ba nkruptc y e sta t e a c c e ss to he r hom e . The Truste e m ove d the ba nkruptc y c ourt for a

n orde r to c om

pe l Se ptim o to c oope rat e with theTruste e , whic h the ba nkruptc y c ourt gra nte d. On a

ppe a l, the distric t c o urt a ffirm e d t

he ba nkruptc y c ourt. W e de c line to a ddre ss Se ptim o’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the Truste e re

je c te d the le a se hold for theprope rty whe re he r re side nc e is loc ate d . W e will not re vie w a ne w a rgum e nt m a de on a

ppe a l a bse nt e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s. In reHomeAm. T.V.-Applianc eAudio, Inc ., 232 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th C ir. 2000). W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on a ppe a l from

a ba nkruptc y c ourt. In reJ

TS C orp ., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re v ie w the

2ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s findings of fa c t for c le ar e rror a nd its c onc lusions of la

w de novo. Id . Se ptim o’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the Truste e c annot tra

nsfe r the le a se on whic h he r prope rty is loc ate d

is inc orre c t. A ba

nkruptc y truste e sta

nds in theshoe s of a de btor. Smith v . Arthur Anderse n LLP , 421 F.3d 989, 1002 (9th C ir. 2005). The Truste e of Se ptim o’ s e sta te m ay a ssign he r le a se hold inte re s t for the be ne fit of the e sta te on the sam e te rm s a s Se ptim o be c a use Se p tim o would ha

v e be e n a l lowe d to a ssign thele a se . Se ptim o ha s c onc e de d tha t he r hom e is theprope rty of the e sta

te . A de btor m ay not inte rfe re with thesa le of e sta t e prope rty . In re Onubah , 375 B .R . 549, 557 (B .A.P. 9th C ir. 2007). Theba nkruptc y c ourt prope rly

orde re d Se p tim o to c oope rat e with thetruste e pursua nt to 11 U.S.C . § 521. The re fore , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt. AFFIRM E D.

3