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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT I n th e M a tte ro f: MI CH AE L T . KE YS , D ebt or, C H A R LEN E VA N D EU SEN , A p p e lla n t, v. MI CH AE L T . KE YS , A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56114 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 5 6 5 2 - GW ME MORA ND UM *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . W u, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d June 6, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : KOZ I NS KI , C h ie f J u d g e , TR O TT a nd T HO MAS , C i rcu i tJu d g es.



# FI LED JU N 26 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSpage 2

A st at e c ou rti m po se d a l i en on K ey s’ s hom e i n O xn ar d, C al i forni a ( “ O xn ar d ho m e” ). T he bank rupt cycourtavoi ded the l i en pu rs uantt o 1 1 U . S . C . § 5 22 (f )( 1), a n dth e d is tr ic t c o u rt a f

f irm e d . V a n D e u s e n ap p e a ls . 1. A debt or m ayavoi d a l i en un der s ec t i on 52 2(f) (1) unl es s i tar ose bef ore ora tthe s a m e t i m e a s the de bt ora c qui r e d the pr ope rtyi nt e r e s ta ti s s ue . F a rr e yv. S a nde r f oot , 500 U . S . 291, 296 ( 1991) . K e y s pur c ha s e d the O xna r d hom e i n 1998 a nd the S upe r i orC ourti m pos e d the l i e n i n 2007. T he r e f or e , he “ pos s e s s e d the in te r e s t to w h ic h th e lie n f ix e d , b e f o r e it f ix e d .” I d . a t 2 9 9 . V a n D e u s e n a r g u e s th a t F a rr e yap p lie s b e c au s e th e c o n d u c t th a t g a v e r is e to the l i en occurre d b ef

ore K ey s purchas ed the O xn ar d h om e. A l i en cr ea t ed un der C al i forni a l aw som et i m es “ re l at es [bac k] t o the t i m e i tw as cr ea t ed by the cond uct of the pa rt i e s , ” H i s e v. S upe r i orC ourt , 134 P . 2d 748, 755 ( C a l . 1943) , butnot he r e . L i ke the di s tr i c tc ourt , w e ’ r e nota w a r e of a ny“ c a s e . . . i n w hi c h a ba nkrupt c yc ourt , di s tr i c tc ourt , orthe N i nth C i r c ui tha s appl i e d the H i s e rul e i n the c ont e xtof

l i e n a voi da nc e unde r§ 522( f ) , a s oppos e d t o the c ont e xtof ac kn ow l edgi ng . . . the bank rupt cycourt ’ s ow n abi l i ty t o i m po se an equi t abl e l i en. ” V a n D e us e n v. K e y s ( I n r e K e y s ) , N o. 08- 5652- G W , 2010 W L 2730904, a t*3 ( C .D . C a l. Ju ly2 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( f o o tn o te o m itte d ) .page 3

2. V a n D e us e n of

f e r s no author i tytha te s t abl i s he s a n unj us te nr i c hm e nt e x c e p tio n to s e c tio n 5 2 2 ( f ) ( 1 ) . W e m a yn o t c r e a te n e w c o m m o n la w e x c e p tio n s to st atut ory rul es — es peci al l y tho se desi gn ed t o g i ve debt ors afr es h st art . S ee W ebber v. C re di thri ftof A m . , Inc. (I n re W ebber), 67 4 F . 2d 79 6, 79 8 (9th C i r. 19 82 ). 3 . T h e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt d id n ’tab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g V an D eu se n ’s m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n . S ee F i rstA v e. W . B l d g . , L L C v . Jam es (In re O n ecast M edi a, Inc. ), 43 9 F . 3d 55 8, 56 1 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). AF F I RME D.