NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DUSTIN ROGER CHANTEL ; ELIZABETH DA RLENE CHANTEL,

Debtors.

_______________________ _______

DUSTIN ROGER CHANTEL; ELIZABETH DARLENE CHANTEL,

Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM E. PIERCE, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee. No. 15

- 60054

BAP No. 14

- 1511

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Jury, and Kirscher , Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtors Dustin Roger Chantel and Elizabeth Darlene Chantel

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 60054

appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”)

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order , followin g a two

- day trial, de termining that

assets held in a trust belong ed to the bankruptcy estate and denying the debtors a

discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo

decisions of the BA P and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied

to the bankruptcy court ’ s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Penrod ( In re

Penrod ) , 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We affirm.

The bankrup tcy court properly concluded that assets held in the trust were

property of the bankruptcy estate because the trust ’s assets were in the possession,

custody or control of the debtors and the trust was used as the debtors’ “personal

asset repository

. ” See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Turner v. Cook , 362 F.3d 1219,

1225

- 26 (9th Cir. 2004) (all legal or equitable interests of a debtor in property

become property of the bankruptcy estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy

case).

The bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in determining that the

debtors knowingly and fraudulentl y made material false oaths when they failed to

disclose in their bankruptcy schedules their interest in property purportedly held by

the trust

. See Retz v. Samson (In re Retz) , 606 F.3d 1189, 1196, 1203

- 04 (9th Cir.

2010) (bankruptcy court’s factual find ings reviewed for clear error, giving great

deference to a bankruptcy court’s determinations about the credibility of3 15

- 60054

witnesses). T hus the bankruptcy court properly denied the debtors’ discharge

under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A). See id. at 119 6

- 99 (require ments for denying a

debtor a discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A)).

The bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that the debtors

also concealed and transferred property of the estate with the intent to hinder,

delay, or defraud c reditor s , and hence properl y denied the debtors’ discharge under

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2) (A), (B). See id. at 1200 (requirements for d enying a debtor

a discharge under § 727(a)(2 ) ).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the openin g brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

We reject as unsupported by the record the debtors’ contention that the

bankruptcy court demonstrated bias.

The d ebtors’ “motion to grant default judgment under Federal Rules of Civi l

Procedure 55” (Docket Entry No. 20 ) is denied.

AFFIRMED.