* This unpublished opinion may be cited for its persuasive value, but is not

precedential, except under the doctrines of law of the case, claim preclusion, and

issue preclusion. 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8018-6.

1 The parties did not request oral argument, and after examining the briefs

and appellate record, the Court has determined unanimously that oral argument

would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8012. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

of the Tenth Circuit

August 10, 2010

Blaine F. Bates

Clerk NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE RICK A. SANDOVAL,

Debtor.

BAP No. CO-10-012

CRYSTAL L. PEREA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

Bankr. No. 08-30171

Adv. No. 09-01167

 Chapter 7

v. OPINION*

RICK A. SANDOVAL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Colorado

Before CORNISH, Chief Judge, THURMAN, and SOMERS, Bankruptcy Judges.

CORNISH, Chief Judge.

Debtor Rick A. Sandoval (“Sandoval”) appeals an order of the bankruptcy

court granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Crystal L. Perea (“Perea”).1

The order granted Perea a monetary judgment in the amount of $2,000 for costs

associated with an allocation of parental rights case brought by Sandoval. We

affirm the bankruptcy court’s order.

BAP Appeal No. 10-12 Docket No. 54 Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 1 of 5
2 See Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in Appellant’s App.

at 8.

3 Id.

4 See Bankruptcy Docket Sheet No. 15, in Appellant’s App. at 4. 

5 Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Judgment,

in Appellant’s App. at 11-12. Neither the bankruptcy court’s order nor its

judgment specifically state that the $2,000 monetary judgment is

nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). Additionally, Sandoval’s

appendix on appeal is sparse–it contains neither the Complaint nor the Answer. 

However, the adversary proceeding is clearly one seeking a determination of

nondischargeability and nothing in the record suggests that Sandoval disputes the

issue of dischargeability. Only the amount of the monetary judgment is in

contention. 

6 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002; 10th Cir.

BAP L.R. 8001-3. 

-2-

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

Sandoval filed for Chapter 7 relief and Perea commenced this adversary

proceeding seeking a monetary judgment as well as a determination of

nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5).2

 Perea sought a monetary

judgment in the amount of $2,000. That sum represents two items awarded to her

by the state court in a parental rights case: 1) an attorney’s fee of $1,000; and 2)

$1,000 for costs of a child and family investigator.3

 After Sandoval filed an

answer to the complaint,4

 Perea filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Sandoval filed no response, and, therefore, the bankruptcy court granted Perea’s

motion and entered judgment in her favor in the amount of $2,000.5

 Sandoval

timely appealed the judgment.

II. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to hear timely-filed appeals from “final

judgments, orders, and decrees” of bankruptcy courts within the Tenth Circuit,

unless one of the parties elects to have the district court hear the appeal.6

 Neither

party elected to have this appeal heard by the United States District Court for the

BAP Appeal No. 10-12 Docket No. 54 Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 2 of 5
7 Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996) (quoting Catlin

v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). 

8 Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 755 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010). Bixler involved a

defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and the Tenth Circuit stated

that the standard of review for judgment granted under Rule 12(c) is the same as

the standard for Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, in the case on appeal, the plaintiff’s

motion is similar to a summary judgment motion without evidence under Rule

56(a) which is also reviewed de novo.

9 Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting

Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-91 (3d Cir. 1988)).

10 Id.

-3-

District of Colorado. The parties have therefore consented to appellate review by

this Court. 

A decision is considered final “if it ‘ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’”7

 In this case, the

bankruptcy court’s order granting a money judgment in favor of plaintiff is final

for purposes of review. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A judgment on the pleadings rendered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(c) is reviewed de novo,

8

 applying the same legal standard used by

the bankruptcy court. A judgment may not be granted under Rule 12(c) unless the

movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved

and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9

 When reviewing

the granting of a Rule 12(c) motion, an appellate court must view the facts

presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light

most favorable to the nonmoving party.10

IV. ANALYSIS

The record on appeal is sparse, and Sandoval’s briefs are abbreviated and

incoherent. Having looked to Perea’s appellate brief for additional assistance in

understanding the nature of Sandoval’s argument on appeal, this is what we are

BAP Appeal No. 10-12 Docket No. 54 Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 3 of 5
11 Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1, ¶ 4.

12 Id. at 2.

13 See Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1 and Appellee’s Brief at 1-2. 

14 See Docket No. 65361 at 8.

15 See Colorado Local Bankruptcy Rule 202(c), Notice and a Hearing; 

Opposition and Request for Hearing (1999) (“Failure of the responding party to

timely file written opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

granting of the motion or the action to be taken.”). 

16 Employers Reins. Corp. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 358 F.3d 757, 769 (10th

Cir. 2004).

17 In her brief, Perea seeks an award of attorney fees and costs on the ground

that Sandoval’s appeal is “frivolous and groundless.” In order to provide

(continued...)

-4-

able to ascertain. First, Sandoval complains that the judgment was entered

without a trial.11 Second, he asserts that he has paid Perea $1,500 towards the

judgment, and asks that we “dismiss the remaining balance and close the case”

because he does not owe the additional $500.12 He disputes he owes the $500

balance because he alleges Perea did not actually pay her fee to the child and

family investigator.13 To support this argument, he submitted a letter from the

investigator with his response to a notice of deficiency issued by this Court

regarding proof of service of his statement of interested parties.14

Sandoval’s argument that the judgment should not have been entered

without a trial has no merit. Perea filed her motion for judgment on the pleadings

and Sandoval failed to respond. Thus, he was in default.15 Additionally,

Sandoval’s second argument that the amount of the judgment is incorrect is not

reviewable. This argument and supporting evidence were not first tendered to the

bankruptcy court for consideration. It is well established that an appellate court

will not consider an issue that was not first presented to the trial court.16 Thus,

this Court declines to review the alleged error regarding the amount of the

judgment.17

BAP Appeal No. 10-12 Docket No. 54 Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 4 of 5
17 (...continued)

adequate notice, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8020 requires that such a

request be made by a separately filed motion, not in a brief. Perea’s request is

therefore denied.

-5-

V. CONCLUSION

The order and judgment of the bankruptcy court are affirmed.

BAP Appeal No. 10-12 Docket No. 54 Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 5 of 5