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 : EDR

A D. B LIXSETH, De btor,

------------------------------ R IC H ARD J. SAM SON, C ha pte r 7 Truste e for the Esta

t e of Edra D. B lixse th, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ESTER N C APITAL PAR T NER S, LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-35741

D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00025-DLC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L . C hriste nse n, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 7, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FISHER , PAEZ a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. W e ste rn C a

pita l Partne rs, LLC , a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the b ankruptc y c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa vor of the ba

nkruptc y truste e , R ic ha

rd 

# FIL ED MAR 09 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Sam son, on thetruste e ’ s c la im s of c onstruc tive ly fra udule nt tra

nsfe r and usury
. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d), a nd we re ve rse in pa

rt, a ffirm in pa rt a nd re m a nd. 1. B e fore the ba

nkruptc y c ourt, Sa m son sought to a

void de btor Edra B lixse th’ s gua

ra nty of a $13 m i llion loa

n W e ste rn C a

pita l issue d to B lixse th’ s son. A c onstruc tive l y

fra udule n t tra nsfe r c la im

re quire s proof (1) the c ha lle nge d transfe r oc c urre d within two ye ars of the ba nkruptc y ; (2) the de btor re c e ive d le ss tha n re a sona bly e quiva l e nt va lue for the tra n sfe r; a nd (3) the de btor wa s insolve nt
at the tim e of the tra

nsfe r. S e e In reFitne

ss Holdings Int’l, Inc ., 714 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th C ir. 2013); 11 U.S.C . § 548(a )(1)(B ). The ba nkruptc y c ourt c onc lude d B lixse th wa s insolve n t

at the tim e of the tra

nsfe r a fte r it e x c lude d B lixse th’ s inte re s t in theundivide d portion of he r m arita l c om m unity , whic h wa s worth ove r $400 m illion a

t the tim e of the loa

n. This wa s e rror. B e c a

use B lixse th’ s c re ditors
c ould ha v e re a c he d he r sha

re of the c o m

m unity prope rty

through le g a l proc e ss, the prope rty should ha

ve be e n inc lude d in the solve nc y ana ly sis. S

e e In reMarriage of Sc he nk, 279 C a l. R

ptr. 651, 654 n.2 (C t . App. 1991) (c re ditors m ay c olle c t postse pa ra tion debts from

the de btor spouse ’ s sha

re of c om m unity prope rty ); se ealso 2-101 C ollie r on Bank

ruptc y § 101.32 (16th e d. 2016) (“ [I] t is obvious tha t inte re s ts whic h a

re subje c t to c re ditors’ re m e die s m ust ne c e ssa

rily be 2c onside re d.” ). Inc luding the se a sse ts in thesolve nc y ana ly sis, B l ixse th wa s solve nt

unde r a ll of the re le va

n t te sts. S

e e 11 U.S.C . § 548(a )(1)(B )(ii). Sam s on’ s fraudule nt tra

nsfe r c la im

the re fore fa ils. 2. The distric t c ourt he ld W e ste rn C a p ita l wa ive d its a

rgum e nt tha

t re s judic ata pre c lude d Sam son’ s usury c la im . Although W e ste rn C a pita l re a sse rts its
re s judic ata

argum e nt in c onc lusory

fa s hion be fore this c ourt, it ha s not ide ntifie d
any e rror in the distric t c o urt’ s c onc lusion this a rgum e nt wa s wa ive d. W e a ffirm the e ntry of judgm e n t for Sam son on theusury c la im
. RE V E RSE D IN PART , AFFIRM E D IN PART AND RE M ANDE D. E ACH PART Y SH AL L B E AR IT S O W N CO ST S O N APPE AL .

3