Case Name: IN RE: Warren Charles BODEKER, Roxsanna Ryan, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. Christy L. Brandon, Trustee-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 689 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 15-35212
Parties: IN RE: Warren Charles BODEKER, Roxsanna Ryan, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. Christy L. Brandon, Trustee-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
IN RE: Warren Charles BODEKER, Roxsanna Ryan, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. Christy L. Brandon, Trustee-Appellee.
No. 15-35212
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Seattle, Washington
Filed April 25, 2017
Kevin E. Vainio, Vainio Law Office, Butte, MT, for Debtor-Appellant
Robert K. Baldwin, Attorney, Kyle W. Nelson, Goetz, Baldwin & Geddes, P.C., Bozeman, MT, for Trustee-Appellee
Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker's motion to rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a stipulation. We affirm.
First, Law v. Siegel is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this case because no court equitably surcharged Bo-deker's homestead. See — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146, 1194-97 (2014). Even if Siegel applied, a subsequent change in law generally does not provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. In re Marriage of Grace, 198 Mont. 97, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191-92 (1982); see also Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that "enforcement of settlement agreements [is] governed by principles of local law").
Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in favor of a creditor with an "unsecured claim." Trustee-Appellee Christy L. Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any incidental benefit to Bo-deker's creditors as a result of the stipulation does not render § 522(e) applicable to this case.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.