Case Name: IN RE: William Walter PLISE, Debtor, Tennille I. Plise, Appellant, v. Shelley D. Krohn, Chapter 7 Trustee; William Walter Plise, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-05
Citations: 708 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 15-60032
Parties: IN RE: William Walter PLISE, Debtor, Tennille I. Plise, Appellant, v. Shelley D. Krohn, Chapter 7 Trustee; William Walter Plise, Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 580
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
IN RE: William Walter PLISE, Debtor, Tennille I. Plise, Appellant, v. Shelley D. Krohn, Chapter 7 Trustee; William Walter Plise, Appellees.
No. 15-60032
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 6, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed January 05, 2018
Louis Edward. Humphrey, III, Attorney, Humphrey Lopez PLLC, Reno, NY, for Appellant
Jacob L. Houmand, Esquire, Attorney, Houmand Law Firm, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV, for Appellee Shelley D. Krohn
Lenard Schwartzer, Attorney, Schwart-zer & McPherson Law Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Appellee William Walter Plise
Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, Chief District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tennille Plise, the former spouse of Debtor William Plise, appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit's (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the objection of Shelley Krohn, the Chapter 7 trustee for William Plise's bankruptcy estate.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion by affirming the bankruptcy court's order sustaining Krohn's claim objection on the basis of judicial estoppel. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2001). Plise held clearly inconsistent positions during the bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court accepted her prior position in the settlement agreement that $425,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the Austin property would go to unsecured creditors and release Plise from all remaining claims. Plise subsequently made a priority claim and argued that the $425,000 should go to her because she was an unsecured creditor. This change in position would provide her with an unfair advantage. See id. at 782. The BAP thus appropriately determined that Plise was judicially estopped from taking the current, inconsistent position that the $425,000 should go to her.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.