Opinion ID: 795978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Presumptive Fee for Work Involving Vehicle Loan

Text: 75 Finally, Boone argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing to award the $200 presumptive fee for work involving a vehicle loan. We do not reach that question. 76 As indicated in our factual narrative, supra, it is apparent that Boone did do work involving the Eliapos' secured loan on their 2000 Dodge Durango. However, Boone failed to raise this issue when he appealed to the BAP. As we recently stated in Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Services ( In re Burnett ), 435 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2006), Absent exceptional circumstances, issues not raised before the BAP are waived. See also Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. ( In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc. ), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001). One established exceptional circumstance is when the issue is one of law and either does not depend on the factual record, or the record has been fully developed. El Paso City v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. ( In re Am. W. Airlines, Inc. ), 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2000). The issue of compensation for work involving the vehicle loan depends on the factual record, and it is not clear that the record has been fully developed. The exceptional circumstance exception does not apply, and we therefore hold that Boone has waived the issue on appeal. However, we expect that Boone will be able to raise the issue on remand when the bankruptcy court has a hearing on his application.