Court Opinion

ID: 9406545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 00:01:10.239947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.356162
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     JUN 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,                      No. 20-60032

                   Debtor,                         BAP No. 18-1197

------------------------------
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
SARAH MARGARET TAYLOR,

                   Appellant,

  v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
et al.,

                   Appellees.

                            Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                             Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
                Gan, Brand, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                  Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:        CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

       Chapter 7 debtor Sarah Margaret Taylor appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order

approving the settlement agreement between the bankruptcy trustee, Elizabeth A.

Kane, and various state parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the

BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re

Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement

agreement because the bankruptcy court properly considered the relevant factors

and reasonably concluded that the agreement was fair and equitable. See In re A &

C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review

and explaining the relevant factors to consider when approving a compromise

agreement).

      To the extent that Taylor challenges the bankruptcy court’s order approving

the settlement agreement between the trustee and U.S. Bank National Association,

we lack jurisdiction to consider Taylor’s contentions because her notice of appeal

was untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1) (notice of appeal

from a bankruptcy court order must be filed within 14 days after the filing of the

order); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick), 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994)

(“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of

a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the

                                          2                                     20-60032
bankruptcy court’s order.”).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       20-60032