Court Opinion

ID: 9942665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 18:01:30.617946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:23.493267
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 21 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAN GENE LAU & AMBER
WADDELL LAU,                                   No. 23-60012
             Debtor.
                                               BAP No. CC-22-1087

ALAN GENE LAU & AMBER                          MEMORANDUM*
WADDELL LAU
        Appellants,
                        v.
RUSSELL PRIOR & CHERYL PRIOR
         Appellees.

                    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

                          Submitted February 16, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Appellants Alan Gene Lau and Amber Waddell Lau (“the Laus”) appeal the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming a Central District of California

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

                                          1                                23-60012
Bankruptcy Court (“court”) finding of a $135,000 nondischargeable debt under 11

U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).      This debt is owed to Russell Prior and Cheryl Prior

(“Appellees” or “the Priors”) and arises from Alan Lau’s fraud in failing to disclose

structural and foundation defects in a house (“Property”) he sold Appellees. As the

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm.

      The Laus assert the court erred in the determination of damages. California

Civil Code § 3343(a) provides: “One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of

property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with

which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received,

together with any additional damage arising from the particular transaction . . . .”

Here, based on a historical appraisal, the court determined the actual value the Priors

received in purchasing the Property was $455,000. Because the Priors had paid the

Laus $590,000, the amount specified by section 3343(a) was $135,000. We review

this factual finding for clear error. In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc., 957 F.3d 990, 995 (9th

Cir. 2020).

      Given the evidence of concerns related to the Property’s foundation in 2016,

and the Laus’ failure to offer evidence contradicting the appraisal’s assumptions, it

was not clear error for the court to accept the appraisal’s $455,000 valuation and its

reliance on Foundation Tech’s 2017 estimate as part of its determination. Nor did

                                            2                                 23-60012
the court clearly err in applying the measure of damages specified by section

3343(a), rather than looking to the discount from the Priors’ asking price in their

2020 sale of the Property.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                               23-60012