Unpublished Disposition, 909 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1990)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 909 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1990)

Carl L. DEVRIES; Irene Devries, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Frank L. NEISS; Lorraine A. Neiss, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-35782.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 1990.* Decided Aug. 1, 1990.

Before HUG, NELSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Creditors Irene and Carl DeVries appeal the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's valuation of farmland owned by Chapter 12 debtors Lorraine and Frank Neiss. We affirm.

We review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 795 (9th Cir. 1986).

Here, the bankruptcy court valued the land at $132,864.1  The debtors' appraiser took into consideration the lack of sufficient water rights to irrigate the entire parcel. The appellants' appraiser failed to consider the lack of sufficient water rights to irrigate the entire parcel. The bankruptcy court heard eight witnesses, and documentary evidence was received. The amount of water available was an issue addressed in this evidence. The bankruptcy court found that the water rights to the land was a critical factor after considering all of this evidence. This was not clear error nor was his valuation of the land taking this into account. Both findings were supported by substantial evidence.

We do not find the DeVries' appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we deny the Neisses' request for attorneys' fees and costs under FRAP 38.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

The original $40,000 deduction for a home on the property is not at issue on this appeal

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.