IN RE: BILL MARTIN PARKER, No. 12-60047 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUL 15 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: BILL MARTIN PARKER, Debtor. ALBERT P. WILCOX, Appellant, v. BILL MARTIN PARKER, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 12-60047 BAP No. NC-11-1566-JuKiJo MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Jury, Kirscher, and Johnson, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted July 9, 2013** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Albert P. Wilcox appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel s (BAP) decision1 affirming the bankruptcy court s determination that he was not entitled to the benefit of judicial estoppel in his pursuit of a fraud claim against Bill Martin Parker. We affirm.2 The BAP s opinion upholding the bankruptcy court s decision is concise and persuasive. We, therefore, adopt its discussion and determination that on the facts of this case the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.3 AFFIRMED. 1 Wilcox v. Parker (In re Parker), 471 B.R. 570 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012). 2 We review the BAP s decision de novo. See Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). The bankruptcy court s legal conclusions are likewise reviewed de novo, and its decision whether to invoke judicial estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wolfe v. Jacobson (In re Jacobson), 676 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 In his reply brief, Wilcox asserts that Parker commenced his bankruptcy action in bad faith. He did not raise that claim before the BAP or in his opening brief. We decline to consider it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). 2

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.