ROXSANNA RYAN V. CHRISTY BRANDON, No. 15-35212 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: WARREN CHARLES BODEKER, ______________________________ No. 15-35212 D.C. No. 9:14-cv-00195-BMM ROXSANNA RYAN, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, MEMORANDUM* Debtor-Appellant, v. CHRISTY L. BRANDON, Trustee-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker’s motion to rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a stipulation. We affirm. First, Law v. Siegel is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this case because no court equitably surcharged Bodeker’s homestead. See 134 S. Ct. 1188, 1194S97 (2014). Even if Siegel applied, a subsequent change in law generally does not provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. In re Marriage of Grace, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191S92 (Mont. 1982); see also Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “enforcement of settlement agreements [is] governed by principles of local law”). Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in favor of a creditor with an “unsecured claim.” Trustee-Appellee Christy L. Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any incidental benefit to Bodeker’s creditors as a result of the stipulation does not render § 522(e) applicable to this case. AFFIRMED. 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.
