YAN SUI V. RICHARD MARSHACK, No. 16-60049 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: YAN SUI, No. 16-60049 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 15-1336 YAN SUI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Taylor, Landis, and Kirscher, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2017** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui appeals pro se from a judgment of 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 this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Sui’s claimed homestead exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the BAP de novo and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Penrod (In re Penrod), 611 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The bankruptcy court properly denied Sui’s claimed homestead exemption because the record shows that Sui voluntarily transferred the property prior to filing his bankruptcy petition and failed to disclose any interest in the property or schedule secured claims that might have alerted the chapter 7 trustee to the transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) (allowing a debtor to exempt property recovered by a trustee if the debtor did not voluntarily transfer or conceal the property); Glass v. Hitt (In re Glass), 60 F.3d 565, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining requirements for 11 U.S.C. § 522(g)(1) to apply). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Sui’s motion for leave to file a late filed reply brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 11. 2 16-60049 Sui’s motion to consolidate this case with Appeal Nos. 16-60065 and 1560066 (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 16-60049

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.