TENNILLE PLISE V. SHELLEY KROHN, No. 15-60032 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 05 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK In re: WILLIAM WALTER PLISE, Debtor, No. 15-60032 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BAP No. 14-1474 -----------------------------MEMORANDUM* TENNILLE I. PLISE, Appellant, v. SHELLEY D. KROHN, Chapter 7 Trustee; WILLIAM WALTER PLISE, Appellees. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kurtz, Dunn, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2017** Pasadena, 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). Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** Chief District Judge. Tennille Plise, the former spouse of Debtor William Plise, appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit's (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the objection of Shelley Krohn, the Chapter 7 trustee for William Plise's bankruptcy estate. The BAP did not abuse its discretion by affirming the bankruptcy court's order sustaining Krohn's claim objection on the basis of judicial estoppel. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782–83 (9th Cir. 2001). Plise held clearly inconsistent positions during the bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy court accepted her prior position in the settlement agreement that $425,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the Austin property would go to unsecured creditors and release Plise from all remaining claims. Plise subsequently made a priority claim and argued that the $425,000 should go to her because she was an unsecured creditor. This change in position would provide her with an unfair advantage. See id. at 782. The BAP thus appropriately determined *** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 2 that Plise was judicially estopped from taking the current, inconsistent position that the $425,000 should go to her. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
