MARY DUFFIE V. STEVE GOTCHER, No. 17-36010 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: MARY KAY DUFFIE, No. 17-36010 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00034-BMM MARY KAY DUFFIE, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVE GOTCHER; SHARON GOTCHER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Mary Kay Duffiè appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment excepting $88,348.61 for appellees from Duffiè’s * 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). bankruptcy discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and apply the same standard of review applied by the district court. In re JTS Corp., 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The bankruptcy court properly granted appellees an exception from Duffiè’s bankruptcy discharge because appellees demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Duffiè intentionally made false representations to obtain their agreement to make monetary payments to Duffiè; the appellees justifiably relied on those misrepresentations and made such payments; and they sustained damages as a result. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (prohibiting the discharge of any enforceable obligation for money, property, services, or credit that was obtained by fraud, false pretenses, or false representations); In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing the five elements a creditor must establish by a preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate a claim of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A)). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying on the basis of appellee Steve Gotcher’s demonstrated hearing issues Duffiè’s motion to appear at trial via videoconference. See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir.) (stating standard of review and holding that courts have “inherent power” to control their dockets). 2 17-36010 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Duffiè’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 17-36010
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.
