Hendrik Dorssers v. James Rigby, Jr.

Hendrik Dorssers and Concept Dorssers (together, “Dorssers”) appeal the district court’s decision affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(1). We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, Alexander v. Compton (In re Bonham), 229 F.3d 750, 763 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

1. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the February Note and Medina Deed of Trust were never consummated. See Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wash.2d 388 , 730 P.2d 45, 49 (1986). Likewise, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in discrediting Dorssers’ self-serving testimony that Dorssers held the February Note, see Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.2010); in finding that Thomas Hazelrigg, III, was not Dorssers’ agent, see Nordstrom Credit, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 120 Wash.2d 935 , 845 P.2d 1331, 1335 (1993); or in finding that the payments Dorssers received related to the November Note, not the February Note, see Willener, 730 P.2d at 49 . In each instance, the bankruptcy court’s findings…