Haag v. Northwestern Bank (In Re Haag)

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Roger Haag (“Haag”) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision to affirm the bankruptcy court’s oral ruling that declined to discharge Haag’s debt, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(2). Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we will not recount it here. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)(1), and we affirm.

I

‘We review decisions of the BAP de novo and apply the standard of review applied by the BAP to the bankruptcy court’s decision.” Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.2010). The BAP reviewed the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, and its “selection of the applicable legal rules under § 727” and “the application of the facts to those rules” de novo. Searles v. Riley (In re Searles), 317 B.R. 368, 373 (9th Cir. BAP 2004). “Those objecting to discharge bear[ ] the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [the debtor’s] discharge should be denied.” Retz, 606 F.3d at 1196 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the Bankruptcy Code, and specifically Section 727, seeks to provide debtors with a “fresh start,” “courts…