Gronlund v. Anderson (In Re Gronlund)
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Debtor Steven Gronlund appeals from the decision of the BAP, which affirmed the bankruptcy court order denying discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ • 727(a)(2) and 727(a)(4)(A). We affirm.
We review the bankruptcy court’s judgment independently, without deference to the BAP. Beaupied v. Chang (In re Chang), 163 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir. 1998). We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Id.
Under 11 .U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), discharge-can be denied when “the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has ... concealed, or has permitted to be ... concealed” either “property of the debtor, within one year before the date of filing of the petition,” § 727(a)(2)(A), or “property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition,” § 727(a)(2)(B). Thé bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Gronlund concealed his interest in an asset related to Mexican property both before and after filing his petition for bankruptcy and that he possessed fraudulent intent in doing so.