Cutter v. Seror (In Re Cutter)

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Williams Cutter, II (“Edward”), the debtor, and John F. Cutter (“John”), as guardian ad litem for Trip Cutter (“Trip”), Edward’s son, appeal from the opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that certain real property located on Thurston Circle, Los Angeles, was conveyed to Edward rather than Trip and therefore is within the bankruptcy estate. David Seror, the Chapter 7 Trustee, cross-appeals from the BAP’s affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Trip has a one-third interest in certain property located on Whipple Street in North Hollywood. We affirm the Bankruptcy Court.

In Weisman v. Peters (In re Weisman), 5 F.3d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1993), we stated that “[wjhether the circumstances are sufficient to require inquiry as to another’s interest in property for the purposes of [California Civil Code] section 19 is a question of fact, even where there is no dispute over the historical facts,” thus invoking a clear error standard of review. In Murray v. Bammer (In re Bammer), 131 F.3d 788, 791-92 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), we reiterated that the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of historical…

concurring:

I agree with the outcome of the majority’s Memorandum Disposition. However, I write separately to highlight the appropriate standard of review. The BAP applied the correct clearly erroneous standard of review and correctly found that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in its decisions. Cutter v. Seror (In re Cutter), 2010 WL 6467694 , *15-16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010). In their briefs, the parties agree, proposing the clearly erroneous standard as the appropriate standard of review.

This court has specifically addressed the proper standard of review when California Civil Code Section 19 is determinative, and we face such a situation here. “Whether the circumstances are sufficient to require inquiry as to another’s interest in property for the purposes of section 19 is a question of fact, even where there is no dispute over the historical facts.” Weisman v. Peters (In re Weisman), 5 F.3d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1993). Questions of fact are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); Murray v. Bammer (In re Bammer), 131 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc); In re Weisman, 5 F.3d at 419 . Therefore, the proper…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

In re: EDWARD WILLIAMS CUTTER, No. 11-60005

II,

BAP No. 09-1393 Debtor,

MEMORANDUM*

EDWARD WILLIAMS CUTTER, II and JOHN F. CUTTER, Guardian ad Litem for Edward Williams Cutter aka Trip Cutter,

Appellants,

v.

DAVID SEROR, Ch 7 Trustee and

ZORAN VUJIC,

Appellees.

In re: EDWARD WILLIAMS CUTTER, No. 11-60010

II,

BAP No. 10-1022 Debtor,

DAVID SEROR,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appellant,

v.

EDWARD WILLIAMS CUTTER, II; et al.,

Appellees,

_____________________________,

ZORAN VUJIC,

and

UST - UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

WOODLAND HILLS,

Trustee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Pappas, Dunn, and Novack, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2011** San Francisco, California

Before: ALARCÓN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Edward Williams Cutter, II (“Edward”), the debtor, and John F. Cutter

(“John”), as…