Bigelow

Bigelow v. Brady

Good Law
179 F.3d 1164·99 Daily Journal DAR 5623·1999 WL 366559·34 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 636·42 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 180
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 1999No. 97-17129California438 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Silverman, J.

Debtor Ruthnan Bigelow appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s reversal and remand of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment against Ronald Brady and A & A Realty, a corporation, in an adversary proceeding related to her Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review the BAP’s conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. In re Weisberg, 136 F.3d 655, 657 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 119 S.Ct. 72 , 142 L.Ed.2d 56 (1998). We affirm.

Because only one issue presented requires an answer that is worthy of publication, we consider that issue in this opinion and the remaining issues in a memorandum disposition filed concurrently herewith. That issue is whether a corporation’s notice of appeal, signed and filed by a corporate officer, is invalid because it was not signed and filed by counsel. We conclude that it is not invalid.

Bigelow argues that the BAP erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to consider A & A’s appeal even though Brady, a non-attorney and 60% owner of the corporation, signed and filed the notice of appeal to the BAP on behalf of A & A. Following the filing of the notice of appeal, A & A was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.