Keddington

MEMORANDUM **

Laura Keddington appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) decision affirming a bankruptcy court’s decision discharging Victor Rodas’s and Phyllis Prosniewski’s debts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo the BAP’s legal conclusions. Murray v. Bammer (In re Bammer), 131 F.3d 788, 792 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s rulings on appeal from the BAP, Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Bd. of Equalization (In re Cool Fuel, Inc.), 210 F.3d 999, 1001-02 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Keddington had not met her burden of proving that Rodas misrepresented the quality of his work. Cf. Eugene Parks Law Corp. Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Kirsh (In re Kirsh), 973 F.2d 1454, 1457 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (setting forth creditor’s burden to establish nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A)). The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Keddington failed to establish reasonable reliance on Rodas’s financial statements, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(B), because no financial statements were entered into evidence. See…