Duarte

MEMORANDUM **

Ralph and Michael Duarte appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law on the Duartes’ adversary complaint and holding that a California state court judgment was not excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A). See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7052(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d) and 1291, and we affirm.

We review the BAP’s decision de novo and independently review the bankruptcy court’s rulings. Ardmor Vending Co. v. Kim (In re Kim), 130 F.3d 863, 865 (9th Cir.1997). We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error, its conclusions of law de novo, and its evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Id.

The bankruptcy court properly determined the preclusive effect of the state court judgment under California law. See Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001). Debtor Lucille Atkinson is the Duartes’ sister. The state court upheld a rental agreement for a home jointly owned by the three siblings and found Lucille and her husband Joe Atkinson liable for breach of contract and unjust…