Stevens

MEMORANDUM *

In this appeal we decide whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that debt- or Dolores Briles committed defalcation in a fiduciary capacity, thereby rendering the judgment debt against her nondischargeable. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and prior proceedings, we do not restate them unless necessary.

A debt is nondischargeable if it is “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4). “The definition of defalcation includes both the ‘misappropriation of trust funds or money held in any fiduciary capacity; [and the] failure to properly account for such funds.’ ” Blyler v. Hemmeter (In re Hemmeter), 242 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Lewis v. Scott (In re Lewis), 97 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir.1996)).

Under California law, Briles was acting in her capacity as a licensed real estate broker when she arranged the loan from Stevens to the Aguilars. See Calif. Bus. & Prof.Code § 10131(d). Briles was therefore acting in a fiduciary capacity under § 523(a)(4). See Bugna v. McArthur (In re Bugna), 33 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.1994).

Briles argues that even if she was acting in a fiduciary…