Bostanian

MEMORANDUM *

As the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We review the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) de novo. In re Scovis, 249 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2001). The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id.

Stefan Bostanian (“Stefan”) 1 alleges that appellees Liberty Savings Bank (“Liberty”) 2 and California Federal Bank (“Cal Fed”) willfully violated the automatic stay in his bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a). Stefan seeks damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (h). We affirm the decision of the BAP.

Stefan conveyed his interest in Parcel A to George and Vartanoush Bostanian in 1991. Therefore, he did not have a legal interest in Parcel A at the time of Liberty’s and Cal Fed’s alleged violation of the automatic stay as to Parcel A. Because Stefan did not have an intérest in Parcel A at the time of the events he alleges willfully violated the automatic stay, he may not maintain his claim.

We reject Stefan’s arguments that he had an equitable interest in Parcel A sufficient to sustain an action for…