Salven

MEMORANDUM *

Susan E. Williams appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) that reversed a ruling of the bankruptcy court and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for additional factual develop *373 ment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d), and affirm the BAP.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail except as necessary. Although a denial of a motion for summary judgment with a remand for factual findings is not typically considered final for appellate purposes, we have been more flexible when it comes to bankruptcy proceedings. Scovis v. Henrichsen (In re Scovis), 249 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2001). We can exercise jurisdiction, even though the BAP has remanded a matter for factual findings on a central issue, if that issue is legal in nature and its resolution could either dispose of the case and obviate the need for additional fact-finding, or would materially aid the bankruptcy court in reaching its disposition on remand. Id. at 980 ; see also In re Padilla, 222 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.2000). That is the situation here with respect to the question of whether a bankruptcy court can avoid a fraudulent…