Claycomb

Claycomb v. Ulrich

Good Law
56 F. App'x 361
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 14, 2003No. 02-15871; BAP No. AZ-01-01283-PBKCalifornia456 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kristin Claycomb appeals pro se the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Claycomb’s motion to reconsider its decision to reopen her chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding to administer a personal injury settlement. Clay-comb also appeals the BAP’s dismissal of her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders awarding fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review cases appealed from the BAP de novo. Staffer v. Predovich (In re Staffer), 306 F.3d 967, 970-71 (9th Cir.2002). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Id. at 971 . We affirm.

Claycomb’s contention that the personal injury settlement was not part of the bankruptcy estate lacks merit. Personal injury claims constitute property under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(1). See Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 789 F.2d 705 , 709 (9th Cir.1986). It is immaterial that Claycomb did not file a personal injury suit in state court until after her bankruptcy proceeding had closed because her personal injury claim arose from an automobile accident that occured prior to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.