Snavely

Snavely v. Miller

Good Law
124 F. App'x 495
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 2005No. 03-35317California2,822 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Bonnie Snavely appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order and judgment in adversary proceedings between Ms. Snavely and her brother, debtor-in-possession Douglas Miller. We affirm.

I

At the hearing on this appeal, Ms. Snavely argued that the King County Superior Court of Washington’s oral ruling that the Trust was a spendthrift trust was binding on the bankruptcy court even though the judgment was not entered until after Mr. Miller’s automatic stay from his bankruptcy case was in place. Ms. Snavely argued that as a spendthrift trust, the Trust was not property of Mr. Miller’s estate, and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c) therefore was not subject to the automatic stay from Mr. Miller’s bankruptcy filing.

Ms. Snavely raised this argument for the first time during oral argument. Ordinarily, we will not consider an argument raised so late. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(9)(A) and (B) (appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies; and for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review”); Independent…

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.