Creasy

Creasy v. Birdsell

Good Law
138 F. App'x 45
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 2005No. 04-15893; D.C. No. CV-03-00574-DGCCalifornia448 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick C. Creasy, Jr. (“Debtor”) and his wife Marilyn Creasy appeal pro se the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting Trustee David A. Birdsell judgment in his adversary proceeding in which Birdsell sought to avoid fraudulent and post-petition transfers, and to deny Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(3) & (4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We stand in the same position as did the district court in reviewing the bankruptcy court’s order, and we review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Levander v. Prober (In re Levander), 180 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that Debtor should be denied discharge of his debts because it is undisputed that he deliberately omitted from his Bankruptcy Schedules any reference to his interest and involvement in Managed Care Competition, Inc. (“MCC”). See 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(4)(A); Fogal Legware of Switzerland, Inc. v. Wills (In re Wills), 243 B.R. 58, 62-63 (9th Cir.BAP1999). A debtor may rely on the advice of counsel only if the advice is reasonable, and…

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.