In re: ROBERT M. MEAD v. Lawrence J. Loheit; Carolyn Williams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ROBERT M. MEAD,
Debtor,
ROBERT M. MEAD,
Appellant,
v.
LAWRENCE J. LOHEIT; CAROLYN
WILLIAMS,
Appellees.
No. 10-60034
BAP No. 09-1241
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Hollowell, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-60034 2
Chapter 13 debtor Robert M. Mead appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the
objection of creditor Carolyn Williams and denying confirmation of Mead’s plan.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP
decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the
bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d
1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s
conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact, including a finding of
bad faith. Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 1999).
We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Mead’s bankruptcy
plan lacked good faith in light of the evidence in the record indicating that Mead
misrepresented Williams’s claim, attempted to manipulate the bankruptcy system
to avoid the results of state court litigation, and submitted an inequitable plan
proposal. See id. at 1224 (describing factors relevant for finding of bad faith); see
also Goeb v. Heid (In re Goeb), 675 F.2d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing
good faith determination). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court properly sustained
Williams’s objection and denied confirmation of Mead’s plan. See 11 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-60034 3
§ 1325(a)(3) (bankruptcy plan must have been proposed in good faith to be
confirmed).
We reject Mead’s contentions concerning the validity of Williams’s secured
claim because Mead did not file an objection to Williams’s claim or an adversary
proceeding to invalidate Williams’s lien. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7001(2); see also Brady v. Andrew (In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp.), 761 F.2d
1329, 1336 (9th Cir. 1985) (validity of lien can be contested only in an adversary
proceeding, not in the plan confirmation process).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --