In re: LARRY TEVIS; NANCY TEVIS v. MICHAEL F. BURKART, Chapter 7 Trustee;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LARRY TEVIS; NANCY TEVIS,
Debtors.
______________________________
LARRY TEVIS; NANCY TEVIS,
Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL F. BURKART, Chapter 7
Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 14-60009
BAP No. 13-1211
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Kurtz, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Nancy and Larry Tevis appeal pro se from a judgment of the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying their
motion to vacate an order approving a settlement agreement. 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
affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’
motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) because
appellants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that any alleged
misrepresentation produced a “fraud on the court.” United States v. Stonehill, 660
F.3d 415, 443-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party seeking to set aside a judgment on the
basis of fraud must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a fraud that
undermines the workings of the adversary process itself or prevents the judicial
process from functioning in the usual manner).
Appellants’ “request for judicial notice and motion for leave to file the [state
court] settlement transcripts under seal” is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
14-60009 2

-- 2 of 2 --