In re: WARREN CHARLES BODEKER, ROXSANNA RYAN, the personal representative of the… v. CHRISTY L. BRANDON, Trustee-Appellee. No. 15-35212 D.C. No. 9:14-cv-00195-BMM…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WARREN CHARLES BODEKER,
______________________________
ROXSANNA RYAN, the personal
representative of the Estate of Warren
Charles Bodeker,
Debtor-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTY L. BRANDON,
Trustee-Appellee.
No. 15-35212
D.C. No. 9:14-cv-00195-BMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief
District Judge.**
FILED
APR 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court’s reversal of the
bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker’s motion to
rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a
stipulation. We affirm.
First, Law v. Siegel is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this
case because no court equitably surcharged Bodeker’s homestead. See 134 S. Ct.
1188, 1194S97 (2014). Even if Siegel applied, a subsequent change in law
generally does not provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. In re
Marriage of Grace, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191S92 (Mont. 1982); see also Jeff D. v.
Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “enforcement of
settlement agreements [is] governed by principles of local law”).
Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in
favor of a creditor with an “unsecured claim.” Trustee-Appellee Christy L.
Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any
incidental benefit to Bodeker’s creditors as a result of the stipulation does not
render § 522(e) applicable to this case.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --