In re: JON W. CHAFFEE v. Jon W. Chaffee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JON W. CHAFFEE,
Debtor.
______________________________
B. CASEY YIM,
Appellant,
v.
JON W. CHAFFEE,
Appellee.
No. 17-60036
BAP No. 16-1241
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Faris, and Clement, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
B. Casey Yim appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of debtor Jon
* 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-60036
Chaffee in an adversary proceeding regarding the discharge of Yim’s claim. 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. Anastas v. Am. Sav. Bank (In re Anastas), 94 F.3d 1280, 1283 (9th
Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Yim failed to
demonstrate that his claim satisfied the elements for non-dischargeability under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). See id. (factual determinations of whether elements of §
523(a)(2)(A) are satisfied are reviewed for clear error); Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In re
Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010) (creditor has burden to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that § 523(a)(2)(A) elements are met).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening briefs, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --