United States v. 2008-12-24 | 07-56133 | BEVERLY V. WOLKOWITZ | precedential | opinion |

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 In re: WILLIAM J. BEVERLY,
Debtor,
No. 07-56133
BAP Nos. STEPHANIE BEVERLY, CC-06-01250-KBN Appellant, CC-06-01273-KBN
v.  CC-06-01284-KBN
CC-06-01449-KBN EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ;
Central District CATHERINE OUTLAND; SUSAN
of California, OUTLAND GLEASON, individually
Los Angeles and as Administrator of the Estate
of Christine Martell,
Appellees. 
 In re: WILLIAM J. BEVERLY, No. 07-56304 Debtor,
BAP Nos.
CC-06-01250-KBN
WILLIAM J. BEVERLY, LA 05-01254 TD
Appellant, CC-06-01273-KBN
v. CC-06-01284-KBN  CC-06-01449-KBN EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ; Central District CATHERINE OUTLAND; SUSAN
of California, OUTLAND GLEASON, individually Los Angeles and as Administrator of the Estate
of Christine Martell, ORDER
Appellees. 
16695

-- 1 of 4 --

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Klein, Brandt, and Nielsen, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
December 10, 2008—Pasadena, California
Filed December 24, 2008
Before: Melvin Brunetti and Barry G. Silverman,
Circuit Judges, and Suzanne B. Conlon,* District Judge.
COUNSEL
Dennis E. McGoldrick, Torrance, California; Joshua D.
Wayser, Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, for the appellants.
Douglas D. Kappler, Los Angeles, California; Sidney Lanier,
Ayscough & Marar, Torrance, California, for the appellees.
ORDER
William Beverly appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
published decision denying him a discharge pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A). In re Beverly, 374 B.R. 221 (B.A.P.
9th Cir. 2007). However, the Bankruptcy Court decision on
the § 727 claims resolved only one of two consolidated cases
and contained no Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification. Both the
BAP and Bankruptcy Court § 727 decisions are interlocutory
and we lack jurisdiction to consider the § 727 claims. In re
Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661, 662 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);
*The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
16696 IN RE: BEVERLY

-- 2 of 4 --

Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1984); In re
Mason, 709 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1983).
William and Stephanie Beverly also appeal the BAP’s
reversal of the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of summary judg-
ment in their favor in a related adversary proceeding. The
BAP held that the Beverlys’ transfer of assets through a mari-
tal settlement agreement was an avoidable transfer pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04. The BAP
also rejected the argument that our decision in Gill v. Stern (In
re Stern), 345 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), allowed the transfer
in this case. We have jurisdiction to consider the avoidance
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291 and adopt
as our own the well-reasoned BAP opinion, In re Beverly, 374
B.R. 221.
AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.
16697 IN RE: BEVERLY

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

-- 4 of 4 --