In re: SHEPARD JOHNSON and MONTE JOHNSON v. Ust - United States Trustee, Sacramento;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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: SHEPARD JOHNSON and MONTE
JOHNSON,
Debtors,
SHEPARD JOHNSON,
Appellant,
v.
UST - UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 10-60002
BAP No. 09-1188-JuMkMo
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Markell, and Montali, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Shepard Johnson appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-60002 2
Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving a
settlement agreement between the Chapter 7 trustee and the Solarte lot owners.
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.
Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its
discretion by approving the settlement agreement because the facts in the record
establish that the compromise was fair, reasonable, equitable, and adequate. See
Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986)
(approval of a compromise is not an abuse of discretion where the record contains
a factual foundation establishing that the compromise was fair, reasonable, and
adequate).
Johnson’s remaining contentions, including that the bankruptcy court failed
to make specific findings of fact, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --