United States v. 2024-02-21 | 23-60012 | IN RE: ALAN LAU, ET AL V. RUSSELL PRIOR | nonprecedential |…

1 23-60012
ALAN GENE LAU & AMBER
WADDELL LAU,
Debtor.
ALAN GENE LAU & AMBER
WADDELL LAU
Appellants,
v.
RUSSELL PRIOR & CHERYL PRIOR
Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-60012
BAP No. CC-22-1087
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
Submitted February 16, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Appellants Alan Gene Lau and Amber Waddell Lau (“the Laus”) appeal the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment affirming a Central District of California
* 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 21 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-60012
Bankruptcy Court (“court”) finding of a $135,000 nondischargeable debt under 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). This debt is owed to Russell Prior and Cheryl Prior
(“Appellees” or “the Priors”) and arises from Alan Lau’s fraud in failing to disclose
structural and foundation defects in a house (“Property”) he sold Appellees. As the
parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 158, and we affirm.
The Laus assert the court erred in the determination of damages. California
Civil Code § 3343(a) provides: “One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of
property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with
which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received,
together with any additional damage arising from the particular transaction . . . .”
Here, based on a historical appraisal, the court determined the actual value the Priors
received in purchasing the Property was $455,000. Because the Priors had paid the
Laus $590,000, the amount specified by section 3343(a) was $135,000. We review
this factual finding for clear error. In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc., 957 F.3d 990, 995 (9th
Cir. 2020).
Given the evidence of concerns related to the Property’s foundation in 2016,
and the Laus’ failure to offer evidence contradicting the appraisal’s assumptions, it
was not clear error for the court to accept the appraisal’s $455,000 valuation and its
reliance on Foundation Tech’s 2017 estimate as part of its determination. Nor did

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-60012
the court clearly err in applying the measure of damages specified by section
3343(a), rather than looking to the discount from the Priors’ asking price in their
2020 sale of the Property.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --