In re: BRET JAMES HAMEL v. LINDA LALLISS, FKA Linda Hamel

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BRET JAMES HAMEL,
Debtor,
JAMES HAMEL; et al.,
Appellants,
v.
LINDA LALLISS, FKA Linda Hamel,
Appellee.
No. 09-60025
BAP No. AZ-08-1290-PaDJu
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Dunn, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,** District
Judge.
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

1 Nor have the Parents included the transcripts in the record before us.
2
Diane and James Hamel (“Parents”) commenced an adversary proceeding in
the bankruptcy case of their son, Debtor Bret James Hamel. Naming Hamel’s ex-
wife Linda Lalliss as Defendant, the Parents sought turnover of property that they
claimed they had purchased in an earlier order of sale. The bankruptcy court
granted summary judgment to Lalliss. In their record on appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), the Parents did not include transcripts
of the hearings in which the bankruptcy court interpreted its earlier orders. 1 The
BAP summarily affirmed, reasoning that the missing transcripts were necessary for
proper appellate review. See 9th Cir. BAP R. 8006-1 (“The excerpts of the record
shall include the transcripts necessary for adequate review . . . .”). We review for
abuse of discretion the BAP’s decision to summarily affirm for non-compliance
with procedural requirements. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d
1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Parents argue that the transcripts were unnecessary for the BAP’s
decision because the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment was subject to de novo
review. But while the bankruptcy court’s ultimate ruling is subject to de novo
review, its interpretation of its earlier order of sale is owed some deference. Cf.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr. v. L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115,
1119 (9th Cir. 2009) (although a district court’s ultimate interpretation of a consent
decree is reviewed de novo, the court of appeals gives deference based on the
district court’s oversight of and experience with the decree).
The Parents also argue that deference is unnecessary because the order of
sale is unambiguous. Even if the order of sale might be unambiguous in isolation,
it is ambiguous in context. We cannot be sure what property was included in the
order of sale. A later order that abandoned property to Hamel and Lalliss appears
to abandon any interest in the residence, whether exempt or not, and all household
goods, whether exempt or not. If, as the Parents claim, the order of sale transferred
to them the nonexempt equity in the residence and the nonexempt portion of the
household goods, the estate could not have later abandoned any nonexempt interest
in the residence or household goods. Thus, reading the order of sale and the
abandonment order together, it is not clear whether the order of sale was intended
to sell the estate’s interest in the residence and household goods to the Parents. In
this circumstance, the bankruptcy court was in a much better position than the BAP
(or we) to determine what property the order of sale covered.
Because the BAP owed deference to the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of
its own orders, ascertaining that interpretation was essential to its appellate review.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Without the missing transcripts, which the Parents concede they could have
ordered, it was impossible to understand how the bankruptcy court interpreted its
orders and why. For that reason, “the inadequacy of the record . . . afforded the
BAP little choice but to affirm summarily.” Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1191. The
BAP did not abuse its discretion in characterizing the omission of the transcripts as
egregious and declining to consider alternative sanctions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --