In re: MELVA ATAYDE v. D. BRANDON FECO and LANE SCOTT YUDELL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MELVA ATAYDE,
Debtor,
MELVA ATAYDE,
Appellant,
v.
D. BRANDON FECO and LANE SCOTT
YUDELL,
Appellees.
No. 14-60000
BAP No. 12-1646
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Pappas, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

Melva Atayde appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision affirming
the bankruptcy court’s (1) calculation of actual damages arising from Lane Scott
Yudell’s violation of 11 U.S.C. § 110 by engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law; and (2) refusal to impute liability on Brandon Feco dba So. Cal. Properties
(“Feco”). As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not
recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.
We review de novo the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision and
independently review the bankruptcy court’s ruling. In re Am. Wagering, Inc., 493
F.3d 1067, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2007). We review the bankruptcy court’s
conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In re JTS Corp.,
617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010).
1. The bankruptcy court did not err in calculating the damages awarded to
Atayde. The court found that Yudell violated 11 U.S.C. § 110 by engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law, but concluded that Yudell’s conduct did not cause
Atayde to lose her residence. Rather, as the bankruptcy court found, it was
Atayde’s inaction, rather than Yudell’s actions, that caused Atayde’s alleged
damages. Atayde—who filled out the bankruptcy petition paperwork herself—was
warned multiple times by the bankruptcy court to correct her deficient and
2

-- 2 of 4 --

incomplete filing or her case would be dismissed. Despite these warnings, Atayde
neglected to respond to any of the notices or correct and complete her petition. Her
failure to correct her filing resulted in the dismissal of her case.
Even assuming Yudell’s violation of § 110 caused the dismissal of Atayde’s
bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court found that Atayde still would have been
unable to keep her residence because, among other reasons, she could not fund a
chapter 13 bankruptcy plan as her job was ending and she did not have a steady
source of income. Atayde contends that the bankruptcy court could not have
determined that she lacked a regular source of income because she worked after
losing her job. But, Atayde provided no further evidence, such as pay stubs or
bank statements, of regular employment. Based on these facts, the bankruptcy
court did not clearly err in determining that Atayde did not have a regular income
to fund a chapter 13 plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) (only an “individual with regular
income” may be a debtor for chapter 13 purposes); 11 U.S.C. § 101(30) (defining
an “individual with regular income” as an “individual whose income is sufficiently
stable and regular to enable such individual to make payments under a plan under
chapter 13 of this title, other than a stockbroker or a commodity broker”).
Finally, Atayde argues that the “actual damages” she is owed pursuant to
§ 110(i)(1)(A) should include the equity in her residence. However, Atayde failed
3

-- 3 of 4 --

to provide adequate evidence that the property would be worth more than the
amounts owed against it—including the outstanding deeds of trust, unpaid taxes,
and various liens.1 Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Atayde
failed to establish actual damages beyond the $300 bankruptcy petition filing fee.
2. Yudell has already paid Atayde the damages and attorney’s fees ordered
by the bankruptcy court. Because there are no unresolved issues of damages and
the judgment has been satisfied, the question of whether Feco is jointly liable is
moot.
AFFIRMED.
1 Atayde incorrectly contends that the bankruptcy court erroneously rejected
her opinion of the value of her residence. The bankruptcy court evaluated
Atayde’s testimony and found it not credible in light of the other documentary
evidence contradicting her testimony, and unsupported by any other evidence.
4

-- 4 of 4 --