In the Matter of: SELKIRK DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. William J. Griffin; Brenda G. Griffin

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: SELKIRK
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Debtor.
------------------------------
SELKIRK DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM J. GRIFFIN; BRENDA G.
GRIFFIN,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 00-35982
D.C. No. CV-99-00156-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
In the Matter of: SELKIRK
DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Debtor.
------------------------------
WILLIAM J. GRIFFIN; BRENDA G.
GRIFFIN,
No. 01-35017
D.C. No. CV-99-00180-DWM
FILED
JUL 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Appellants,
v.
SELKIRK DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Debtor Selkirk Development, L.L.C., a real estate company, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unclear about the ownership rights to two properties,
Debtor initiated an adversary proceeding against the Griffins to quiet title. The
bankruptcy court quieted title in Debtor and then, in a separate order, confirmed
the bankruptcy plan. The Griffins timely appealed both orders to the district court,
which affirmed, and in turn timely appealed both orders to this court.
In case No. 01-35017, we dismiss for failure to prosecute the appeal. The
Griffins’ briefing contains no argument pertaining to confirmation of the plan.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
In case No. 00-35982, we review de novo the bankruptcy court’s
conclusions of law and review for clear error its factual findings. USAA Fed. Sav.
Bank v. Thacker (In re Taylor), 599 F.3d 880, 887 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court permissibly told the parties that it would make its
factual findings on the existing record if the parties failed to meet the court’s
second deadline for submitting information. The Griffins failed to meet that
deadline and failed to ask for more time within which to do so, and they did not
submit their accountant’s deposition to the court. Considering the record then
before it, the court held that the Griffins had been paid in full under each of their
agreements with Selkirk and its predecessors for the purchase and sale of the real
property in question. Even if the court made findings that are imperfect, as the
Griffins argue, a failure to comply with the specificity requirement of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 52(a) (adopted pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052) does not
automatically require reversal. FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d
1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2004). We understand the bankruptcy court simply to have
held that the Griffins failed to meet their burden to establish that any amount
remained owing after some payments, reflected in the record, had been made. That
being so, any Rule 52(a) error does not require reversal.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Finally, the judgment of the bankruptcy court, quieting title in Debtor, was
not a sanction. Instead, the court closed the record pursuant to its earlier case-
management orders and then made a decision on the merits, grounded on the
existing record.
In No. 01-35017, appeal DISMISSED.
In No. 00-35982, AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --