NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HENDRIK J. DORSSERS; CONCEPT No. 13-35351
DORSSERS,
D.C. No. 2:11 cv-2077- BJR
Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JAMES F. RIGBY, JR., Trustee, solely in
his capacity as Chapter 7 trustee of the
bankruptcy estate of Michael R. Mastro,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: ALARCÓN, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hendrik Dorssers and Concept Dorssers (together, “Dorssers”) appeal the
district court’s decision affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court. The
district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), and we have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact
for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, Alexander v. Compton (In re
Bonham), 229 F.3d 750, 763 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
1. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the February
Note and Medina Deed of Trust were never consummated. See Willener v.
Sweeting, 730 P.2d 45, 49 (Wash. 1986). Likewise, the bankruptcy court did not
clearly err in discrediting Dorssers’ self-serving testimony that Dorssers held the
February Note, see Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir.
2010); in finding that Thomas Hazelrigg, III, was not Dorssers’ agent, see
Nordstrom Credit, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 845 P.2d 1331, 1335 (Wash. 1993); or
in finding that the payments Dorssers received related to the November Note, not
the February Note, see Willener, 730 P.2d at 49. In each instance, the bankruptcy
court’s findings were supported by Dorssers’ own testimony. The bankruptcy
court also did not err in concluding that the February Note and Medina Deed of
Trust were invalid sham transactions and avoidable fraudulent transfers.
2. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Dorssers failed
to establish a good faith defense under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c). See Figter Ltd. v.
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. (In re Figter Ltd.), 118 F.3d 635, 638 (9th
Cir. 1997). The bankruptcy court provided a lengthy list of objective, well-
-2-
supported reasons for finding that Dorssers lacked good faith. Dorssers’ contrary
arguments, which concern his subjective good faith in Michael Mastro, do not
undermine the bankruptcy court’s finding. See Hayes v. Palm Seedlings Partners-
A (In re Agric. Research & Tech. Grp., Inc.), 916 F.2d 528, 536 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
-3-