FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PAUL DEN BESTE and MELODY Nos. 12-60079
DEN BESTE, 12-60080
Debtors, BAP Nos. 12-1087
12-1180
PAUL DEN BESTE, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
MANDY POWER, DBA Judgment
Enforcement USA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Hollowell, Pappas, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In these consolidated appeals, Paul Den Beste, a chapter 7 debtor, appeals
pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying Den Beste’s motion to dismiss the adversary
proceeding and its post-trial decision that Den Beste was not entitled to a discharge
under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) and (a)(2)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard
of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New
Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
In appeal no. 12-60079, the bankruptcy court properly denied the debtors’
motion to dismiss because appellee had standing as a creditor to file an adversary
proceeding objecting to Den Beste’s discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 727(c)(1) (creditor
may object to discharge under § 727(a)).
In appeal no. 12-60080, the bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in
finding that the debtors knowingly and fraudulently made material false oaths
when they failed to disclose on their bankruptcy schedules numerous assets,
including their interests in vehicles, a family trust, and their lawn and garden
business, and thus it properly denied the debtors’ discharge under 11 U.S.C.
§ 727(a)(4)(A). See Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1197-99 (9th Cir.
2010) (requirements for denying debtor a discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A)).
2 12-60079, 12-60080
The bankruptcy court did not commit clear error in finding that the debtors’
behavior also concealed property of the estate with the intent to hinder, delay or
defraud a creditor, and hence properly denied the debtors’ discharge under 11
U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B). See In re Retz, 606 F.3d at 1200, 1203-04 (requirements for
denying debtor a discharge under § 727(a)(2)(B), giving great deference to
bankruptcy court’s determinations about the credibility of witnesses, and noting
that debtor’s chance for a fresh start is conditioned on full and truthful disclosure).
We reject as unsupported by the record Den Beste’s contentions that he was
denied due process.
Power’s motion to dismiss both appeals for failure to supply the excerpts of
record, set forth in her answering brief, is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.2.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-60079, 12-60080