NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: GLORIA DEAN WELLS, No. 17-60079
Debtor. BAP No. 16-1319
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL GRIFFITH,
Appellant,
v.
GLORIA DEAN WELLS,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Lafferty, Spraker, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Griffith appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s
motion to avoid Griffith’s judgment lien. 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 review de
novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of
fact. Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010).
We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly granted the debtor’s motion to avoid
Griffith’s judgment lien because the debtor satisfied the requirements of 11 U.S.C.
§ 522(f) and the bankruptcy court’s factual finding regarding the fair market value
of the debtor’s property was supported by evidence in the record. See Culver, LLC
v. Chiu (In re Chiu), 304 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing conditions for
lien avoidance under § 522(f)); Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States (In re
Arnold & Baker Farms), 85 F.3d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1996) (the value of land is a
finding of fact reviewed for clear error); see also United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d
710, 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence,
the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 17-60079
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal, including Griffith’s contentions regarding his right to due process that he
did not raise in the bankruptcy court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009).
Griffith’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 12 and 23) are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-60079