NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MARIA VISTA ESTATES, No. 17-60027
Debtor, BAP No. 16-1111
______________________________
ERIK BENHAM, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
MI NIPOMO, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; COSTA PACIFICA
ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a California corporation,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Novack, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Erik Benham appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment dismissing Maria
Vista Estates (“MVE”) quiet title action. 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. Anastas v. Am. Sav.
Bank (In re Anastas), 94 F.3d 1280, 1283 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly concluded that MVE failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that it has standing to bring a quiet title action against appellees.
See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (all legal interests of debtor become property of the
estate upon commencement of a bankruptcy proceeding); see also 11 U.S.C. § 554
(methods by which the property in a debtor’s estate can be abandoned); Sierra
Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 789 F.2d 705, 709-10 (9th Cir.
1986) (no abandonment without notice to creditors).
We reject as without merit Benham’s contentions regarding the bankruptcy
court’s denial of MVE’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and evidence.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-60027