Opinion
No. 15-35212
04-25-2017
In re: WARREN CHARLES BODEKER, ROXSANNA RYAN, the personal representative of the Estate of Warren Charles Bodeker, Debtor-Appellant, v. CHRISTY L. BRANDON, Trustee-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 9:14-cv-00195-BMM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 5, 2017 Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. --------
Appellant Roxsanna Ryan appeals the district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court order granting Debtor Warren Charles Bodeker's motion to rescind his waiver of a homestead exemption which Bodeker agreed to as part of a stipulation. We affirm.
First, Law v. Siegel is not a subsequent change in the law applicable to this case because no court equitably surcharged Bodeker's homestead. See 134 S. Ct. 1188, 1194-97 (2014). Even if Siegel applied, a subsequent change in law generally does not provide a basis for a party to rescind a stipulation. In re Marriage of Grace, 643 P.2d 1188, 1191-92 (Mont. 1982); see also Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that "enforcement of settlement agreements [is] governed by principles of local law").
Second, 11 U.S.C. § 522(e) only applies to the waiver of an exemption in favor of a creditor with an "unsecured claim." Trustee-Appellee Christy L. Brandon is neither an unsecured creditor nor holds an unsecured claim. Any incidental benefit to Bodeker's creditors as a result of the stipulation does not render § 522(e) applicable to this case.
AFFIRMED.