In re: Bruce Chadbourne ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    NOV 5 2020
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK
    U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL
    OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
    OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re:                                               BAP No. NC-19-1218-GFB
    BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
    Debtor.                                  Bk. No. 1:19-bk-10346-DM
    BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
    Appellant,
    v.                                                   MEMORANDUM*
    WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
    ASSOCIATION, as trustee for MFRA
    Trust 2014-2,
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Dennis Montali, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
    Before: GAN, FARIS, and BRAND, Bankruptcy Judges.
    Chapter 131 debtor Bruce Chadbourne (“Debtor”) appeals the
    bankruptcy court’s order granting in rem stay relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4),
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for
    whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential
    value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1.
    1
    Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the
    Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
    and the order denying Debtor’s motion for reconsideration.
    Debtor has not provided a transcript of the stay relief hearing to
    permit the Panel to make an informed review of the bankruptcy court’s
    decision. An appellant’s failure to provide necessary transcripts is cause to
    dismiss the appeal. Hall v. Whitley, 
    935 F.2d 164
    , 165 (9th Cir. 1991); Kyle v.
    Dye (In re Kyle), 
    317 B.R. 390
    , 393 (9th Cir. BAP 2004). We have discretion to
    disregard such a failure and decide the appeal on the merits if informed
    review is possible. In re 
    Kyle, 317 B.R. at 393
    . But, without a transcript of the
    hearing, we are unable to evaluate the basis of the bankruptcy court’s
    decision to determine whether it erred in granting the relief.
    Additionally, Debtor makes no argument in his opening brief
    relevant to either relief under § 362(d)(4) or the motion for reconsideration,
    and has therefore waived the issues. Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052
    (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.
    2