Young Kim v. Julia Riihimaki ( 2019 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 15 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: YOUNG HUI KIM, No. 17-60088
Debtor, BAP No. 17-1066
______________________________
YOUNG HUI KIM; GLORY OF GOD MEMORANDUM*
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; PACIFIC
EAGLE REALTY, LLC,
Appellants,
v.
JULIA RIIHIMAKI,
Appellee.
In re: YOUNG HUI KIM, No. 17-60089
Debtor, BAP No. 17-1137
------------------------------
YOUNG HUI KIM; GLORY OF GOD
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH; PACIFIC
EAGLE REALTY, LLC,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appellants,
v.
JULIA RIIHIMAKI,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2019**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Young Hui Kim appeals the bankruptcy court’s orders, affirmed by the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, granting Julia Riihimaki’s motion to enforce
settlement and motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm.
1. We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error. In re Lee,
889 F.3d 639, 644 (9th Cir. 2018). The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in
finding that Kim ratified the accepted counteroffer. See McDonnell v. Pennington,
40 Haw. 265, 268 (Haw. 1953) (ratification is a question of fact).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 605-7, an attorney may only
settle a case with the client’s written authorization. However, “a settlement will be
treated as binding even in the absence of the express written consent of the client
where the client ratifies the settlement.” Cook v. Surety Life Ins., Co., 903 P.2d
708, 716 (Haw. Ct. App. 1995); see also McKeague v. Freitas, 40 Haw. 108, 113
(1953). “[R]atification may be express or it may be implied . . . depend[ing] on the
facts of each particular case. Any failure on the part of the client to object to an
unauthorized act within a reasonable time after becoming aware of it will be
construed as a ratification of it.” Scott v. Pilipo, 25 Haw. 386, 390 (1920) (quoting
6 Corpus Juris 670 (William Mack & William Benjamin Hale eds., 1916)).
The bankruptcy court found that Kim understood the terms of the
counteroffer and orally authorized her attorney to accept it. The bankruptcy court
also found that Kim met with her attorney on multiple occasions after the
acceptance and discussed the accepted counteroffer but did not object within a
reasonable time. Testimony in the record supports the bankruptcy court’s finding
that, “[g]iven her knowledge of and acquiescence in the ongoing settlement
discussions and of the efforts that the attorneys were expending to negotiate and
document the settlement, [Kim] waited an unreasonably long time to raise her
3
objections.” Thus, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Kim
ratified the accepted counteroffer.
2. The bankruptcy court also did not err when it determined that Riihimaki was
the prevailing party, because she won the disputed main issue—whether there was
an enforceable settlement. See In re Hoopai, 581 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009).
Thus, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees
to Riihimaki pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 607-14. Id. at 1095.
AFFIRMED.
4