`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`APR 27 2022
`
`SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK
`U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL
`OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
`OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`In re:
`DEAN M. HARRIS,
`
`
`
`Debtor.
`
`DEAN M. HARRIS,
`
`
`
`Appellant,
`v.
`CRYSTAL HOLMES,
`
`
`
`Appellee.
`
`BAP No. CC-21-1128-FLG
`
`
`
`
`Bk. No.
`2:21-bk-10152-ER
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
`for the Central District of California
`Ernest M. Robles, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding
`
`
`
`
`Before: FARIS, LAFFERTY,** and GAN, Bankruptcy Judges.
`
`Rosalina Harris is a detective in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
`
`
`
`Department. She had a long-running dispute with her neighbor, appellee
`
`Crystal Holmes. She abused her position as a law enforcement officer to
`
`
`* 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.
`
`** Judge Taylor originally heard oral argument in this case. Before the Panel
`rendered its decision, Judge Lafferty replaced Judge Taylor on the Panel. Judge Lafferty
`has reviewed the oral argument, the parties’ filings, and the record on appeal. Judge
`Taylor did not participate in this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`cause the wrongful arrest of Ms. Holmes. A district court jury found that
`
`Detective Harris had violated Ms. Holmes’ civil rights and awarded more
`
`than $3 million in damages, including $1.5 million of punitive damages.
`
`
`
`Ms. Holmes took steps in the district court to enforce her judgment
`
`against the Harrises’ property. Hoping to stymie this effort, Detective
`
`Harris and her husband, chapter 71 debtor Dean M. Harris, filed successive
`
`bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy court dismissed Detective Harris’ case
`
`and granted relief from the automatic stay in Mr. Harris’ case to allow the
`
`district court to decide Ms. Holmes’ motion to sell the Harrises’ property.
`
`
`
`The district court held that Mr. Harris was not entitled to the
`
`California homestead exemption and allowed the sale of the residence.
`
`Ms. Holmes was the successful bidder at auction. The Harrises appealed
`
`the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit.
`
`
`
`In the meantime, Mr. Harris also claimed a homestead exemption in
`
`his bankruptcy case. Ms. Holmes objected, arguing that the district court
`
`had already decided that Mr. Harris could not claim the homestead
`
`exemption. The bankruptcy court agreed. Mr. Harris appealed the
`
`bankruptcy court’s order to this Panel.
`
`
`
`The Ninth Circuit has recently affirmed the district court’s order. The
`
`Ninth Circuit ruled that the Harrises had failed to establish that they were
`
`entitled to any homestead exemption and rejected the Harrises’ arguments
`
`1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the
`Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`based on § 522. Holmes v. Harris, Case No. 21-55330, 2022 WL 1198204 (9th
`
`Cir. Apr. 22, 2022).
`
`
`
`The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s order effectively
`
`rejects all of Mr. Harris’ objections to the bankruptcy court’s order. We
`
`could not grant any of the relief that Mr. Harris requests without
`
`contradicting the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Therefore, we AFFIRM.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
