[00:00:00] Speaker 02: We have two spear cases. [00:00:02] Speaker 02: First, we're going to hear in-race spear EC25-1117. [00:00:08] Speaker 02: All right. [00:00:14] Speaker 02: So may I have the appearance for the appellant? [00:00:18] Speaker 02: And I think that there's no appellee on this matter. [00:00:21] Speaker 02: And that is the 1117, right? [00:00:25] Speaker 02: Yes, right? [00:00:26] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: OK. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: So let's have the appearance for the appellant. [00:00:29] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:30] Speaker 01: Nicholas Stoddard from the Law Office of James Aerosmith on behalf of Appellant Valerie Speier. [00:00:36] Speaker 02: All right. [00:00:36] Speaker 02: Since there's no one going to argue on the other side, you don't need to reserve time for rebuttal, so please begin. [00:00:44] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:00:48] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:50] Speaker 01: This appeal asks whether a deaf pro se litigant who was simultaneously defending a federal eviction action, one that could have placed her and her three minor children on the street, should be denied her day in court on non-dischargeability simply because she missed a procedural deadline, while overwhelmed by an extraordinary confluence of adversarial proceedings. [00:01:12] Speaker 01: We submit that the answer is no. [00:01:14] Speaker 01: and that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in dismissing AP25-02041. [00:01:19] Speaker 01: There are four main issues in this matter. [00:01:25] Speaker 01: The first is the central one, which is whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion. [00:01:30] Speaker 01: The dismissal was an abuse of discretion because the deadlines were missed not through neglect, but because she was simultaneously a pro se deaf litigant facing the trustee's adversarial proceeding. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: That's not this appeal. [00:01:48] Speaker 00: This appeal is the appeal of her adversary complaint to make non-dischargeable certain debts that were owed to her. [00:01:58] Speaker 01: Yes, apologies. [00:01:59] Speaker 01: She was simultaneously defending against another appeal, and so my point is the balance of whether the burden in this case favors the litigant or the appellant is strongly in her favor because of the simultaneous actions she was defending. [00:02:15] Speaker 01: So as a pro se litigant, the precise deadlines were running on both cases and she was handling both herself at the same time as a deaf litigant. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: The court must weigh whether that burden was unreasonably in her favor while defending against another action that could result in her homelessness, which took a substantial amount of her time. [00:02:36] Speaker 01: There are excusable neglect circumstances that are recognized under pioneer investment services. [00:02:43] Speaker 01: The four are danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the length of delay, the reason for delay, and good faith. [00:02:51] Speaker 02: Was that in your brief? [00:02:55] Speaker 01: I believe so. [00:02:56] Speaker 01: I did not prepare the brief personally. [00:02:58] Speaker 01: I am working with a co-counsel. [00:03:03] Speaker 01: So the first issue of whether there was prejudice, the opposing party suffered no prejudice or bocalan in this matter. [00:03:10] Speaker 01: The underlying merits were fully documented in the unlawful detainer trial record. [00:03:16] Speaker 01: Any delay was brief and attributable to the concurrent federal adversary proceeding. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: And the reason is compelling. [00:03:24] Speaker 01: Again, she was defending against two actions simultaneously while pro se. [00:03:30] Speaker 01: Again, she acted in good faith, she filed pro se briefs on her own behalf, and was an active litigant. [00:03:38] Speaker 01: While she missed the deadline, that single procedural failure should not be held against her when all of these factors are weighed. [00:03:46] Speaker 01: I'd also point out Valerie is deaf, and the ADA and due process requires a heightened scrutiny of dismissals in these cases. [00:03:53] Speaker 01: She navigated federal bankruptcy court, two adversary proceedings, two Board of Appeals without counsel, and dismissing her non-dischargeability complaint on procedural grounds wouldn't give her a meaningful consideration of her disability and the pro se status that raise concerns of due process. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: I would like to turn to the second issue as [00:04:22] Speaker 01: So the issue of fraud. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: Bocahlan is a licensed real estate agent and mortgage loan originator. [00:04:29] Speaker 01: He filed an unlawful detainer complaint falsely claiming that Valerie was his tenant, knowing that she was an equal co-owner for six years. [00:04:38] Speaker 01: He signed this fraudulent notice of termination of tenancy on December 27, 2023, knowing that no tenancy existed. [00:04:48] Speaker 01: He prosecuted the unlawful detainer through trial, and then under oath admitted that Valerie was an equal owner, that there was no rental agreement, and that she had never been a tenant. [00:04:58] Speaker 01: Every element of Section 523A2 fraud is established by Boekeland's own testimony. [00:05:05] Speaker 01: The debt therefore arising from that fraud is non-dischargeable. [00:05:12] Speaker 01: The third issue is the willful and malicious injury. [00:05:15] Speaker 01: Under kawahao, I believe that's kawahao, willful means a deliberate intentional injury. [00:05:23] Speaker 01: As evidenced by his own testimony at trial, Bokolyn's conduct was exactly that. [00:05:29] Speaker 01: He intentionally filed a fraudulent eviction action against his equal co-inner. [00:05:33] Speaker 01: He refused two separate buyout offers that would have resolved the dispute. [00:05:38] Speaker 01: He continued separate buyout [00:05:41] Speaker 01: He continued prosecuting the case through perjured testimony at trial, and when the evidence made the case indefensible, his own attorney withdrew under the state bar rules of professional conduct, without even consulting him. [00:05:56] Speaker 01: There was no just cause or excuse for filing an eviction action against the co-owner of eight years, who has three children, and the court order requiring those children to remain in the home, and not a single rental agreement was in existence. [00:06:10] Speaker 01: This conduct is squarely within the bounds of Section 523A6. [00:06:13] Speaker 01: I'd like to also touch on due process. [00:06:23] Speaker 01: I wanna make sure... [00:06:29] Speaker 01: Pardon me, just making sure I have all my notes here. [00:06:32] Speaker 01: Dismissing a non-dischargeability complaint against a deaf pro se litigant who was simultaneously defending federal eviction proceedings without counsel, without an interpreter, was fighting on two fronts at once, essentially denied her a meaningful opportunity to be heard. [00:06:49] Speaker 01: Section 105 exists precisely for results like this one. [00:06:54] Speaker 01: Essentially, the balance of interest, the balance of burdens, strongly weighs in Valerie's favor. [00:07:00] Speaker 01: Nikhar Bulkalin admitted under oath that Valerie Speer was an equal co-owner. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: His own attorney withdrew, and the bankruptcy court dismissed her claims on procedure without ever reaching the merits or the facts. [00:07:15] Speaker 01: Appellant respectfully requests that this court reverse the dismissal and demand for full adjudication of Valerie Speer's non-dischargeability claims, giving her her day in court, her due process, and ample consideration of the burdens that are at play here. [00:07:30] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:07:32] Speaker 02: Alright, is that the conclusion of your argument? [00:07:36] Speaker 01: Yes, I'll reserve or I'm yes conclude. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: Alright, very good. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: Thank you very much. [00:07:41] Speaker 02: This matter will be submitted and will get you a decision promptly. [00:07:47] Speaker 02: So let's let's move on to the next one.