[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
And for the record, the next is, again, Enri Bocahlan, EC25-1212.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
And if I may just check in with the interpreter, do I need to slow down?

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
Am I speaking too quickly for your services?

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
If he's a little bit, wouldn't hurt us.

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
I want to be conscious of that.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
All right, and it looks like we have no appellate participating in this one because looks like the trustee submitted on the brief.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
So again, Mr. Stoddard, you'll have your 15 minutes.

[00:00:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:44] Speaker 04:
If I could have just one moment.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
I'm having trouble.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
I want to make sure I have the correct notes pulled up before I.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
Okay, very good.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
Whenever you're ready, please begin.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:01:19] Speaker 04:
This appeal concerns whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the forced sale of a family home over the objection of a co-owner who purchased the property, paid its costs for years, and has a documented equitable ownership interest, all because legal title was placed solely in the debtor's name.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
The bankruptcy court's summary judgment failed to account for Valerie Spears' cognizable property rights.

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
She's not a stranger to this property.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
She's a co-owner.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
The first issue is whether the bankruptcy court erred in granting summary judgment.

[00:01:53] Speaker 04:
Essentially, summary judgment was improper because there were genuine disputes of material fact.

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
How did she present that?

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
Pardon?

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
How did she present the facts that she actually owned the residence?

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
Where did she supply the information to the trial court, to the bankruptcy court that suggested, other than her argument,

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
What did she have any evidence that she presented that suggested that that was true in response to the motion for summary judgment?

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
I believe that trial itself there was testimony.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
I read each of the briefs that she filed in the trial court.

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in any of them that supports any documents or any assertions of fact other than her conclusion that she was a co-owner.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
There is nothing in the record that supports any of these assertions.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
So I'm asking you, where do you find it?

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
I find it particularly in Boklan's admission that she was a co-owner.

[00:02:50] Speaker 03:
But that was not presented to the trial court in response to the motion for summary judgment.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
That I can't point to an individual.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
That's because it doesn't exist.

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
That's the problem with this appeal.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
She presented nothing.

[00:03:10] Speaker 03:
She made a bunch of conclusory allegations, and then she was upset that the court granted summary judgment for the trustee.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
But the trustee actually had facts.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
It had a deed.

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
It had other elements of these claims that it asserted documented.

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
The court went through it in its analysis and its decision.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
There was nothing presented by Ms.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
Spiers that refuted the trustee's allegations of fact.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
But Bocahlan's own admissions were that it was placed in error by fraudulent action, that this was a misrepresentation of the title, that he himself admitted that this was an unintentional result.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
Right, but he was the only one on the deed, is that correct?

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
So even if she had an equitable interest, a Chapter 7 trustee is going to take free of that as a bona fide purchaser under the bankruptcy code.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
Isn't that right?

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
Yes, although an equitable interest is not extinguished simply without legal title.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
There are laws that allow for trust or consecutive trust to rise out of property purchases.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
That's true in state court, but it's not effective as against a bankruptcy trustee.

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
Again, I would just point to Mr. Boklin's own admissions that she did have title and he admitted to that.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
In any case, summary judgment was premature, the record was incomplete, and the bankruptcy court ruled on record that legal title was in Boklan's name only, but this ignores the factual record of her equitable interest.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
Summary judgment was inappropriate because the non-moving party produced significant interest or at least a genuine dispute.

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
I believe that Mr. Boklan's testimony

[00:04:57] Speaker 04:
raised a genuine dispute.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
Even if he said that, I'll take as an article of faith that he actually said she was an equitable owner.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
But how is that binding as against a bankruptcy trustee who takes as a bona fide purchaser, regardless of what knowledge the debtor had about equitable interests?

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
Because the title was was encumbered by her equitable interest.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
I believe it.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
But that wasn't of record.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
And the trustee takes essentially what is of record under the bankruptcy code.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
I'll submit on that.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
In addition, the trustee moved under Section 363H.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
If she did have an ownership interest, the trustee only moved for authority to sell both her and Mr. Bocahlan's interest and reserve the proceeds to be determined at a later date if she could assert an equitable interest in the proceeds.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
There's nothing that's improper about that under the code, is there?

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
No, not strictly speaking.

[00:06:02] Speaker 04:
But again, her equitable interests should be analyzed and the merits weren't reached on whether that interest was actually established.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
The merits were not reached.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
The trustee reserved the issue and said that she has the right to come into court and approve that she has some kind of equitable claim.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
He just wants authority to sell.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
Nothing wrong with that.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
And she may have a claim and maybe an unsecured claim for whatever equitable rights that she has.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
That's not been decided against her at this point.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
If she has a claim, she can make her claim and to the extent that there's payment that reaches that class of creditors, she may receive a distribution on account of that claim.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
But it doesn't mean that the trustee can't take the property and sell it because the trustee takes based on

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
what the record is at the time.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
You can't establish an equitable right and property as against a bankruptcy trustee after the case has been filed.

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
Right, but the trustee may sell both the estate and the co-owner's interest in property, but there are factors under 363H that I believe are established in the record in Valerie's favor.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
Which would have precluded the sale?

[00:07:24] Speaker 03:
She didn't raise any factors.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
She didn't raise any argument other than this is a fraudulent bankruptcy case.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
The trustee is acting inappropriately.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
The trustee is not responding to my claims.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
But she's not presenting any facts or circumstances in opposition to anything that the trustee is asserting in motion for summary judgment.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
Well, I could turn to the rate of assistance which should have been issued for values property rights if I may speak to that issue

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
A writ of assistance authorizing a U.S.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
Marshal to forcibly remove Valerie from her home should not have been issued while her equitable ownership claim remained unresolved and at least on appeal.

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
The writ of assistance was an extreme remedy.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
It is an essential, in essence, a federal eviction order.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
Issuing it against a co-owner, which again by trial record she was, as opposed to a trespasser or a holdover tenant,

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
before full adjudication of that property owner's interest was an extraordinary step that demands a full developed record.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
The appeal itself demonstrates that the record is incomplete.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
The Board of Appeals denied the Trustee's motion to dismiss this appeal in February 2026, confirming that the appeal raises colourable issues.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
If the panel agrees that there are general disputes of material fact, then the writ of assistance was premature.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
And I would just point out that the hardship is irreversible.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
Once Valerie is removed from the property and it's sold, there's no one doing those actions.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
The weight of these burdens is strongly in her favor.

[00:09:03] Speaker 04:
The harm to Valerie, her children,

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
the children's school and stability cannot be remedied later by money alone.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
The equitable considerations weigh heavily against enforcement of the writ pending full resolution of our ownership rights.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
Again, there is a colorable question of fact which should be adjudicated fully.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
Lastly, I think we've discussed Boekelund's own admissions and conduct, which rises to fraud and misrepresentation, which undermines the claims or undermines certainly the appellants, mis-spears

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
efforts and ability to respond to the claims given that there was fraud apparent in the court at the time.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
She was fighting an uphill battle and at the time unable to fully litigate these issues.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
In closing, Valerie Speer, let me check my time, we have six minutes.

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
I'd like to point out that Valerie Speer co-purchased this home in 2028.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
She paid every bill since 2023.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
She raised her children there, and Bokalan admitted under oath that she is an equal owner.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
He signed a written agreement saying the title was recorded in his name only, and I quote, in error or by fraudulent action.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment without fully adjudicating these facts.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
Appellant respectfully request that this court reverse the summary judgment, vacate the writ of assistance, and remand for full adjudication of Valerie Spears' equitable ownership interest before any sale of her home.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
This matter will be submitted, and we will issue a decision promptly, Madam Clerk.