The following excerpt is from Murtaza v. Slaten (In re Murtaza), Adv. No. 8:14-ap-01199-TA, BAP No. CC-17-1153-SKuTa (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2018):
Citing Hultman v. Tevis, 82 F.2d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 1936), Murtaza argues on appeal that the bankruptcy court erred when it rejected her argument that, in making the errors and omissions,
Page 17
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.