FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: WILLIAM J. BEVERLY,  Debtor, No. 07-56133 STEPHANIE BEVERLY, BAP Nos. Appellant, CC-06-01250-KBN CC-06-01273-KBN v.  CC-06-01284-KBN EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ; CC-06-01449-KBN CATHERINE OUTLAND; SUSAN Central District OUTLAND GLEASON, individually of California, and as Administrator of the Estate Los Angeles of Christine Martell, Appellees. 

In re: WILLIAM J. BEVERLY,  Debtor, No. 07-56304 BAP Nos. CC-06-01250-KBN WILLIAM J. BEVERLY, LA 05-01254 TD Appellant, CC-06-01273-KBN v.  CC-06-01284-KBN EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ; CC-06-01449-KBN CATHERINE OUTLAND; SUSAN Central District OUTLAND GLEASON, individually of California, and as Administrator of the Estate Los Angeles of Christine Martell, ORDER Appellees. 

16695 16696 IN RE: BEVERLY Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Klein, Brandt, and Nielsen, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2008—Pasadena, California

Filed December 24, 2008

Before: Melvin Brunetti and Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judges, and Suzanne B. Conlon,* District Judge.

COUNSEL

Dennis E. McGoldrick, Torrance, California; Joshua D. Wayser, Locke, Lord, Bissell & Liddell, Los Angeles, Cali- fornia, for the appellants.

Douglas D. Kappler, Los Angeles, California; Sidney Lanier, Ayscough & Marar, Torrance, California, for the appellees.

ORDER

William Beverly appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s published decision denying him a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A). In re Beverly, 374 B.R. 221 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007). However, the Bankruptcy Court decision on the § 727 claims resolved only one of two consolidated cases and contained no Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification. Both the BAP and Bankruptcy Court § 727 decisions are interlocutory and we lack jurisdiction to consider the § 727 claims. In re Lievsay, 118 F.3d 661, 662 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam);

*The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. IN RE: BEVERLY 16697 Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1984); In re Mason, 709 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1983).

William and Stephanie Beverly also appeal the BAP’s reversal of the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of summary judg- ment in their favor in a related adversary proceeding. The BAP held that the Beverlys’ transfer of assets through a mari- tal settlement agreement was an avoidable transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04. The BAP also rejected the argument that our decision in Gill v. Stern (In re Stern), 345 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), allowed the transfer in this case. We have jurisdiction to consider the avoidance claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291 and adopt as our own the well-reasoned BAP opinion, In re Beverly, 374 B.R. 221.

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.