In re: ERLING S. CALKINS; ELAINE S. CALKINS v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, Trustee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ERLING S. CALKINS; ELAINE S.
CALKINS,
Debtors,
------------------------------
ERLING S. CALKINS,
Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISTS, Trustee,
Appellee.
No. 20-60033
BAP No. 19-1156
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Spraker, Taylor, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2021**
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Erling S. Calkins appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order confirming an arbitration award
and enforcing Calkins’ 2016 settlement with the Southern California Conference of
Seventh-Day Adventists (“SCC”). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly confirmed the arbitration award because
Calkins did not show there were grounds for vacating it. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 12-3023(A); Johnson v. Gruma Corp., 614 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2010).
Calkins and SCC settled all issues between them, including probate issues, except
those specifically reserved for arbitration in the 2016 settlement agreement. See
Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 854 P.2d 1134, 1138–39 (Ariz. 1993) (en
banc); Provident Nat’l Assurance Co. v. Sbrocca, 885 P.2d 152, 153–54 (Ariz. Ct.
App. 1994). Calkins’ argument that the arbitrator decided that unspecified probate
issues should be referred to California probate court for further proceedings is both
waived and unsupported by the record. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052
(9th Cir. 1999); Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996). The
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

arbitrator did not exceed his authority by deviating from the 2016 settlement
agreement; rather, he dealt with all issues and entered all relief required by the
agreement.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --