
    In re Davinder KAUR, Debtor. Saherinder Kaur, Appellant, v. Davinder Kaur, Appellee.
    No. 11-60052.
    BAP No. 10-1398.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
    Saherinder Kaur, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Davinder Kaur, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Saherinder Kaur appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the .bankruptcy court’s judgment determining that chapter 7 debt- or Davinder Kaur’s obligation to Saherinder Kaur was dischargeable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Anastas v. Am. Sav. Bank (In re Anastas), 94 F.3d 1280, 1283 (9th Cir.1996). We review for clear error findings of fact, including a finding whether a requisite element of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) is present. Id. We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Davinder Kaur did not engage in misrepresentation or fraud, and therefore properly concluded that the obligation arising from a state court judgment was dischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (excepting from discharge debt obtained by false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud); id. § 523(a)(4) (excepting from discharge debt caused by the debtor’s fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (“[When a trial judge’s finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.”).

AFFIRMÉD. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     