
    Susan Marie GRAY, Patricia J. McNerney, Appellants, v. RESCAP BORROWER CLAIMS TRUST, Appellee, In re Residential Capital, LLC, Debtor.
    
    17-20-bk
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    December 12, 2017
    FOR APPELLANTS: Susan M. Gray, Rocky River, OH.
    FOR APPELLEE: Jordan A. Wishnew (Norman S. Rosenbaum, on the brief), Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: José A. Cabranes, Debra A. Livingston, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges,
    
      
      . The Clerk' of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

BACKGROUND

Appellants Patricia McNerney and Susan Gray (an attorney proceeding pro se) appeal from the district court’s judgment affirming a bankruptcy court ruling that disallowed their proofs of claim against Debtors Homecomings Financial LLC (“Homecomings”) and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. Homecomings filed a foreclosure action against McNerney. McNerney’s bankruptcy proofs of claim were based on counter-claims she had asserted in that action, and Gray’s proofs of claim sought attorney’s fees incurred defending McNerney in that action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

DISCUSSION

We conduct a plenary review of bankruptcy appeals, assessing the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In re N. New England Tel. Operations LLC, 795 F.3d 343, 346 (2d Cir. 2015). Discretionary rulings of a bankruptcy court are reviewed for “abuse of discretion.” In re Dana Corp., 574 F.3d 129, 145 (2d Cir. 2009). See generally In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining the term of art “abuse of discretion”).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decision.

In support of their claim asserted under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345 et seq., (“CSPA”), McNerney and Gray rely, for the first time, on a case interpreting the CSPA’s 2007 amendments. However, this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, and we therefore decline to consider it. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86, 96 (2d Cir. 2016). And even if we were to consider it, McNerney and Gray have failed to draw our attention to any case or other authority holding that the conduct alleged here is both a “consumer transaction” and a “deceptive act” under the statute. Ohio Ann. Rev. Code §§ 1345.01, 1345.02.

CONCLUSION

We have considered McNerney’s and Gray’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.  