
    In re Bill Martin PARKER, Debtor. Albert P. Wilcox, Appellant, v. Bill Martin Parker, Appellee.
    No. 12-60047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 9, 2013.
    
    Filed July 15, 2013.
    Andrew Steinfeld, San Francisco, CA, for Appellant.
    Richard C. Raines, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon and Armstrong, Danville, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Albert P. Wilcox appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that he was not entitled to the benefit of judicial estoppel in his pursuit of a fraud claim against Bill Martin Parker. We affirm.

The BAP’s opinion upholding the bankruptcy court’s decision is concise and persuasive. We, therefore, adopt its discussion and determination that on the facts of this case the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Wilcox v. Parker (In re Parker), 471 B.R. 570 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).
     
      
      . We review the BAP’s decision de novo. See Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2009). The bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are likewise reviewed de novo, and its "decision whether to invoke judicial estoppel is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Wolfe v. Jacobson (In re Jacobson), 676 F.3d 1193, 1198 (9th Cir.2012).
     
      
      . In his reply brief, Wilcox asserts that Parker commenced his bankruptcy action in bad faith. He did not raise that claim before the BAP or in his opening brief. We decline to consider it. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
     