be made together with a Motion to Reopen. At oral argument, Appellant conceded that he did not raise this issue with the Bankruptcy Court. He also conceded that he could have done so in his Motion to Vacate the Amended Application without prejudicing his claims because his Motion was filed after the 10-year period for renewing a judgment had run. “It is well established that issues or theories not properly raised or presented in the trial court may not be asserted on appeal, and will not be considered by an appellate tribunal. A party who fails to raise an issue in the trial court has therefore waived the right to do so on appeal.” In re Marriage of Eben-King & King, 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 117, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 (2000); Iliff v. Dustrud, 107 Cal.App.4th 1201, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 848 (2003) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Bankruptcy Court did
holding that appel lants argument regarding timeliness of appellees motion to set aside the renewal of judgment was waived because that argument was not raised in the trial court holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that district of columbia waived its argument that appellees were not entitled to an income tax credit by failing to assert the argument in the trial court holding that the appellees argument was waived because they had expressly abandoned the argument before the administrative agency