the bankruptcy court’s orders surcharging Law’s homestead exemption and imposing discovery sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its factual findings. Latman v. Burdette, 366 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions. Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, 322 F.3d 1133, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. The BAP properly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s surcharge motion because the surcharge was calculated to compensate the estate for the actual monetary costs imposed by the debtor’s misconduct, and was warranted to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process. See Latman, 366 F.3d at 786 (<HOLDING>); see also Onubah v. Zamora (In re Onubah), 375
holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code recognizing inherent power of bankruptcy courts to equitably surcharge a debtors exemption to protect integrity of the bankruptcy process and to ensure that debtor does not exempt amount greater than allowed under bankruptcy code holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power to sanction and affirming sanctions imposed by bankruptcy court against a nonparty