in re: gennady tikhonov and albina tikhonov, 9th cir. bap (2012)

7/25/2019 In re: Gennady Tikhonov and Albina Tikhonov, 9th Cir. BAP (2012)

1/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*Thi s di sposi t i on i s not appr opr i at e f or publ i cat i on.Al t hough i t may be ci t ed f or what ever per suasi ve val ue i t mayhave ( see Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1) , i t has no pr ecedent i al val ue.See 9t h Ci r . BAP Rul e 8013- 1.

**By order ent ered Oct ober 10, 2012, t hi s appeal was deemedsui t abl e f or submi ssi on wi t hout or al ar gument .

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

I n r e: ) BAP No. CC- 11- 1698- MkBePa)

GENNADY TI KHONOV and ) Bk. No. SV 1115614- MTALBI NA TI KHONOV, )

)Debt or s. )

______________________________))

GENNADY TI KHONOV; )ALBI NA TI KHONOV, )

)

Appel l ant s, ))v. ) MEMORANDUM*

)THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON )TRUST CO. , N. A. , )

)Appel l ee. )

______________________________)

Submi t t ed Wi t hout Or al Ar gumenton November 15, 2012**

Fi l ed December 14, 2012Appeal f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Bankrupt cy Cour t

f or t he Cent r al Di str i ct of Cal i f or ni a

Honorabl e Maur een Ti ghe, Bankr upt cy J udge, Presi di ng

Appear ances: Appel l ant s Gennady and Al bi na Ti khonov pr o se onbr i ef ; Ber nar d J . Kor nber g, Adam N. Bar asch andJ an T. Chi l t on of Sever son & Wer son on br i ef f orappel l ee The Bank of New Yor k Mel l on Trust Co. ,N. A.

FILED

DEC 14 2012

SUSAN M SPRAUL, CLERKU.S. BKCY. APP. PANELOF THE NINTH CIRCUIT


2/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

** *Hon. Br uce T. Beesl ey, Uni t ed St ates Bankrupt cy J udge f ort he Di st r i ct of Nevada, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.

1Unl ess speci f i ed ot her wi se, al l chapt er and sect i onr ef er ences are t o t he Bankrupt cy Code, 11 U. S. C. 101- 1532, andal l Rul e r ef er ences ar e t o t he Feder al Rul es of Bankrupt cyPr ocedur e, Rul es 1001- 9037. Al l Ci vi l Rul e ref er ences ar e t ot he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e.

2

Bef or e: MARKELL, BEESLEY** * and PAPPAS, Bankr upt cy J udges.

INTRODUCTION

Gennady and Al bi na Ti khonov ( Debt ors) appeal f r omabankrupt cy cour t or der gr ant i ng r el i ef f r om st ay under 11 U. S. C.

362( d) ( 1) 1 t o the Bank of New Yor k Mel l on Tr ust Co. , N. A. ,

f ormer l y known as t he Bank of New Yor k Trust ( BONY) . We hol d

t hat t he appel l ant s l ack st andi ng, and t hus we DI SMI SS t hi s

appeal . Even i f t he appel l ant s had st andi ng, however , we woul d

AFFI RM.

FACTS

A. The parties, the debt and the encumbered property

The f ol l owi ng f act s r ef l ect t hi s Panel s under st andi ng of

t he key pl ayers, t he debt i ncurr ed and t he encumbr ances agai nst

t he r el evant par cel of r eal pr oper t y: a si ngl e- f ami l y r esi dence

l ocat ed i n Sher man Oaks, Cal i f or ni a ( Resi dence) . For t he most

par t , we have dr awn t hese f act s f r om t he var i ous deeds, not es andot her t r ansact i on document s of f er ed as exhi bi t s by t he par t i es.

Nei t her par t y has at t empt ed t o chal l enge the aut hent i ci t y of

t hese document s, or t he pr opr i et y of our consi der i ng t hem. Whi l e

t he par t i es r espect i ve st at ement s of f act f ocus on di f f er ent

par t s of t he r ecor d, nei t her ef f ect i vel y has chal l enged t he


3/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

exi st ence or t he basi c nat ur e of t he real est at e and l endi ng

t r ansact i ons l eadi ng up t o thei r di sput e.

On or about Apr i l 6, 2006, a man named Leoni d Ovsovi ch

( Ovsovi ch) owned t he Resi dence. On t hat date, he borr owedr oughl y $1 mi l l i on f r om Mor t gagei t , I nc. ( Mor t gagei t ) . I n

exchange f or t he l oan, Ovsovi ch execut ed an Adj ust abl e Rate Note

( Not e) and a Deed of Tr ust ( Fi r st Tr ust Deed) , bot h dat ed

Apr i l 6, 2006.

The Fi r st Tr ust Deed was r ecor ded on Apr i l 18, 2006, i n t he

Of f i ci al Recor ds of Los Angel es Count y, as i nst r ument number

06- 0841080. The Fi r st Tr ust Deed i dent i f i ed Ovsovi ch as t he

bor r ower , Mor t gagei t as t he l ender , and Mor t gage El ect r oni c

Regi st r at i on Syst ems, I nc. or MERS as t he benef i ci ar y, but

sol el y as nomi nee f or Lender and Lender s successors and

assi gns. The Fi r st Tr ust Deed el sewher e r ei t er at ed t hat MERS

i s a separ at e cor por at i on t hat i s act i ng sol el y as a nomi nee f or

Lender and Lender s successor s and assi gns. MERS i s t hebenef i ci ar y under t hi s Secur i t y I nst r ument . Under t he Fi r st

Tr ust Deed, Ovsovi ch acknowl edged hi s under st andi ng and

agr eement , on t he one hand, t hat MERS onl y hel d a l egal i nt erest

t o t he pr oper t y descr i bed under t he Fi r st Tr ust Deed, and on t he

ot her hand, t hat MERS had t he r i ght / aut hor i t y as nomi nee f or t he

l ender and t he l ender s successors and assi gns t o exer ci se al l of

t hei r r i ght s and i nt er est s under t he Fi r st Tr ust Deed, t o t he

ext ent necessar y t o compl y wi t h l aw or cust om.

On November 2, 2006, Ovsovi ch bor r owed anot her $25, 000

agai nst t he Resi dence, t hi s t i me f r om Rel i ant Gr oup, I nc.

( Rel i ant ) . I n exchange f or t hi s l oan, Ovsovi ch execut ed a


4/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

pr omi ssory note and a Deed of Trust ( Second Trust Deed) , both

dat ed November 2, 2006. The Second Tr ust Deed was r ecor ded on

November 9, 2006, i n t he Of f i ci al Recor ds of Los Angel es Count y,

as i nst r ument number 06- 2491932.I n 2007, Rel i ant conduct ed f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs agai nst

t he r esi dence, whi ch cul mi nat ed i n a t r ust ee s sal e hel d on

December 10, 2007, at whi ch t he Aksel r od Revocabl e Fami l y Tr ust

( Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust ) was t he successf ul bi dder . That same

day, t he t r ust ee under t he Second Deed of Trust execut ed a

Tr ust ee s Deed Upon Sal e conveyi ng t he Resi dence t o t he Aksel r od

Fami l y Trust . The Trust ee s Deed Upon Sal e was r ecor ded on

J anuar y 10, 2008, i n t he Of f i ci al Recor ds of Los Angel es County,

as i nst r ument number 20080057975.

I n J ul y 2008, one of t he Debt or s, Al bi na Ti khonov, pur chased

t he Resi dence f r om t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust . I n f ur t her ance of

t hi s sal e, t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust execut ed a Gr ant Deed i n

f avor of Al bi na Ti khonov, dat ed J ul y 2, 2008. The Gr ant Deedwas r ecor ded on J ul y 9, 2008, i n t he Of f i ci al Recor ds of Los

Angel es Count y, as i nst r ument number 20081215761. I n conj unct i on

wi t h t hi s sal es t r ansact i on, Al bi na Ti khonov pr omi sed t o pay t he

Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust $100, 000 and execut ed a Deed of Trust

( Thi r d Trust Deed) dat ed J ul y 15, 2008, t o secur e her $100, 000

debt . The Thi r d Tr ust Deed was r ecor ded on J ul y 22, 2008, i n t he

Of f i ci al Recor ds of Los Angel es Count y, as i nst r ument number

20081303344.

Because t he Second Tr ust Deed was j uni or t o t he Fi r st Tr ust

Deed, t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust and i t s successor i n i nt er est ,

Al bi na Ti khonov, t ook t i t l e t o t he t he Resi dence subj ect t o t he


5/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2See 5 Har r y D. Mi l l er and Mar vi n B. St ar r , CAL. REAL ESTATE 11: 100 ( 3d ed. 2009) ( st at i ng t hat t he pur chaser at af or ecl osur e sal e t akes t i t l e subj ect t o any seni or i nt er est s i nt he f or ecl osed pr oper t y, and f ur t her st at i ng t hat t he l i ens ofany t r ust deeds r ecor ded bef ore t he f or ecl osed secur i t y r emai n ont he pr oper t y af t er t he f or ecl osur e sal e, and t he t i t l e of t hepur chaser i s subj ect t o t he payment of t hei r secur ed obl i gat i onswhen due. )

5

Fi r st Tr ust Deed. 2

B. The Debtors bankruptcy case and BONYs relief from staymotion

The Debt or s f i l ed t hei r chapt er 13 bankrupt cy case i n May2011, and t he bankr upt cy cour t ent ered an order i n Oct ober 2011

conf i r mi ng thei r second amended chapt er 13 pl an ( Conf i r med

Pl an) . The Debt or s Conf i r med Pl an di d not pr ovi de f or any

payment s t o secur ed cr edi t or s. Mor eover , t he Conf i r med Pl an

expl i ci t l y pr ovi ded t hat t he Debt or s wer e i mmedi at el y and

uncondi t i onal l y sur r ender i ng t he Resi dence t o t he Aksel r od Fami l y

Tr ust . As t he Conf i r med Pl an put i t :

The Debt or her eby sur r ender s t he f ol l owi ng per sonal orr eal pr oper t y ( I dent i f y pr oper t y and credi t or t o whi chi t i s sur r ender ed. )

Creditor Name: Description:The Akselrod Family Trust 14713 Valleyheart Dr.

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

2nd Amended Chapt er 13 Pl an ( J ul y 11, 2011) at p. 7.

Not wi t hst andi ng t he Debt or s sur r ender of t hei r i nt er est i nt he Resi dence t o t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust , BONY f i l ed a mot i on

f or r el i ef f r om st ay. I n t he mot i on, BONY: ( 1) asser t ed t hat i t

was t he successor t o Mor t gagei t under t he Fi r st Trust Deed, and

( 2) sought r el i ef f r om t he st ay t o per mi t BONY to pur sue

f or ecl osure pr oceedi ngs agai nst t he Resi dence. BONY asser t ed


6/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

t hat i t was ent i t l ed t o r el i ef f r om st ay under 362( d) ( 1) , f or

cause, because i t s i nt er est i n t he r esi dence was not adequat el y

pr otect ed. Accor di ng t o BONY, t he Debt ors had not made any

post pet i t i on payment s due on the debt secur ed by t he Fi r st Tr ustDeed, and over $25, 000 i n accr ued post pet i t i on payment s had not

been made. The not i ce accompanyi ng t he mot i on war ned t he

Debt or s: I f you f ai l t o f i l e a wr i t t en r esponse t o t he Mot i on or

f ai l t o appear at t he hear i ng, t he cour t may t r eat such f ai l ur e

as a wai ver of your r i ght t o oppose the Mot i on and may gr ant t he

r equest ed r el i ef . Not i ce Of Mot i on And Mot i on For Rel i ef From

The Automat i c Stay ( Oct . 25, 2011) at p. 2.

The Debt or s di d not f i l e an opposi t i on t o BONY s r el i ef f r om

st ay mot i on. I nst ead, t he Debt or s f i l ed a document ent i t l ed:

Debt or s Obj ect i on t o Cl ai ms of t he Bank of New Yor k Mel l on

Tr ust Company, Nat i onal Associ at i on FKA t he Bank of New Yor k

Tr ust Company, N. A. as Successor t o J PMor gan Chase Bank N. A. as

Tr ust ee. The Debt or s al so f i l ed a decl ar at i on and a memor andumof poi nt s and aut hor i t i es i n suppor t of t hei r cl ai m obj ect i on

( col l ecti vel y, Cl ai m Obj ecti on Paper s).

The Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s ar e di f f i cul t t o r ead at best and

i ncompr ehensi bl e at t i mes. Nonet hel ess, i t seems r easonabl y

cl ear t hat t he Debt or s i nt ended t he Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s t o be

l i nked t o BONY s rel i ef f r om st ay mot i on. Whi l e t he nat ur e of

t he i nt ended l i nk i s f ar f r om cl ear , t he Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s

r epeat edl y r ef er ence t he r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on. Mor eover , t he

November 30, 2011 hear i ng dat e f or t he rel i ef f r om st ay mot i on i s

l i st ed on t he capt i on page of each of t he Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s.

The bankrupt cy cour t hel d a hear i ng on t he r el i ef f r om st ay


7/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

mot i on on November 30, 2011. Short l y bef ore t he hear i ng, t he

bankr upt cy cour t i ssued a t ent at i ve r ul i ng i n whi ch i t i ndi cat ed

t hat i t was i ncl i ned t o gr ant t he r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on. The

t ent at i ve r ul i ng st at ed t hat no opposi t i on had been f i l ed i nr esponse t o t he mot i on. The t ent at i ve r ul i ng accept ed a $900, 000

val uat i on of t he Resi dence based on t he Debt ors bankr upt cy

schedul es. The ot her f act s st at ed i n t he t ent at i ve r ul i ng appear

t o have been dr awn f r omBONY s mot i on. These f act s i ncl uded:

( 1) $1, 256, 638. 61 as t he amount owed t o BONY, ( 2) t he absence of

an equi t y cushi on, and ( 3) Debt or s negat i ve equi t y i n t he

Resi dence i n t he amount of $356, 638. 61 ( $900, 000 val ue, l ess

under l yi ng debt of $1, 256, 638. 61) . The t ent at i ve r ul i ng f ur t her

speci f i ed t hat at t endance at t he November 30, 2011 r el i ef f r om

st ay hear i ng was r equi r ed: APPEARANCE REQUI RED RULI NG MAY BE

MODI FI ED AT HEARI NG. Tent at i ve Rul i ng ( Nov. 29, 2011) at p. 1.

The hear i ng on t he r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on was br i ef .

BONY s counsel appear ed t el ephoni cal l y. No one appear ed onbehal f of t he Debt or s. Af t er BONY i ndi cat ed t hat i t was pr epar ed

t o r est on t he bankr upt cy cour t s t ent at i ve r ul i ng, t he cour t

gr ant ed t he mot i on as f ol l ows:

Okay. Ther e was an obj ect i on t o your cl ai m f i l ed,whi ch i s why I t hought t here mi ght be a Debt or here,but t her e i sn t , and t hat was not i ced - - I t hi nk i tcame i n wi t h no date - - f or December 13t h. So yourmot i on i s gr ant ed, and we l l deal wi t h t hat ot her

mat t er [ t he cl ai m obj ect i on] at t hat t i me.

Hr g Tr . ( Nov. 30, 2011) at 1: 8- 14.

The bankrupt cy cour t enter ed an or der grant i ng t he r el i ef

f r om st ay mot i on, and t he Debt or s t i mel y appeal ed.

Whi l e not t echni cal l y par t of t he r ecor d bef or e t he


8/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3Our consi der at i on of t hi s post - appeal or der does not al t erour anal ysi s or t he out come of t hi s appeal .

8

bankr upt cy cour t at t he t i me i t r ul ed on t he r el i ef f r om st ay

mot i on, t he bankrupt cy cour t s J anuar y 4, 2012 or der over r ul i ng

t he Debt or s cl ai m obj ect i on ar guabl y gi ves some i nsi ght i nt o t he

cour t s t hought pr ocess at t he t i me i t r ul ed on BONY s r el i eff r om st ay mot i on. 3 I n t he or der on t he cl ai m obj ect i on, t he

bankr upt cy cour t acknowl edged t hat i t was uncl ear on t he f ace of

t he Cl ai m Obj ect i on Papers whether t he Debt ors had meant t o

obj ect t o a cl ai m or t o oppose BONY s r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on.

The cour t f ur t her acknowl edged: ( 1) t hat BONY had not f i l ed any

pr oof of cl ai m, and ( 2) t hat t he November 30 hear i ng date on t he

r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on was r ef er enced i n t he Cl ai m Obj ect i on

Papers.

Accor di ng t o t he bankrupt cy cour t , not wi t hst andi ng t he

above- r ef er enced f act s, i n l i ght of t he Debt or s f ai l ur e t o

appear at t he r el i ef f r om st ay hear i ng, i t el ected t o t r eat t he

Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s as an obj ect i on t o cl ai m, and set a

cont i nued hear i ng on t he obj ect i on t o cl ai m f or December 13,2011. When t he Debt ors al so f ai l ed t o appear at t he December 13,

2011 hear i ng on t he obj ect i on t o cl ai m, t he cour t over r ul ed t he

obj ect i on t o cl ai m.

The debtor s never have at t empted t o expl ai n t hei r absence

f r om t he hear i ngs. Nor have t hey ar gued t hat t he bankrupt cy

cour t er r ed i n r el yi ng on t hei r f ai l ur e t o appear i n maki ng i t s

r ul i ngs. Nor have t hey deni ed r ecei pt of adequat e not i ce of al l

r el evant document s and pr oceedi ngs.


9/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

JURISDICTION

The bankrupt cy cour t had j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.

1334 and 157( b) ( 2) ( G) . We have j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C.

158.ISSUES

1. Do t he Debt or s have st andi ng t o pr osecut e t hi s appeal ?

2. I f t he Debt or s had st andi ng t o appeal , di d t he bankr upt cy

cour t er r when i t gr ant ed BONY s mot i on f or r el i ef f r om t he

aut omat i c s t ay?

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

St andi ng i s a l egal i ssue we r evi ew de novo. Al l en v. U. S.

Bank, N. A. ( I n r e Al l en) , 472 B. R. 559, 565 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2012)

( ci t i ng Veal v. Am. Home Mor t g. Ser v. , I nc. ( I n r e Veal ) ,

450 B. R. 897, 906, 918 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2011) ) .

We r evi ew an or der gr ant i ng r el i ef f r om st ay f or abuse of

di scr et i on. Kr onemyer v. Am. Cont r act or s I ndem. Co. ( I n r e

Kr onemyer ) , 405 B. R. 915, 919 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2009) . Under t heabuse of di scr et i on st andar d, we appl y a t wo- par t t est . Fi r st ,

we consi der de novo whet her t he bankrupt cy cour t i dent i f i ed t he

cor r ect l aw t o consi der i n l i ght of t he r el i ef r equest ed. Uni t ed

St at es v. Hi nkson, 585 F. 3d 1247, 1262 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ( en banc) .

Second, we r evi ew t he bankrupt cy cour t s f act ual f i ndi ngs, and

i t s appl i cat i on of t hose f i ndi ngs t o t he r el evant l aw, t o

det er mi ne whet her t hey wer e ei t her ( 1) i l l ogi cal ,

( 2) i mpl ausi bl e, or ( 3) wi t hout suppor t i n i nf er ences t hat may

be dr awn f r om t he f act s i n t he r ecor d. I d. ( quot i ng Ander son v.

Ci t y of Bessemer Ci t y, N. C. , 470 U. S. 564, 577 ( 1985) ) .


10/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

DISCUSSION

A. The Debtors lack standing to appeal the relief from stayorder.

Even t hough nei t her par t y r ai sed i t , we must sat i sf your sel ves t hat t he Debt or s have st andi ng t o appeal . St andi ng i s

a t hr eshol d i ssue i n al l f eder al cases t hat must be sat i sf i ed

bef or e t he cour t can exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on. I n r e Veal , 450 B. R.

at 906 ( ci t i ng War t h v. Sel di n, 422 U. S. 490, 498 ( 1975) ) .

Ar t i cl e I I I of t he Const i t ut i on r equi r es l i t i gant s t o demonst r at e

t hei r st andi ng by showi ng: i nj ur y i n f act , causat i on, and

redressabi l i t y. I d.

We do not doubt her e t he exi st ence of Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng.

The or der on appeal grant ed BONY r el i ef f r om t he aut omat i c st ay,

whi ch i n t ur n permi t t ed BONY t o pur sue f orecl osur e pr oceedi ngs

agai nst pr oper t y l i st ed on t he Debt or s bankrupt cy schedul es as

pr oper t y of t hei r bankr upt cy est at e. I n addi t i on, i f we wer e t o

r ever se, t hat r ever sal woul d r edr ess any har m al l egedl y caused byt he or der gr ant i ng r el i ef f r om t he st ay.

However , i n addi t i on t o Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng, t her e ar e a

number of pr udent i al l i mi t at i ons on f eder al cour t j ur i sdi ct i on.

Wher eas Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng f ocuses on whet her t he cour t has

j ur i sdi ct i on, prudent i al st andi ng doct r i ne f ocuses on whet her t he

cour t shoul d exer ci se t hat j ur i sdi ct i on. See Spr i nt Commc ns Co.

v. APCC Ser vs. , I nc. , 554 U. S. 269, 289 ( 2008) ( st at i ng t hat

pr udent i al st andi ng embodi es j udi ci al l y sel f - i mposed l i mi t s on

t he exer ci se of j ur i sdi cti on) .

Two aspect s of prudent i al st andi ng doct r i ne ar e i mpl i cat ed

by t he f acts of t hi s case. Fi r st , f eder al cour t s or di nar i l y


11/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

decl i ne t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on when a par t y seeks t o vi ndi cat e

r i ght s bel ongi ng t o ot her s, r at her t han t hei r own l egal r i ght s.

See War t h, 422 U. S. at 509; I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 906- 07. Thi s

aspect of pr udent i al st andi ng i s commonl y r ef er r ed t o as t hi r dpar t y st andi ng. See i d. Second, f eder al appel l at e cour t s

t ypi cal l y decl i ne t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on over appeal s

or i gi nat i ng f r om bankr upt cy cases unl ess t he appel l ant i s a

per son aggr i eved t hat i s, a per son who has been di r ect l y

and adver sel y pecuni ar i l y af f ect ed by t he or der on appeal . See

Sherman v. SEC ( I n re Sherman) , 491 F. 3d 948, 957 n. 8 (9t h Ci r .

2007) ( quot i ng Fondi l l er v. Rober t son ( I n r e Fondi l l er ) , 707 F. 2d

441, 442 ( 9t h Ci r . 1983) ) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has ref er r ed t o

t hi s doct r i ne as t he pr udent i al appel l at e st andi ng doct r i ne.

I d. We addr ess each of t hese pr udent i al st andi ng doct r i nes i n

t ur n bel ow.

1. The Debtors lack third party standing.

As i ndi cat ed above, under t he t hi r d par t y st andi ng doct r i ne,l i t i gant s gener al l y must assert t hei r own l egal r i ght s and not

t he r i ght s of ot her s. See Spr i nt Commc ns Co. v. APCC Ser vs. ,

I nc. , 554 U. S. at 289- 90. The pr obl em her e wi t h r espect t o t he

Debt or s t hi r d par t y st andi ng ar i ses f r om t hei r Conf i r med Pl an.

The Conf i r med Pl an s t er ms ar e bi ndi ng on t he Debtor s, as wel l as

t hei r cr edi t or s. 1327; Enewal l y v. Wash. Mut . Bank ( I n r e

Enewal l y) , 368 F. 3d 1165, 1172 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ; see al so

Uni t ed St udent Ai d Funds, I nc. v. Espi nosa, U. S. , 130

S. Ct . 1367, 1376 ( 2010) .

The Debt or s Conf i r med Pl an provi des f or t he Debt or s

i mmedi at e and uncondi t i onal sur r ender of t hei r i nt er est i n t he


12/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4Thi s sur r ender al so ar guabl y r ender ed BONY s r el i ef f r omst ay pr oceedi ngs moot because t he Resi dence no l onger woul d havequal i f i ed as pr oper t y of t he debt or s bankrupt cy est at e. See 362( c) ( 1) ; 541( a) ( 1) . Nonet hel ess, we decl i ne t o deci de t hi sappeal on t hat basi s. Cr edi t or s of t en f i nd i t necessar y t oobt ai n comf or t or der s bef or e t hey ef f ect i vel y can pr oceed

agai nst pr oper t y t hat used t o be est at e pr oper t y. To deny r el i eff r om st ay on moot ness grounds i n t hese si t uat i ons woul d depr i vet he cr edi t or s of any cer t ai nt y as t o t he st at us of t he debt or spr oper t y and f or mer pr oper t y, exposi ng t hem t o t he r i sk ofcont empt pr oceedi ngs shoul d t hey wr ongl y i nt er pr et t he st at us oft hat pr oper t y. Fur t her mor e, t hi r d par t i es on whom t he cr edi t ormay rel y t o f aci l i t at e t he enf or cement of t hei r r i ght s agai nstsuch pr oper t y somet i mes r ef use t o act unl ess t he cr edi t or f i r stobt ai ns a comf or t or der .

12

Resi dence t o t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust . As a r esul t of t hat

sur r ender , t he Debt ors do not appear t o have r etai ned any

i nt er est i n t he Resi dence. 4 Consequent l y, t he onl y par t y

pot ent i al l y i mpact ed by BONY s obt ai ni ng r el i ef f r om st ay wi t hr espect t o t he Resi dence was t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust . Thus,

t he Debt ors i mper mi ssi bl y wer e seeki ng t o enf or ce t he r i ght s of

t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust , r at her t han t hei r own r i ght s. See

York I nt l Bl dg. , I nc. v. Chaney ( I n r e York I nt l Bl dg. , I nc. ) ,

527 F. 2d 1061, 1067 ( 9t h Ci r . 1975) ( appl yi ng t hi r d par t y

st andi ng doct r i ne wher e t he debt or and i t s sol e shar ehol der

sought t o enf or ce r i ght s bel ongi ng t o t hei r credi t or s) .

The Debt or s Conf i r med Pl an r emai ns i n f ul l f or ce and

ef f ect . They have not sought t o r evoke or amend t hei r Conf i r med

Pl an. Accor di ngl y, t he Debt or s l ack t hi r d par t y st andi ng t o

enf or ce any r i ght s t he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust may hol d wi t h

r espect t o the Resi dence.

2. The Debtors lack prudential appellate standing.As set f or t h above, an appel l ant onl y has prudent i al


13/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

appel l at e st andi ng i f i t i s a per son aggr i eved, and an appel l ant

onl y qual i f i es as a per son aggr i eved i f i t has been di r ect l y and

adver sel y af f ect ed pecuni ar i l y by t he or der on appeal . But t her e

ar e t wo addi t i onal r equi r ement s t o qual i f y as a per son aggr i eved.Provi ded t hat t he appel l ant had adequat e not i ce of t he bankrupt cy

cour t pr oceedi ngs, t he appel l ant i s not a per son aggr i eved unl ess

he or she: ( 1) obj ect ed t o t he r equest f or r el i ef l eadi ng t o t he

order appeal ed, and ( 2) appear ed at t he hear i ng on t he request ed

r el i ef . See Br ady v. Andr ew ( I n r e Commer ci al W. Fi n. Cor p. ) ,

761 F. 2d 1329, 1335 (9t h Ci r . 1985) ; see al so West on v. Mann

( I n r e West on) , 18 F. 3d 860, 864 ( 10t h Ci r . 1994) ( cr edi t or s

l acked st andi ng t o appeal bankrupt cy cour t s or der r esol vi ng

t r ust ee el ect i on because t hey di d not par t i ci pat e i n r esol ut i on

of di sput ed el ect i on) . These t wo el ement s of t he per son

aggr i eved t est are f ounded on t he need f or economy and

ef f i ci ency i n t he bankrupt cy syst em. I n r e Ray, 597 F. 3d 871,

874 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ( ci t i ng I n r e Commer ci al W. Fi n. Cor p. ,761 F. 2d at 1335) .

Fur t her mor e, t he requi r ement s of at t endance at and obj ect i on

i n t he bankrupt cy cour t pr oceedi ngs ensures t hat t he bankrupt cy

cour t i s made awar e of al l avai l abl e evi dence and obj ect i ons when

maki ng i t s det er mi nat i on . . . and pr event [ s] a par t y i n i nt er est

f r om l yi ng i n t he weeds dur i ng bankrupt cy cour t pr oceedi ngs

. . . onl y to appeal and gener at e addi t i onal unnecessary

pr oceedi ngs. Whi t e v. Vi r gi ni a ( I n r e Ur ban Br oad. Cor p. ) ,

304 B. R. 263, 272 ( E. D. Va. 2004) af f d on ot her gr ounds,

401 F. 3d 236, 244 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) ( non- par t i ci pat i on i s an i ssue

of wai ver not st andi ng) .


14/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

Her e, t he Debt or s have f ai l ed t o sat i sf y two of t he

pr udent i al appel l at e st andi ng r equi r ement s. For t he same r easons

t hat we hel d above t hat t he Debt or s l acked t hi r d par t y st andi ng,

t he Debt ors al so cannot show t hat t hey have been di r ect l y andadver sel y af f ect ed pecuni ar i l y by t he or der on appeal . Pur suant

t o t he Conf i r med Pl an s t erms, t he Debt ors no l onger have any

i nt er est i n t he Resi dence. Consequent l y, t he r el i ef f r om st ay

order permi t t i ng BONY t o f orecl ose on t he Resi dence coul d not

have af f ect ed t he Debt ors i n any meani ngf ul way.

Mor eover , al l of t he t ypes of har m associ at ed wi t h non-

appear ance al l uded t o i n Ur ban Br oad. Cor p. , above, occur r ed

her e. The Debt or s f ai l ur e t o appear at t he hear i ng and expl ai n

t hei r i nt ent i ons wi t h r espect t o t hei r di f f i cul t - t o- under st and

Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s l ef t t he bankrupt cy cour t i n t he

unenvi abl e posi t i on of at t empt i ng t o ascer t ai n f r om t he f ace of

t hose papers what t he Debt ors had i nt ended wi t hout t hei r

par t i ci pat i on and assi st ance. I n addi t i on, t hei r f ai l ur e t oappear di r ect l y r esul t ed i n t he bankrupt cy cour t not addr essi ng

t hei r Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s i n t he cont ext of t he r el i ef f r om

st ay pr oceedi ngs, whi ch i n t ur n has spawned t he curr ent appeal ,

as wel l as t he pot ent i al f or post - appeal pr oceedi ngs.

I n sum, gi ven t hat we cannot ascert ai n any i mpact on t he

Debt or s ar i si ng f r om t he r el i ef f r om st ay or der , and gi ven t hei r

f ai l ur e t o at t end t he r el i ef f r om st ay hear i ng, we hol d t hat t he

Debt or s l acked pr udent i al appel l at e st andi ng.

B. Even if the Debtors had standing, the bankruptcy court didnot abuse its discretion in granting relief from stay.

I n addr essi ng t he i ssues r ai sed by t he Debt or s pr o se


15/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5The part i es t o t hi s appeal seem t o agr ee t hat Cal i f or ni al aw shoul d be appl i ed t o r esol ve t hei r di sput e. Gi ven t hat t he

Not e i s si l ent , t hat t he Debt or s r esi de i n Cal i f or ni a and t hatOsovi ch execut ed t he Not e and t he Fi r st Tr ust Deed i n Cal i f or ni a,we agr ee. See Cal . Com. Code 1301( b) ; see al so Barcl aysDi scount Bank Lt d. v. Levy, 743 F. 2d 722, 72425 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) .Nonet hel ess, f or ease of r ef er ence, we wi l l ci t e t he Uni f or mCommerci al Code ( UCC) i n suppor t of our commerci al l awanal ysi s. Unl ess ot her wi se not ed, t he r el evant provi si ons ofCal i f or ni a s ver si on of t he UCC do not mat er i al l y di ver ge f r omt hei r UCC cognates.

15

appeal br i ef , we ar e cogni zant of our dut y t o i nt er pr et t hei r

br i ef l i ber al l y and t o ensur e t hat t hei r subst ant i ve cont ent i ons

ar e not deemed wai ved si mpl y as a resul t of t hei r f ai l ur e t o

compl y wi t h mer e techni cal pr ocedur al r equi r ement s or t hei ri nabi l i t y to st at e t hei r cont ent i ons usi ng f or mal l egal

t er mi nol ogy. See Bal i st r er i v. Paci f i ca Pol i ce Dep t , 901 F. 2d

696, 699 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) .

Nonet hel ess, havi ng car ef ul l y r evi ewed t hei r appeal br i ef ,

we ar e convi nced t hat t hei r var i ous argument s chal l engi ng t he

or der on appeal al l boi l down t o a si ngl e r el evant asser t i on:

t hat BONY l acked st andi ng as t he real par t y i n i nt er est under

Ci vi l Rul e 17( a) ( 1) t o seek r el i ef f r om st ay i n t hei r bankr upt cy

case. The Debt or s have advanced numer ous t heor i es why BONY

l acked st andi ng. Some of t hei r t heor i es ar e pl ausi bl e whi l e

ot her s ar e pat ent l y mer i t l ess or i ncompr ehensi bl e. However ,

t hei r cri t i cal t heor i es at t acked BONY s cont ent i on t hat i t i s t he

hol der of t he Not e and hence had st andi ng as t he par t y ent i t l edt o enf orce the Note under governi ng commerci al l aw st atut es. 5

Accor di ng t o t he Debt or s, BONY i s not t he par t y ent i t l ed t o

enf orce t he note and consequent l y l acked st andi ng. But we


16/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Ar guabl y, t he Debt or s di d not adequat el y pr esent t hei rst andi ng ar gument i n t he bankr upt cy cour t because t hey di d notf i l e an expl i ci t obj ect i on t o BONY s r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on andbecause t hey di d not appear f or t he r el i ef f r om st ay hear i ng.Nonet hel ess, we wi l l exer ci se our di scr et i on t o exami ne t heDebt ors st andi ng argument . See Ci t y of Los Angel es v. Count y ofKer n, 581 F. 3d 841, 846 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hat appel l at ecour t may consi der , but was not r equi r ed t o consi der , unpr eservedpr udent i al - st andi ng ar gument ) .

16

di sagr ee wi t h t he Debt or s. For pur poses of BONY s r el i ef f r om

st ay mot i on, BONY suf f i ci ent l y est abl i shed i t s st andi ng as t he

par t y ent i t l ed t o enf or ce t he Not e by pr esent i ng t o t he

bankr upt cy cour t a copy of t he Note and an al l onge, whi cht oget her cont ai ned an unbr oken chai n of speci al i ndor sement s; t he

l ast i ndorsement i n t hi s chai n named BONY as payee. We expl ai n

i mmedi at el y bel ow why t he Not e and t he al l onge ar e suf f i ci ent t o

r esol ve t hi s st andi ng i ssue i n BONY s f avor . 6

As a pr el i mi nar y mat t er , we not e the l i mi t ed scope of st ay

r el i ef pr oceedi ngs. Such pr oceedi ngs ar e summary i n natur e and

l i mi t ed t o det er mi ni ng whet her t her e ar e suf f i ci ent

count er vai l i ng equi t i es t o r el ease an i ndi vi dual credi t or f r om

t he col l ect i ve st ay. I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 914. Thus, a

r el i ef f r om st ay pr oceedi ng i s not an appr opr i at e vehi cl e f or

f i nal l y and def i ni t i vel y det er mi ni ng a credi t or s cl ai m or

secur i t y. I d. ; see al so J ohnson v. Ri ghet t i ( I n r e J ohnson) ,

756 F. 2d 738, 740 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) ( Hear i ngs on r el i ef f r om t heaut omat i c st ay are t hus handl ed i n a summary f ashi on. The

val i di t y of t he cl ai m or cont r act under l yi ng t he cl ai m i s not

l i t i gat ed dur i ng t he hear i ng. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

Because st ay r el i ef i s l i mi t ed i n nat ur e, i s subj ect t o an


17/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

expedi t ed hear i ng pr ocess, see 362( e) , and does not f i nal l y

adj udi cat e t he par t i es r i ght s and l i abi l i t i es, a par t y seeki ng

st ay r el i ef onl y needs t o est abl i sh t hat i t has a col or abl e

cl ai m agai nst pr oper t y of t he est at e. Veal , 450 B. R. at 91415( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Goul d ( I n r e Goul d) , 401 B. R. 415, 425

n. 14 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2009) ; Bi ggs v. St ovi n ( I n r e Luz I nt l ,

Lt d. ) , 219 B. R. 837, 842 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 1998) ; Gr el l a v. Sal em

Fi ve Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F. 3d 26, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) .

At i t s hear t , t he Debt or s st andi ng ar gument quest i ons

BONY s t hi r d par t y st andi ng. As we expl ai ned above, i n or der t o

est abl i sh t hi r d par t y st andi ng, BONY needed t o est abl i sh t hat i t

was asser t i ng i t s own l egal r i ght s and not t he r i ght s of ot her s.

See Spr i nt Commc ns Co. v. APCC Ser vs. , I nc. , 554 U. S. at 289- 90.

Under 362( d) , any par t y i n i nt er est can r equest r el i ef

f r om t he aut omat i c st ay. But t he t er m par t y i n i nt er est i s not

def i ned i n t he Bankrupt cy Code. Whet her a movi ng par t y qual i f i es

as a par t y i n i nt er est under 362( d) i s det er mi ned on acase- by- case basi s, t aki ng i nt o account t he movant s cl ai med

i nt er est and t he al l eged i mpact of t he st ay on t hat i nt er est .

I n r e Kr onemyer , 405 B. R. at 919. A par t y i n i nt er est i ncl udes

any par t y t hat has an act ual pecuni ar y i nt er est i n t he mat t er

or a pr act i cal st ake i n i t s out come. Br own v. Sobczak ( I n r e

Sobczak) , 369 B. R. 512, 51718 ( 9t h Ci r . BAP 2007) .

As i ndi cat ed i n Veal , a credi t or can est abl i sh t hat i t i s a

par t y i n i nt er est wi t h st andi ng t o seek rel i ef f r om st ay by

showi ng t hat i t i s a per son ent i t l ed t o enf or ce t he not e, or t hat

i t hol ds some owner shi p or ot her i nt er est i n t he not e amount i ng

t o a col or abl e cl ai m. I d. at 917 ( ci t i ng I n r e Hwang, 438 B. R.


18/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7BONY has cl ai med t hat Mor t gagei t endorsed t he Note i nbl ank. Even i f t hat i s t r ue, i t appear s f r om t he i ndor sement s ont he f ace of t he Note t hat RFC conver t ed Mort gagei t s i ndorsementi nt o a speci al i ndorsement . See UCC 3- 205( c) ( The hol der mayconver t a bl ank i ndor sement t hat consi st s onl y of a si gnat ur e

i nt o a speci al i ndor sement by wr i t i ng, above t he si gnat ur e of t hei ndor ser , wor ds i dent i f yi ng t he per son t o whom t he i nst r ument i smade payabl e. )

8UCC 3- 110( c) ( 2) ( i ) pr ovi des i n r el evant par t t hat , f orpur poses of det er mi ni ng who i s t he hol der of an i nst r ument , ani nst r ument t hat i s payabl e t o a per son descr i bed as a t r ust ee i spayabl e t o t hat t r ust ee, r egar dl ess of whet her t he benef i ci ar y oft he t r ust i s named.

18

661, 665 ( C. D. Cal . 2010) ) .

I n r el evant par t , a par t y i s a per son ent i t l ed t o enf or ce

t he not e i f i t i s a hol der of t he not e, as def i ned i n UCC

1- 201( b) ( 21) ( A) . I n r e Veal , 450 B. R. at 910- 11. A hol der i ncl udes a per son i n possessi on of a negot i abl e i nst r ument t hat

i s payabl e . . . t o an i dent i f i ed per son t hat i s t he per son i n

possessi on. UCC 1- 201( b) ( 21) ( A) ; see al so I n r e Veal ,

450 B. R. at 911. I n t ur n, a negot i abl e i nst r ument has been made

payabl e t o an i dent i f i ed per son when i t cont ai ns a speci al

i ndor sement speci f yi ng t hat t he i nst r ument i s payabl e t o t hat

i dent i f i ed per son. See UCC 3- 205( a) .

Her e, t he f ace of t he Not e r ef l ect s t hat Mor t gagei t , t he

or i gi nal payee under t he Not e, i ndor sed i t by maki ng i t payabl e

t o an ent i t y cal l ed Resi dent i al Fundi ng Cor p. ( RFC) . 7 I n t ur n,

RFC speci al l y i ndor sed t he Note by maki ng i t payabl e t o J P Mor gan

Chase Bank, as Trust ee ( Chase) . 8 Fi nal l y, on t he f ace of t he

al l onge, BONY as Chase s successor essent i al l y speci al l y i ndor sed


19/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9See UCC 3- 204( d) ( I f an i nst r ument i s payabl e t o ahol der under a name that i s not t he name of t he hol der ,i ndorsement may be made by t he hol der i n t he name st at ed i n t hei nst r ument or i n t he hol der s name or bot h, but si gnat ur e i n bot hnames may be requi r ed by a per son payi ng or t aki ng t he i nst r umentf or val ue or col l ecti on. )

10At pages 28 t hr ough 30 of t hei r openi ng appeal br i ef , t heDebt or s do di scuss t he r equi r ement s f or i ndor sement of negot i abl ei nst r ument s, ci t i ng Cal i f or ni a s ver si ons of UCC 3- 201, 3- 203

and 3- 204. But t hey never cl ai m t her e or el sewher e i n t hei rbr i ef t hat t her e was anythi ng wr ong wi t h t he Mor t gagei ti ndorsement , t he RFC i ndorsement or t he Chase i ndor sement .I nst ead, i n an i nexpl i cabl e non sequi t ur , t hey cl ai m t hat t heal l egedl y f r audul ent conduct of Execut i ve Tr ust ee Ser vi cespr event ed any pr oper negot i at i on of t he Not e.

11The Debt or s di d not r ai se any quest i on, l et al one a( cont i nued. . . )

19

t he Not e t o i t sel f . 9

I mpor t ant l y, we have not been abl e t o l ocat e anythi ng i n t he

Debt or s Cl ai m Obj ect i on Paper s or i n t hei r br i ef on appeal

suggest i ng i n any way that t hey chal l enged t he ef f ect i veness of any of t hese i ndor sement s or t he val i di t y of t he al l onge. 10 Nor

di d t hey di sput e t hat BONY was Chase s successor . I ndeed, al l of

Debt or s paper s r epeat edl y ref er r ed t o BONY as Chase s successor .

BONY at t ached t o i t s r el i ef f r om st ay mot i on t he decl ar at i on of

J ohn Cast agna ( Cast agna) , who decl ar ed t hat he was an empl oyee

of BONY s ser vi ci ng agent GMAC Mort gage, LLC, and a cust odi an of

r ecor ds f or BONY pert ai ni ng t o document s concerni ng t he l oan

t r ansact i on f r om whi ch t he Not e and t he Fi r st Tr ust Deed

or i gi nat ed. Cast agna f ur t her decl ar ed t hat BONY was t he cur r ent

hol der of t he Not e, and he at t ached t o hi s decl ar at i on as

exhi bi t s a copy of t he Note and t he accompanyi ng al l onge i n

suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on. 11 Under t he par t i cul ar ci r cumst ances


20/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11( . . . cont i nued)genui ne quest i on, r egar di ng t he aut hent i ci t y of t he or i gi nal Not eBONY cl ai med t o hol d. Nor di d t hey asser t any evi dent i ar y

obj ect i on based on Fed. R. Evi d. 1002 t o the copy of t he Not eat t ached as an exhi bi t t o Cast agna s decl ar at i on. Accor di ngl y,BONY was not r equi r ed t o pr oduce i n cour t t he or i gi nal Not e i nor der t o subst ant i at e t hei r st at us as a hol der of t he Not e f orpur poses of t he r el i ef f r om st ay pr oceedi ngs. At pages 26 and 27of t hei r appeal br i ef , t he Debt or s di d compl ai n about apr omi ssor y not e, but i t i s r easonabl y cl ear t hat Debt or s wer e notcompl ai ni ng about BONY s Not e t he Not e secur i ng the Fi r st Tr ustDeed. Rather , i t appear s t hat t hey wer e compl ai ni ng about t hepr omi ssory note that Al bi na Ti khonov execut ed and made payabl e t ot he Aksel r od Fami l y Tr ust , whi ch was secur ed by t he Thi r d Tr ust

Deed.12Because we have concl uded t hat BONY had st andi ng as t he

hol der of t he Note, we need not determi ne whether BONY al so hel dt he benef i ci al i nt er est i n t he Fi r st Tr ust Deed. I n any event ,t he benef i ci al i nt er est i n a deed of t r ust f ol l ows t he not e. SeeCal . Ci v. Code 2936 ( The ass i gnment of a debt secur ed bymor t gage car r i es wi t h i t t he secur i t y. ) ; Cocker el l v. Ti t l e I ns.& Tr ust Co. , 42 Cal . 2d 284, 291, 267 P. 2d 16, 20 ( Cal . 1954)( Assumi ng f or t he moment t hat t he ass i gnment of t he note,secur ed by t he t hi r d t r ust deed, was a val i d assi gnment , no

f ur t her assi gnment of t he deed of t r ust was necessar y. ) ; seeal so Car pent er v. Longan, 83 U. S. 271, 275 ( 1872) ( The t r ansf erof t he not e car r i es wi t h i t t he secur i t y, wi t hout any f or malassi gnment or del i ver y, or even ment i on of t he l at t er . ) ; UCC 9- 203( g) ( The at t achment of a secur i t y i nt er est i n a r i ght t opayment or per f ormance secur ed by a secur i t y i nt erest or otherl i en on per sonal or r eal pr oper t y i s al so at t achment of asecur i t y i nt er est i n t he secur i t y i nt er est , mor t gage, or ot herl i en. )

20

of t hi s mat t er as descr i bed above, Cast agna s decl ar at i on and t he

at t ached exhi bi t s wer e suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh BONY s st at us as

t he cur r ent hol der of t he Not e, as t he per son ent i t l ed t o enf or ce

t he Not e, and as a par t y wi t h st andi ng t o seek rel i ef f r omst ay. 12

We once agai n acknowl edge t he dut y that al l f ederal cour t s

have t o ensur e t hat pr o se l i t i gant s do not l ose t hei r r i ght t o


21/21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

a hear i ng on t he mer i t s of t hei r cl ai m [ or def ense] due t o

i gnor ance of t echni cal pr ocedur al r equi r ement s. Bal i st r er i ,

901 F. 2d at 699. Nonet hel ess, t hi s dut y has i t s l i mi t s. Nei t her

t hi s Panel nor t he bankrupt cy cour t ar e r equi r ed t o f er r et outand subst ant i ate argument s on behal f of pr o se par t i es when t he

par t i es make no at t empt t o asser t t hese argument s. See DeBuono

v. Fanel l i ( I n r e Fanel l i ) , 263 B. R. 50, 62 ( Bankr . N. D. N. Y.

2001) . I n ot her wor ds, t he r equi r ement of st at i ng a val i d,

compr ehensi bl e cl ai m or def ense i s not a t echni cal pr ocedur al

r equi r ement t hat a pr o se par t y can be excused f r om. See

Vi ct er y v. Ar i zona, 2011 WL 2940763, at *4 (D. Ar i z. 2011) .

Here, t he Debt ors s i mpl y di d not make any chal l enge to the

aut hent i ci t y of t he Not e or t he accompanyi ng al l onge. Nor di d

t hey chal l enge t he i ndorsement s on ei t her of t hese document s.

Consequent l y, t he pr esent at i on of evi dence t hat BONY made i n

conj unct i on wi t h i t s rel i ef f r om st ay mot i on was suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh i t s st andi ng t o seek r el i ef f r om st ay.CONCLUSION

For al l of t he r easons set f or t h above, we hol d t hat t he

appel l ant s l ack st andi ng, and t hus we DI SMI SS t hi s appeal . Even

i f t he appel l ant s had st andi ng, however , we woul d AFFI RM.

in re: gennady tikhonov and albina tikhonov, 9th cir. bap (2012)

Documents