Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sam v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 24, 2014

JESSICA P. SAM and HA TO HA, Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., in its capacity as indenture trustee for the Noteholders of AAMES MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST 2005-2, a Delaware statutory trust, Appellee.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

This appeal is from the bankruptcy court's denial of Appellants' motion for reconsideration of the bankruptcy court's decision to lift the automatic stay as to Appellee Deutsche Bank. I must determine whether the Bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration after finding that Deutsche Bank had standing to enforce its lien on Plaintiff's residential real property pursuant to a Deed of Trust and granting Deutsche Bank's motion for relief from the automatic stay.

BACKGROUND

On April 18, 2005 Appellant Mr. Ha obtained a purchase-money loan of $202, 400. (Appellant Br. [71] Ex. A.) The lender was Aames Home Loan. (Appellant's Br. [71] Ex. A.) The promissory note was secured by a Deed of Trust, which was recorded in the Multnomah County clerk's office on April 27, 2005. ( Id. Ex. B.) Appellant Ms. Sam is Mr. Ha's wife; she did not sign the promissory note or the Deed of Trust. ( Id. Ex. A; Appellee's Br. [72] Ex. 5 at 9:1-9.)

The note was endorsed in blank by an agent of Aames Home Loan. (Appellant's Br. [71] Ex. A.) On June 18, 2010, Aames Home loan assigned the Deed of Trust to Appellee; this assignment was recorded in Multnomah County on June 23, 2010. (Ex. C.) Appellee appointed a successor trustee, and a Notice of Default and Election to Sell ("NODES") was filed in Multnomah County on June 21, 2011. (Exs. D, E.) The NODES reflected that Appellant Mr. Ha was delinquent on the loan in the amount of $45, 302.07. (Ex. E.)

After receiving the NODES, Appellants filed, pro se, three successive bankruptcy petitions. See Bankruptcy Petition No. 12-30053-tmb13; No. 12-38965-rld13; No. 13-32107elp7. The first petition, filed under Chapter 13 by Appellant Mr. Ha only, was dismissed because Mr. Ha failed to file an amended plan, as ordered by the court. (Appellee's Br. [72] Ex. 2.) The second, also filed under Chapter 13 by Mr. Ha only, was voluntarily dismissed by Mr. Ha when the court found that it would be impossible for him to propose a confirmable plan. ( Id. Ex. 5 at 3:23-6:11, 10:22-11:11.) The bankruptcy court had noted, before dismissing the case, that Appellees had filed evidence sufficient to establish their standing to object to any plan proposed by the debtor. ( Id. Ex. 5 at 5:4-9.)

Finally, Mr. Ha and Ms. Sam filed a joint petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in April 2013. (This 2013 bankruptcy petition is the subject of this appeal.) Appellee filed a motion for relief from stay on April 23, 2013. (Appellee's Br. [72] Ex. 2.) Attached to this motion was a copy of the promissory note, the Deed of Trust, and the recorded Assignment of the Deed of Trust. (Appellee's Br.[72] Ex. 1.) These documents had been authenticated in the second bankruptcy case, and the bankruptcy court relied on the authenticating affidavit in the 2013 proceeding. ( Id. Ex. 7 at 4:5-21.)

The bankruptcy judge held that Appellee had standing to request that the court lift the automatic stay; and granted their motion.[1] ( Id. at 5:3-13; Ex. 8.) Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the bankruptcy court denied. (Appellant's Br. [71] Ex. K; Appellee's Br. [72] Ex. 9.) This appeal followed.

LEGAL STANDARDS

This court reviews the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Feder v. Lazar (In re Lazar), 83 F.3d 306, 308 (9th Cir. 1996). Review of a bankruptcy court's decision to deny a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Arrow Electronics v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000).

A court may properly reconsider an earlier ruling if it "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch.Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Such a motion does not provide a litigant an opportunity to assert new legal theories or present new facts that could have been raised at the initial hearing, nor is it an opportunity for litigants to rehash arguments already raised. See In re Agric. Research and Tech. Group, 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 1990); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986).

DISCUSSION

Appellees urge this court to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that Appellants' motion for reconsideration raised no new issues of law or fact which could have justified the bankruptcy court in reconsidering its decision. (Appellee's Br. [72] at 4-6.) Appellants argue that the bankruptcy court erred in granting Deutsch Bank's motion for relief from stay. Their contention is that Deutsche Bank has never established standing to enforce the Deed of Trust and cannot enforce it due to alleged defects in its interest. (Appellants' Br. [71] at 2-3; Reply [73] at 2.)

This court's review is of the denial of Appellants' motion for reconsideration. See Not. of Appeal [1-2]. Consequently, unless the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration, its ruling must be affirmed. This court will not consider anew the bankruptcy court's decision regarding Appellee's standing to seek to lift the automatic stay or decision to lift the stay. However, I have taken into account what arguments were raised to the bankruptcy court in opposition to Appellee's motion for relief from automatic stay in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.