21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hayes

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 2025
Docket24-3600
StatusUnpublished

This text of 21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hayes (21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hayes, (9th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

21st MORTGAGE CORPORATION, No. 24-3600 Plaintiff – Appellant, D.C. No. 3:23-CV-04514-JSC v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL JONATHAN HAYES and SHARON ELIZABETH HAYES,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2025 San Francisco, California

Before: H.A. THOMAS and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.**

21st Mortgage Corporation (“21st Mortgage”) appeals an order of the district

court affirming a bankruptcy court’s holding that the value of 21st Mortgage’s

interest in the debtors’ mobilehome is limited to the physical mobilehome box, and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. that it does not encompass the additional value attributable to the current location of

the mobilehome. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo

a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court.” In re JTS Corp., 617

F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court correctly applied California law in affirming the bankruptcy

court’s holding. “Congress has generally left the determination of property rights in

the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law.” Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48,

54 (1979). Under California law, which governs the security agreement in this case,

“a security interest is enforceable against the debtor . . . with respect to the collateral

only if . . . [t]he debtor has signed a security agreement that provides a description

of the collateral.” Cal. Com. Code § 9203(b). That “description of personal or real

property is sufficient . . . if it reasonably identifies what is described.” Cal. Com.

Code § 9108(a). Under the security agreement, 21st Mortgage had a “security interest

in: The Manufactured Home, which will be located at 631 Shadow Creek Dr, San

Jose, CA 95136.” The security agreement further describes the collateral as the

mobilehome and its “attachments, accessories, replacements and additions . . .

whether added now or later[.]” Finally, the security agreement states that the

“[m]anufactured [h]ome” is “personal property” and prohibits the debtors from

“allow[ing it] to become a part of the real estate or to lose its status as personal

property.” Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the value of

2 the secured interest is limited to the “manufactured home” alone because that was

the sole collateral described in the security agreement.

The “replacement-value standard” and not “the foreclosure-value standard []

governs in cram down cases.” Assocs. Com. Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 965 n.6

(1997); see 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2). For this reason, the district court did not err in

concluding that an assessment of the collateral’s present value under § 506(a)(2) of

the United States Bankruptcy Code does not include any value attributable to the

debtors’ lease of the site in the mobilehome park. See Rash, 520 U.S. at 961

(explaining that 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) requires a court to first divide a secured

creditor’s claim “into secured and unsecured portions, with the secured portion of

the claim limited to the value of the collateral”). Nor do California regulations

expand the statutory definition of a secured interest to incorporate the value of the

land into that of the collateral. See id. at 965 n.6 (explaining that the valuation should

not include modifications to a property if a “creditor’s lien would not extend under

state law” to those modifications).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Butner v. United States
440 U.S. 48 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash
520 U.S. 953 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Decker v. Tramiel (In Re JTS Corp.)
617 F.3d 1102 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hayes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/21st-mortgage-corporation-v-hayes-ca9-2025.