Arkison v. Griffin (In Re Griffin)

Ninth Circuit

Arkison v. Griffin (In Re Griffin)

719 F.3d 1126, 2013 WL 3199063, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13097, 58 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 24

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2013

Docket12-60046

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 719 F.3d 1126 (Arkison v. Griffin (In Re Griffin)) 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

Arkison v. Griffin (In Re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 2013 WL 3199063, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13097, 58 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 24 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

U.S. Bank N.A. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in this bankruptcy case. To establish its standing to bring this motion, the bank submitted a copy of the promissory note with respect to which the bank sought relief from the stay. This copy was apparently a second-generation copy of the note, because it reproduced a certification affixed to the first-generation copy that stated: “We hereby certify that this is a true & correct copy of the original. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC.” The bank also submitted a declaration certifying that the original note was in the bank’s files. The trustee argued that a duplicate of a duplicate of the original note was insufficient to establish prudential standing. The bankruptcy court rejected this argument and the BAP affirmed.

We agree with the First Circuit that a duplicate of a duplicate is a duplicate for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 1003. See United States v. Carroll, 860 F.2d 500, 507 (1st Cir.1988). We therefore conclude that U.S. Bank N.A., by providing a copy of a copy of the note and a declaration establishing its possession of the original note, established prudential standing to file the motion for relief from the stay.

*1128 A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief from a stay only determines whether a creditor should be released from the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding. Johnson v. Righetti, 756 F.2d 738, 740-41 (9th Cir.1985). Given the limited nature of the relief obtained through this proceeding and because final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 914-15 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the stay.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

U.S. Bank N.A. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in this bankruptcy case. To establish its standing to bring this motion, the bank submitted a copy of the promissory note with respect to which the bank sought relief from the stay. This copy was apparently a second-generation copy of the note, because it reproduced a certification affixed to the first-generation copy that stated: “We hereby certify that this is a true & correct copy of the original. CTX Mortgage Company, LLC.” The bank also submitted a declaration certifying that the original note was in the bank’s files. The trustee argued that a duplicate of a duplicate of the original note was insufficient to establish prudential standing. The bankruptcy court rejected this argument and the BAP affirmed.

We agree with the First Circuit that a duplicate of a duplicate is a duplicate for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 1003. See United States v. Carroll, 860 F.2d 500, 507 (1st Cir.1988). We therefore conclude that U.S. Bank N.A., by providing a copy of a copy of the note and a declaration establishing its possession of the original note, established prudential standing to file the motion for relief from the stay.

*1128 A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief from a stay only determines whether a creditor should be released from the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding. Johnson v. Righetti, 756 F.2d 738, 740-41 (9th Cir.1985). Given the limited nature of the relief obtained through this proceeding and because final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue. In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 914-15 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the stay.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 F.3d 1126, 2013 WL 3199063, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13097, 58 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arkison-v-griffin-in-re-griffin-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack