Baroni v. Bank of New York Mellon (In Re Baroni)

Ninth Circuit

Baroni v. Bank of New York Mellon (In Re Baroni)

710 F. App'x 770

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 2018

Docket16-56618

StatusUnpublished

This text of 710 F. App'x 770 (Baroni v. Bank of New York Mellon (In Re Baroni)) 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

Baroni v. Bank of New York Mellon (In Re Baroni), 710 F. App'x 770 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Allana Baroni (“Baroni”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly known as “The Bank of New York”) (“BNYM”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Baroni’s note secured by a deed of trust is a “negotiable instrument” under Cal. Com. Code § 3104(a). Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 62 Cal. 4th 919, 927, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016) (citing Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward & Assocs., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1430, 1445-46, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 564 (2011) (applying Commercial Code to promissory note) ). That the principal on her note may increase if she fails to pay interest does not render the note non-negotiable. Regardless of any “interest” or additional “charges,” Baroni agreed to pay at the very least $1.248 million—a “fixed amount of money” pursuant § 3104(a).

2. The undisputed evidence establishes BNYM possesses Baroni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the “holder of the instrument,” BNYM may “enforce” it in this bankruptcy action. §§ 1201(b)(21)(A), 3301 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 910-11, 917 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Smith, 509 B.R. 260, 266-67 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Allana Baroni (“Baroni”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly known as “The Bank of New York”) (“BNYM”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. Baroni’s note secured by a deed of trust is a “negotiable instrument” under Cal. Com. Code § 3104(a). Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 62 Cal. 4th 919, 927, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 365 P.3d 845 (2016) (citing Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward & Assocs., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1430, 1445-46, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 564 (2011) (applying Commercial Code to promissory note) ). That the principal on her note may increase if she fails to pay interest does not render the note non-negotiable. Regardless of any “interest” or additional “charges,” Baroni agreed to pay at the very least $1.248 million—a “fixed amount of money” pursuant § 3104(a).

2. The undisputed evidence establishes BNYM possesses Baroni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the “holder of the instrument,” BNYM may “enforce” it in this bankruptcy action. §§ 1201(b)(21)(A), 3301 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 910-11, 917 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); In re Smith, 509 B.R. 260, 266-67 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 F. App'x 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baroni-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon-in-re-baroni-ca9-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack