In Re: Beverlyann Lee v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 23-35303
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: BEVERLYANN A. LEE, No. 23-35303

Debtor. D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00153-IM ______________________________

BEVERLYANN A. LEE, MEMORANDUM*

Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA Champion Mortgage Company,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2024**

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 13 debtor Beverlyann A. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing Lee’s adversary

proceeding seeking to void Nationstar’s lien. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal

from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the

district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Lee’s adversary proceeding

because Lee failed to establish that Nationstar’s lien had been previously

disallowed. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) (stating that, subject to exceptions, a lien

securing a claim is void when it is “not an allowed secured claim”); cf. HSBC Bank

USA, N.A. v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), 803 F.3d 477, 489 (9th Cir. 2015)

(stating that under § 506(d), a creditor’s legal rights in a debtor’s property are

nullified if the creditor’s claim is “disallowed”).

To the extent that Lee challenged the validity of Nationstar’s proof of claim,

the bankruptcy court properly determined that any such challenge is barred by

claim preclusion. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th

Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under federal law).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35303