Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of: Teresa PEQUIGNOT, Debtor. Teresa Pequignot, Appellant, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Appellee.
    No. 10-35923.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
    Teresa Pequignot, Lake Stevens, WA, pro se.
    David Jason De Jesus, Esquire, Adam Michael Forest, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Karen Louise Gibbon, Esquire, Law Offices of Karen L. Gibbon, Seattle, WA, for Appellee.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Teresa Pequignot appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Pequig-not’s objection to a secured claim filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) in Pequignot’s bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc. (In re Lundell), 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Pequignot’s objection to Deutsche Bank’s secured claim because Pequignot failed to come forward with evidence that rebutted the proof of claim’s prima facie validity. See Diamant v. Kasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1247-48 (9th Cir.1999) (proof of claim is prima facie evidence of claim’s validity, and “debtor must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of validity”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) (consumer has three business days after transaction’s consummation to exercise right to rescind, unless required notices and disclosures are not provided); Wash. Rev.Code § 62A.3-205(b) (instruments indorsed in blank become payable to bearer).

Pequignot’s remaining contentions concerning the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are unpersuasive.

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