Case ID: br_581/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: Allana BARONI, Debtor, Allana Baroni, Appellant, v. CIT Bank N.A., FKA OneWest Bank FSB, FKA OneWest Bank NA, Appellee.
    No. 16-56618
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 6, 2018  San Francisco, California
    Filed February 08, 2018
    Richard Lawrence Antognini, Law Office of Richard L. Antognini, Grass Valley, CA, for Appellant
    Brian H. Newman, James Kevin Snyder, Esquire, Attorney, Dykema Gossett LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and D.W. NELSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Allana Baroni (“Baroni”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment rulings in favor of CIT Bank, N.A. (formerly known as “OneWest Bank N.A.”) (“OneW-est”). 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 $1.61 million—a “fixed amount of money” pursuant § 3104(a).

2. The undisputed evidence establishes OneWest possesses Baroni’s promissory note indorsed in blank. As the “holder of the instrument,” OneWest 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).

3. The undisputed evidence further establishes OneWest kept Baroni’s note and the allonges executed pursuant to it in the same folder. As the allonges were “sufficiently affixed” to the note, there is no triable issue of material fact as to whether OneWest may enforce it. Veal, 450 B.R. at 911 n.24 (citations omitted); see also § 3204(a).

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