note to a real estate mortgage investment conduit we'll call that a remick and they sold that sometime between two thousand and four and two thousand and ten and we know that there's has to be the sale to run it because they've admitted to about any of this and so there is a voluntary chapter seven that's filed and in the voluntary chapter seven then there is a discharge and a final accounting was filed and then there was a voluntary chapter thirteen in the voluntary chapter thirteen we have a proof of claim which was filed and it was timely filed and it was complied with the requirement of rule three thousand and one once you have this proof a claim timely filed having plied with the requirement of three thousand one what is the what is the effect of that and the bankruptcy well the effect of it affecting i understand i think the effect of that and this is i think where the court trying to go this is the effect of a they are basically saying that but if i may you're ok so what evidence do you have to rebut that i have there's that's that's what this whole case about and that's where we go on the premise because that is wonderful just a minute what evidence do you have first of all what we put into the claim initially we put into the claim that there was this p s a we told the court there was a pulling in service and by the way we told the court prior to that hearing because we went through rule three thousand and seven and saw if there's some disputed facts here and we thought there was that's the crux of it have because if there is a poorly an in service an agreement and i have copies of pooling and services agreements that countrywide normally entered into and we asked for those police they told us they sent a letter and they said when i say when i say they i mean when they said that your your debt has been fully paid they told us that and they also said if you don't mind if they also said that under this pulling a service an agreement actual possession of a note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust has the standing to enforce the claim so here we have an entity with actual possession of the note which is your student blank which they hold so they become the holder of the no and the beneficiary they are also the deed of trust so therefore they have the standing to enforce the claim and that's what the district court said and that's what the fab said you're wrong but i was back home to that you're not that's why we're here you go on and there's a tooth point i want to make to it what you're referring to i don't think the court and neither the bankruptcy court that no oral evidence was repressed recruit presented or quest to be presented that's like ok let me go to i read the transcript where did you request i call i'm not that familiar with judge carroll i read the rule rule three thousand and seven and rule three thousand the local rule says that if there is you know a factual dispute that the court can take this as a status conference and said different evidence or because as this case has progressed more facts have come to light and that's why we're here as well here that we that the violation if the court did the call by the way there's no facebook no no no i'm sorry you know i don't mean to be disrespectful in any way shape or form what i'm trying to do i want to make i think you've got to think about what you're saying because you're getting carried away here now let me let me let me i'm i guess my my passion for this case is i think it's that needs to be heard and i don't think we've really been heard and i'd like to be able to be heard on it and when i do when i go through and say i want to pinch it with the remix i'd like to go through that to establish what the facts are here and what we know and what we don't know and what we know is i was trying to do is focus you on the law that i have to apply and i can't get around not applying ok and then you can go on all the time and you want and i'll let you go if that's what it is but all i want you to do is focus on what you're trying to show me and don't get off that because then i'll just forget what you're saying that's fine but what i'm trying to say is that this this thing about the having the note that they just because they have the note that that there's not that's not sufficient just just walking in and say i picked up this note off the street is not sufficient and i think that's where you're trying to direct me or what if i frankly just is we have the real case and the viel case says that the possessor of the no must demonstrate both the fact of the delivery and the purpose of the delivery of the no to the transfer in order to qualify as a person in title to enforce the no that the debt was fully paid it wasn't just fully paid by i think america didn't just report that often reported that now why ask yourself why do these publicly traded entities these big entities they have all kinds of rules require you know what they can report to the credit bureaus what they can't why did they report that this debt was fully paid they could've said destruction said bankruptcy filed they can say anything but they said it's fully paid so that that fact troubled me quite a bit because i had not seen that so as i go through the whole point of the fact that there's a remix and the fact that there's a p s a leads me to this anomaly case this abberation case what i'm trying to say is that somewhere along the line the auditors that the people that are responsible for b of a countrywide bank up when they have to do reporting so i can't report a debt as fully paid on my books less i they just can't do it but they do it here but then what they do is they say i'm not going to you know want to walk in with a note and say hey i have a right to establish my claim just on the no i think there's a conflict there and what i'm washington mutual was taken over by the office of so what is it that doesn't matter ok the o t s ok yeah so they would take an oath or no it doesn't matter here because it matters with all due respect argument to me we have to believe that another entity paid the mortgage on behalf of your client that's correct why would into why would a mortgage servicer do that pay the mortgage on behalf of your client that's what the p s a says the p s a says that when the remick buys the no they buy all right title and interest to that note except for the servicing right so they pay it off now they are they have to be in existence to enforce that anything else but they are not here that's our that's the strange part about this case because if they were here  there's a transfer required if you have the if i if i you know i buy your note ok i buy your no i give you the money you give me the note i don't know but i say you just hold on to the note and cases never a problem that would be looking not just i don't i believe you're citing if at all you're citing that from the be ok here not siding holding the holding was what law to apply to all therefore it doesn't seem to me that feel is going to control me in this situation it's not just feel we have the very bare a case we have there's a lot of cases we have the green place and we have the rivera rivera case we have wells from ohio and we have the camp case from new jersey they all deal with these facts of the chapter thirteen people claim in the burden that falls there and what we're saying is there was a nothing here and and you might disagree but there was enough here to to say you know what i don't know if there were a presumption has been fully re do i like to i think it's important that we set forth the context of what the legal analysis as for for proof a claim so i like to do that and then i'd like to address some of the issues that were raised through the questions of your honor's this is an appeal from a bankruptcy claim the bankruptcy at pella panel carefully reviewed that decision in a firm did so we're here principally on an issue of standing to file a proof a claim in the bankruptcy court an issue that has been considered many times by courts in this circuit repeatedly and consistently rejecting the arguments advanced by missteps or there's a long list of cases from this circuit such as  veal two thousand and eleven soon led to two thousand and eleven alan green two thousand and twelve that clearly set forth what the law is and what the analysis is for these sort of issues these cases in siding  applying california commercial code that you see see these cases hold that our party has standing to file it proof a claim based on a promissory note secured by real property if that party is the person entitled to enforce the note under california commercial code section thirty three of one section thirty three zero one cents of party is a person entitled to enforce the note if it is the holder of the note under section twelve or one of the california commercial code section twelve zero one in combination with section thirty two of five clearly stated that the party in possession of a note endorsed him blank is the holder of the note entitled to enforce the note and therefore the party with standing to file approval claim that's the analysis it has several steps because one needs to consider of several sections of the california commercial code but that's the analysis it's very clear in it's well established through a number of cases in this circuit the banks that the bankruptcy court correctly stated the law on the subject and in view of allowed to address a couple of the issues that were raised by your honour's in the presentation of the appellant one has to do with the burden of proof that you're on a rac and i don't think we've got a full answer to that so the law is also very clear in terms of this stander a law and approve a claim they follow you know of a proof a claim is prim evidence of the claims of illiteracy in the amount of the proof a claim that's bankruptcy rule three thousand and one when a creditor files approved for claim the burden then schiff's on in objector who come forward with sufficient evidence to show facts taney to defeat the claim by provident force equal to that of the allegations of the prove a claim themselves only if and only f t objects or comes forward with sufficient evidence to negate a claim then the burden reverts back to the creditor filing the proof a claim to prove that claim by a preponderance of the evidence so there's a shift in back and forth it seems to me you're going in the right direction but it seems to me we have two issues here if ah we were talking about is whether this proof a claim was valid it would seem to me that i'd aft to give deference to the bankruptcy court because i'd review that on abuse of discretion and so therefore because the bankruptcy court said the proof of claim was valid and everything's ok then it would seem to me their burden is pretty calm because at that point it's an abuse of discretion and i don't see how you can find an abuse of discretion in this record but what we're really talking about here is standing and that is that the no voted terminations so i don't make that determination based on any if you will deference to the bankruptcy court i have to make that upon standing and that's what i was trying to get my colleague to think about i mean the bottom line is the prove a claim was timely filed they complied with the requirements and that's prime of facial validity that the proof of claim is what it is and the district court confirmed it and that makes it even worse on your competit r when we're talking about standing and that's what he would let me quite get to without stopping forty times the end of the an actual possession of the note endorsed in blank and the beneficiary of the deed of trust it seems to me we have plenty case law which would suggest that person has standing and therefore on the noble review i don't have a whole lot to talk about and that's all i was trying to get him to focus on and it seems to me you're taking me under the prove the claim standard but if we go back to the standing standard if even worse well your honor is absolutely correct this is an issue of standing in your honor is correct to point out and i think actually the analysis is simpler than what your honor stated because your honor stated the possessor of the promissory note indoors and blank as well as the  has to be no proven i know the mississippi the only reason i went on to say about the beneficiary is because that's what the district court that's what the bankruptcy court said and that's also what the baps it correct right and it's and consistently say what you honor has stated that the issue of standing is the issue of standing on a note indorsed in blank is the holder of the no the process or the note and there really is no  lack of clarity on that issue there's really no dispute the law is very clear and the courts have held as such consistently and so to bring up an issue that was raised by your honour's as well in a question that p s a in your honor asked what's the importance of the existence of the p s a in this appeal none has nothing to do with this appeal because what missives here is trying to do is show use the issues and shift the attention and the burden of proof from one to let's if we can challenge that the transfers of the deed of trust from the beginning to the n c we could find some defect there and if we could do that let's see we can challenge the proof a claim that the transfers of the deed of trust have nothing to trust in where there was adequately transfer we're here in the bankruptcy in the banks of the bankruptcy court or an approval claim and whether the party fund the perfectly him has standing in the law there is very simple and very clear when it comes to a it's the service or in the investor homeowners repeatedly try to challenge the p s a in trying to determine whether the terms of the p s a have been complied by the parties to the p s a in california the law ever clearly says that a homeowner has no standing to challenge the p s a they're not a party to that p s a but again this is this is sort of the shift the missives are stranded bring us to and try to look at the data tress in the transfers in the law that they'd are trying to argue is that auckland had an obligation in addition to proving that he had a note endorsed in blank is to prove a number oking chain of possession of the deed of trust and that's not the well that's interesting because as i was sitting the i was listening to that and because the issues on this appeal are so narrow and the record on appeal is so narrow i'm not even sure what counsel is referring to but i know that that evidence is not on a a claim and they're trying to prove all sorts of things and i think that may relate to that but that has nothing to do with his appeal so i'm not quite sure what she was what he's referring to but i go back to the issue that how does that fit in analytical premises that is being consistently established for determining whether the party has standing to file approval claim and so that as the new with it but at it i'm unable to answer your honor's question because i don't know where that evidence comes through and i heard statements from counsel throughout his presentation that are not on the record and so i'd respectfully submit that the court shouldn't take it that evidence or at least the bankruptcy court it's addressed in the memorandum of decision and it's addressed in the bapi there's nothing in the record that states that missteps or requested an evidentiary hearing missives or had the right to present evidence going back to the issue of the burdens of proof she had the right to present evidence to refute the prove a claim and she chose not to do so there's nothing in the record that shows that she made a request for an grammy two documents first of all the records are they in this in this record before the court i believe that they i don't think we put the forms of those documents on the record no they're not all then why are we talking to because of the fact the existence of a p s a was prime just say that's why it's biggest comment to you is don't argue stuff outside the record and now you're saying i did ok now but i think the main the main thing that is in the record that we're trying to establish is that what he's saying look at the cases judge you can look at the cases and you can see that all i got to have is hold this note and there are cases which say and be the beneficiary of the deed of trust he says i don't even have to have that what case is there that says he needs any more than that i mean i cited the court to the view i've said to deal case doesn't say that but i but if we look at the glass he case the glass he says just in your possession of the note is not enough request i can i can speak directly to that and i will as i said as i started to say earlier i went through all three thousand and seven i contacted the court clerk i did not familiar with judge call that much but i know it's a crowded courtroom