[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-14663

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00890-RBD-LRH

OSCAR CALDERON, 

CARMEN V. ORTIZ, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

ALTAGRACIA CALDERON,

 Plaintiff,

 versus

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE 

FOR SG MORTGAGE SECURITIES TRUST 2006-FRE2 

ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-FRE2, 

DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 9, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 20-14663 Date Filed: 07/09/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Oscar Calderon and Carmen Ortiz (collectively “the Calderons”) appeal 

from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on 

the Calderons’ complaint for “declaratory relief to enforce rescission” of a 

mortgage loan based on its conclusion that the Calderons lacked standing. After 

review, we affirm. 

I. Background

The facts in this case are not in dispute. On May 2, 2006, Oscar Calderon 

closed on a mortgage loan for a residential property in Florida. Almost three years 

later, on April 3, 2009, Calderon sent to defendant U.S. Bank and other related 

companies a formal letter demanding recission of the mortgage due to various 

alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and other federal lending 

laws. Calderon was notified in writing this his demand for recission was denied. 

Approximately five months later, Calderon filed a voluntary petition for 

Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He listed the mortgage loan in his bankruptcy petition as a 

secured claim, and he made no mention of his demand for recission. In January 

2010, Calderon received a discharge in his bankruptcy proceeding. 

Over nine years later, the Calderons filed the underlying petition to enforce 

recission of the 2006 mortgage loan, seeking declaratory relief, recission of the 

USCA11 Case: 20-14663 Date Filed: 07/09/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

loan, termination of the defendants’ security interest in the property, return of any 

money paid by the Calderons, statutory damages, actual damages, and attorneys’

fees and costs. 

U.S. Bank ultimately moved for summary judgment, arguing, in relevant 

part, that the Calderons lacked standing and were otherwise not entitled to relief on 

the merits of their claim. The district court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for 

summary judgment and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The district 

court explained that, once Oscar Calderon filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, his recission 

claim, of which he was aware prior to filing bankruptcy, became—and remained—

part of the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, only the bankruptcy trustee had standing 

to bring the claim. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the complaint. This 

appeal followed.

II. Discussion

The Calderons argue that the district court erred in concluding that the 

recission was the property of the bankruptcy estate because the recission was 

complete and effective upon receipt of the recission notices by the defendants, 

which occurred prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, and, therefore, it was 

not an asset, claim, or cause of action for purposes of the bankruptcy estate. We 

USCA11 Case: 20-14663 Date Filed: 07/09/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

disagree.1

The Bankruptcy Code provides that virtually all of a debtor’s assets and 

legal and equitable interests in property “as of the commencement” of the 

bankruptcy case vest in the bankruptcy estate upon the filing of the petition. See 

11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); see also In re Witko, 374 F.3d 1040, 1042 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(“The commencement of a voluntary bankruptcy case creates an estate generally 

consisting of the legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the 

commencement of the case.” (quotation omitted)). Even if not disclosed by the 

debtor during the bankruptcy proceeding, the property of the bankruptcy estate 

includes causes of action and potential causes of action belonging to the debtor at 

the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Parker v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 365 F.3d 

1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 

F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a debtor has a duty to “disclose 

all assets, or potential assets, to the bankruptcy court”); In re Alvarez, 224 F.3d 

1274, 1276–79 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that, under both state and federal law, the

debtor’s legal malpractice claim was “sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy 

past” that it was properly considered property of the bankruptcy estate even though 

1 “We review standing determinations de novo.” A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. 

GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 925 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2019).

USCA11 Case: 20-14663 Date Filed: 07/09/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

debtor had not yet brought a cause of action against his counsel at the time of the 

filing of the petition).

The bankruptcy trustee “is the only party with standing to prosecute causes 

of action belonging to the estate.” Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272. Even after the close 

of a bankruptcy case, property of the bankruptcy estate remains in the estate unless 

abandoned back to the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 554. Id. 

Although the Calderons had yet to file any formal recission-related cause of 

action at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, they had sent a notice 

demanding recission to the defendants. Thus, the Calderons’ recission claim is a 

pre-petition claim that became a part of the bankruptcy estate upon the filing of the 

Chapter 7 petition. Parker, 365 F.3d at 1272; In re Alvarez, 224 F.3d at 1279. 

Because there is no evidence that the trustee ever abandoned this pre-petition 

recission claim, the Calderons lacked standing to bring this action. Parker, 365 

F.3d at 1272. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary 

judgment on this basis.2

 

AFFIRMED.

2 In light of our standing determination, we do not reach the other arguments that the 

Calderons raise in their brief which go to the merits of their claim.

USCA11 Case: 20-14663 Date Filed: 07/09/2021 Page: 5 of 5