N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : B EVERLYANN LEE,

De btor,

------------------------------ B EVERLYANN LEE,

Appe lla nt,
v. NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE, LLC , DB A C ham pion M ortga ge C om

pa ny ; W AYNE GODARE, C ha

pte r 13 Truste e , Appe lle e s. No. 20-60016 B AP No. 19-1140
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pa ne l Fa ris, B ra nd, a

nd Spra ke r, B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 17, 2021 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED MAR 19 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : FER NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C ha pte r 13 1 de btor B e ve rly ann Le e a ppe a ls pro se from

an orde r of the B ankruptc y

Appe l late Pa ne l (B AP) a ffirm ing the sum m ary judgm e n t orde r of the ba nkruptc y c ourt in he r a dve rsary

proc e e ding a ga i nst c re d i tor Nationsta r M ortga ge , LLC (Na tionsta r). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 158(d)(1), a

nd we a ffirm
. 2 First, the B AP c orre c tly

de c ide d tha

t the ba nkruptc y c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

c onside ring the loa

n a gre e m e nt. S

e e In reSisk

, 962 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th C ir. 2020). The doc um e nt wa s signe d by both Le e and a

le nde r re p re se ntative , and the re is no re quire m e nt tha t the signa

ture s be le gible . The re wa s no a buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). Se c ond, the B AP c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t pa rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt wa s
a ppropria te with re ga

rd to Na tionsta r’ s pa y m e nt of the 2010–2015 property ta xe s that Le e ha d fa i le d to pa

y . S e e Boy ajian v . N

e w Falls C

orp. (In re Boy ajian) , 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th C ir. 2009). Le e ’ s a sse rtion tha t the loa n doc um e nts did not
re quire he r to pa

y ta xe s in a

tim e ly m anne r is a

n unre a sona

ble inte rpre tation of

1 11 U.S.C . C h. 13. 2 W e grant Le e ’ s m o t ion (9th. C ir. Dkt. 27) to file an am e nde d inform a l re ply brie f. 2the i r pla in la n gua g e . Se e F

lore s v . Am. Se a

foods C o. , 335 F.3d 904, 910 (9th C i r. 2003); S taffordshire

Inv s., Inc . v . C

al-W . Re c onv e y anc e C orp. , 149 P.3d 150, 154 (Or. C t . App. 2006); se e also Or. R e v. Stat. § 86.050. Ne ithe r the loa n doc um e nts nor the De pa

rtm e n t of Housing a

nd Urba n De ve lopm e nt re gula

t ion proffe re d by Le e pre c l ude d Nationsta

r from pa y i ng the prope rty

ta xe s in orde r to prote c t its
se c urity inte re s t whe n Le e fa ile d to do so. Na tionsta r wa s e ntitle d to prote c t its
se c urity inte re s t, a

nd Le e ’ s im

plic a t ion tha

t Nationsta

r’ s pa y m e nts e sse ntia lly
a m ounte d to a

gift is e ntire ly

unre a sona

b le
. Third, the B AP wa s c orre c t tha t sum m ary judgm e nt wa s ina

ppropria te a s to the a c c ounting issue s ra ise d by Le e
— nam e ly , whe the r Na tionsta r a c c ura te l y
c ha rge d inte re st a

nd c re dite d som e of he r pay m e n ts. Le e wa s not e ntitle d to
sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

u se she fa ile d to show a

n a bse nc e of dispute d que stions of fa c t and la w. S e e Fe d
. R . B ankr. P. 7056; Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(a ); se e also Gre e nw o od v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994). Fina lly , Le e ’ s be late d c ha lle nge to the va lidity of the de bt to Na

tionsta r for the first tim e on a

ppe a l from

the sum m ary judgm e nt orde r is im

p rope r; the issue is
wa ive d. Se e Moldo v . Matsc o , Inc . (In re C y be rne tic Se rv

s., Inc .) , 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 n.3 (9th C ir. 2001). He r re fe re nc e s to c o nstitutiona l sta nding a re m ispla c e d

3be c a

use Na tionsta

r is not a pla i ntiff. Se e U.S. C onst. a rt. III, § 2; Spok

e o, Inc . v . Robins , __ U.S. __, __, 136 S. C t. 1540, 1547, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016). AFFIRM E D.

4