F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

I N RE : T O N I M ARI E G R IFF IN , Debtor ,

P ET ER H. A R K I S ON , Chapter 7 Trustee , Appellant ,

v. T O N I M ARI E G R IFF IN ; U. S. B ANK N A T I O N A L A S S OC I ATI ON , Appellee s
. No. 12-60046
BA P No. 11-1362

OPI NI ON

Ap pe a l f ro m th e Ni nth

Cir c uit Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l Ki rs c he r, Ho llo we ll, and

Jury , B ank

ru ptc y Judg e s, Presiding Argued and Submitted J une 5, 2013—Seattle, Washing ton Filed June 26, 2013
Be fore : Arthur L . Alarc ón, M. Marg are t McKeow n, and Sand ra S. Iku ta , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Per Curiam OpinionI N RE : G R IFF IN 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y *

Bank ruptcy
Af fi rm ing a de c isi on of the B ank ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l, the panel held that a bank, by providing a copy of a co p y of the promissory

note with respe ct t o wh i ch the bank soug ht relief from an automatic stay , and a de clar ation establishing the bank’s possession of the orig inal note, established p r u d e n t i a l s t an d i n g t o f

i l e a m o t i o nf o r r e l i e f f r o m t h e s t ay.

CO UN SEL
Tu e lla O. Sy ke s, Th e L aw O ff

ic e of Tu e lla O. Sy ke s, PL L C, Se a ttl e , Wa sh ing ton , f

or Ap pe lla nt.
Fr ed B . Bur

nside , Da vis W rig ht Tremaine L L P, Seattle, Washington, for

Appellee

.

OP IN ION
PER CU RI AM : U.S. Ba nk N.A. f

iled a motion for re lief fr om the a uto ma tic stay in t

his ba nk ru ptc y c a se . T o e sta

bli shits standing to bring this mot ion, the bank submitted a copy of the promissory n o t e with respec t to which the bank soug htI N RE : G R IFF IN 3

r e l i e f f r o m t h e s t ay. T h i s c o p y w a s a p p a r e n t l y a second- g ener ation copy

of the note, b ec ause it re produce d a c e rti f ic a ti o na f f ixe d to th e f ir s t- g e n e r a ti o nc o p y

th a t s tate d: “W e h er eb y cer

tify that this is a true & corr ect c opy of the or ig ina l. C TXMo rt g a g e Com pa ny , L L C. ” Th e ba

nk a lso submitt ed a de clar ation cer tify ing that the orig inal note was in the bank’s f

iles. The trustee argued that a d u p l i ca t e of a du pli c a te of the or ig ina l no te wa s in su ff ici ent to e sta

bli sh pr ud e nti al stan din g . T he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt re je c te d th is argument and the B AP affir med.
We a g r e e w it

h th e F ir s t Ci r c u it th a t a d u p lic ate of

a duplicate is a duplicate for purposes of F eder al Rule of Evidence 1003. See Un ite d Stat es v. C arro ll , 860 F.2d 500, 507 (1st Cir. 1988). We theref ore c onclude t hat U.S. Ba nk N.A., by providing a copy

o f a copy

of the note a

nd a decla ration establishing its possession of the orig inal note, es t ab lished prudential standing to file the motion for re lief f r o m t h e s t ay. A proc eedingto determine e ligibility for r elief from a stay only deter mines whether

a cr editor sh o u l d be re lease d from t h e s t ay i n o rd er t o ar gu e t h e m er i t s i na s ep ar at e p ro ce ed i n g. J oh ns on v . R igh e tti , 756 F.2d 738, 740–41 ( 9th Cir. 1985). Gi ve n th e lim ite d nat ure of th e re lie f o bta ine d thro ug h th is pr oc e e din g and

be c a us e fi na l a dju dic a tio n o f t he p art ie s’ rig hts and liabiliti es is y et to oc cur, a par ty seekingstay

relief need only establish that it has a colora ble claim to the proper ty at issue. In re Ve al , 4 50 B .R. 89 7, 91 4– 15 (B .A .P. 9th Cir . 2 01 1) . T he ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt did no t abuse its d i s c r e t i o ni ng r an t i n g r e l i e f f r o m t h e s t ay. AF F IR M ED

.