UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: CLARENCE THOMAS, 

 Debtor. 

------------------------------ 

CLARENCE THOMAS, 

 Appellant, 

v. 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, 

 Appellee. 

No. 13-6281 

(BAP No. 13-029-WO) 

(BAP)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before MATHESON, EBEL, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

 

 This appeal concerns whether the Federal National Mortgage Association 

(FNMA) is a “party in interest” entitled to seek “an order . . . confirming that the 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 29, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

automatic stay [associated with Mr. Thomas’s bankruptcy] has been terminated.” 

11 U.S.C. § 362(j). After holding an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court 

determined that FNMA had made a sufficient, colorable showing of standing, as the 

holder of a promissory note signed by Mr. Thomas, to seek § 362(j) relief. The Tenth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), we affirm. 

 “Although this appeal is from a decision by the BAP, we review only the 

Bankruptcy Court’s decision.” Alderete v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. ( In re 

Alderete), 412 F.3d 1200, 1204 (10th Cir. 2005). “We review matters of law 

de novo, and we review factual findings made by the bankruptcy court for clear 

error.” C.O.P. Coal Dev. Co. v. C.W. Mining Co. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), 641 F.3d 

1235, 1240 (10th Cir. 2011). “[W]e treat the BAP as a subordinate appellate tribunal 

whose rulings are not entitled to any deference (although they certainly may be 

persuasive).” Parks v. Dittmar (In re Dittmar), 618 F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2010) 

(quotation omitted). We may affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court “for any 

reason supported by the record.” United States v. Myers (In re Myers), 362 F.3d 667, 

674 n.7 (10th Cir. 2004). 

 At the evidentiary hearing, FNMA produced what it claimed was the original 

promissory note signed by Mr. Thomas. FNMA claimed to be the holder of the note 

which had been endorsed in blank. The bankruptcy court concluded, and the BAP 

affirmed, that FNMA had made a sufficient showing that it held the original note to 
- 3 - 

confer standing to seek the § 362(j) order. Mr. Thomas now raises a number of 

objections to this conclusion, arguing that (1) FNMA failed to present evidence 

concerning how it came into possession of the note; (2) the bankruptcy court and 

BAP’s scenario concerning the history of the note is unsupported and contradicted by 

the record and the representations of FNMA’s counsel; (3) the BAP erred by shifting 

the burden to Mr. Thomas to prove that someone besides FNMA held the original 

note or had made a claim on the note; (4) FNMA failed to provide any evidence to 

prove transfer of the note to FNMA; (5) Mr. Thomas proved that Chase Home 

Finance, LLC, had made a conflicting claim on the note; (6) FNMA submitted no 

evidence to prove that the note presented was the original, and the note was not 

self-authenticating pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 902(9); and (7) the ambiguities in the 

note’s chain of title are materially relevant in this context. 

 Having carefully reviewed the bankruptcy court’s decision and the BAP’s 

affirmance, the briefs, and the record, we affirm the challenged decision for 

substantially the reasons stated in the BAP’s opinion issued November 13, 2013. 

To the extent Mr. Thomas raises points not expressly determined by the BAP in its 

decision, we find them meritless. 

 Entered for the Court 

 David M. Ebel 

 Circuit Judge