16-3438-bk 

In re Residential Capital, LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED 

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED 

WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH 

THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY 

PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 20th day of September, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

Erlinda Abibas Aniel, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 16-3438 

ResCap Liquidating Trust, 

 Defendant-Appellee.*

_____________________________________ 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Erlinda Abibas Aniel, pro se, 

Hillsborough, CA. 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Norman S. Rosenbaum, Jessica J. 

Arett, Jordan A. Wishnew, 

 

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the 

caption. 
Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York, 

NY. 

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant Erlinda Abibas Aniel, pro se, filed two proofs 

of claim in the bankruptcy of Residential Capital, LLC, alleging 

wrongful foreclosure of a California property. The trustee of 

the bankruptcy estate, the ResCap Liquidating Trust, objected 

to Aniel’s claims on the basis that she lacked standing. The 

bankruptcy court sustained the standing objections, and the 

district court affirmed. Aniel appeals. We assume the 

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 

history, and the issues on appeal. 

We conduct plenary review of orders by district courts 

acting as appellate courts in bankruptcy cases, reviewing 

conclusions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error. 

In re First Cent. Fin. Corp., 377 F.3d 209, 212 (2d Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, the ruling on standing is reviewed de novo. 

To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in 

fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the 

defendant’s conduct, and (3) that it is likely the injury will 

be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560−61 (1992) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The injury-in-fact must be concrete and 

particularized. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 

(2016). Aniel alleged that her injury arose from the 

foreclosure of the property, but she has not demonstrated a 

connection to the property sufficient to establish her 

standing. Aniel is not named on the deed of trust or mortgage 

note; as evidence of ownership, she cited a later grant deed 

giving her a one percent interest, an alleged agreement with 

the property’s owner to pay the mortgage, and her own bankruptcy 

filing. But the grant deed postdated the foreclosure 

proceeding, Aniel submitted no documentary evidence 

establishing her alleged agreement with the property owner, and 

she never formally assumed any obligation for the mortgage loan 
3 

with the lender’s consent. Aniel’s submissions in her own 

bankruptcy filing do not establish her standing. 

We have considered all of Aniel’s remaining arguments and 

find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the 

judgment of the district court. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk