### NOT FOR PU BLICA TION

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT In re: R O N A LD MA RT IN E Z,

Deb to r. R O N A LD MA RT IN E Z,

A p pellant,

v. W ELLS FA R GOBA N K , N .A ., A p pellee. BA P N o . C C -19-1037-FSTa Bk. N o . 2:17-b k-24424-N B

M E M ORA ND U M *

Sub m itted W itho ut A rgum ent o n Septemb er 26, 2019

Filed – O c tob er 8, 2019 A ppeal fro m the U nited States Bankruptcy C o urt fo r the C entral Distric t o f C alifo rnia Ho no rab le N eil W . Baso n, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 

# FIL ED
OCT 8 2019 SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. B KCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H C I RCUI T

*Thi s di sposi ti on i s not appr opr i ate for publi cati on. Although i t may be ci ted for whatev er per suasiv e v alue i t may hav e, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, i t has no pr ecedenti al v alue, see9th Ci r . BAP Rule 8024-1.A ppearanc es: Mo ises A . A viles o f A viles &A sso c iates o n the b rief fo r appellant R o nald Martinez.

Befo r e: FA R IS, SPRA K ER , and TAY LO R

, Bankruptcy Judges. INT ROD U CT I ON C hapter 13 1 deb to r R o nald Martinez fell b ehind o n po stpetitio n paym ents to appellee W ells Fargo Bank, N .A . (“W ells Fargo ” ), and the b ankruptcy c o urt required himto cure the po stpetitio n default. On appeal, Mr. Martinez argues that W ells Fargo was b a rred fro mc o m plaining ab o ut his m issed paym ents b ec a u se it did no t objec t to plan c o nfirm atio n. He also argues that he was current with paym ents b ec ause W ells Fargo m isapplied
c ertain o f them
. Mr. Martinez’s argum ents are m eritless. A c c o rdingly, we A FFIRM.

FA CT U A L BA CK GROU ND 2 A . M r. M artinez’sc hapter 13 petition and plan Mr. Martinez filed a chapter 13 petitio n. He scheduled residential real pro perty in Po m o na, C alifo rnia (the “Pro perty”). He valued the Pro perty at

1 Unless specifi ed other wi se, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S
. C. §§ 101-1532, all “Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder a l Rules of Bankr uptcy Pr ocedur e, and all “Ci v i l Rule” r efer ences ar e to the Feder al Rules of Ci v i l Pr ocedur e.

2 We exer ci se our di scr eti on to r ev i ew the bankr uptcy cour t’s docket, as appr opr i ate. See Woods & Erickson, LLP v. Leonard (In re AVI, Inc.) , 389 B.R. 721, 725 n.2 (9th Ci r. BAP 2008). 2$265,000 and sc heduled three deb ts secured b y the Pro perty: (1) a first
m o rtgage (“First Lien”) in favo ro f W ells Fargo Ho m e Mo rtgage to taling $89,545.97, (2) a ho m e equity line o f c redit (the “Sec o nd Lien”) in favo r o f W ells Fargo to taling $69,157.55, and (3) a lien (“Third Lien”) in favo r o f the C ity o f Po m o na, Ho using Divisio n to t a ling $48,714.13. W ells Fargo filed a tim ely pro o f o f c laimfo r $66,689.47 pertaining to the Sec o nd Lien. It represented that, as o f the petitio n date, Mr. Martinez was $8,307.90 in arrears and had not m ade any paym ent sinc e June 2016. Mr. Martinez filed a series o f chapter 13 plans. The plan that is at issue in this appeal dealt so lely with the arrears under the Sec o nd Lien. That plan (the “Plan”) pro p o sed “cu r e and m aintenanc e” o f the Sec o nd Lien. He pro po sed to m ake his regular m o nthly c o ntrac tual paym ents (the “m aintenanc e paym ents”) direc tly to W ells Fargo and to m ake sixty
m o nthly paym ents o f $138.47 (the “cure paym ents”) to cure the $8,307.90 in prepetitio n arrears. W ells Fargo did no t objec tto the Plan. The b ankruptcy c o urt entered an o rder c o nfirm ing the Plan (“C o nfirm atio n O rder”). The C o nfirm atio n O rder required Mr. Martinez to pay: $176.84 per m o nth fro mthe first thro ugh the fo urth m o nths; $153.70 in the fifth m o nth; $154.70 in the sixth and seventh m o nths; and $154.00 per
m o nth fo r the rem a inder o f the Plan term . A s is no ted ab o ve, the Plan also required Mr. Martinez tom ake his m aintenanc e paym ents. W ells Fargo did no t appeal the C o nfirm atio n O rder.
3B. W ells Farg o’s m otion for relief froms tay

Two m o nths later, W ells Fargo filed a m o tio n fo r relief fro mthe auto m aticstay (“Stay Relief Mo tio n”). It argued that its interest in the Pro perty was no t adequately pro t ec ted under § 362(d)(1) b ec a use Mr. Martinez had failed tom ake the required m aintenanc e paym ents. It identified a to tal po stpetitio n delinquenc y o f $3,485.61. It represented that it rec eived Mr. Martinez’s last paym ent o n July 31, 2018 and applied it to w ard his January 2018 paym ent:

D ue dat e Amountdue Paymentdat e Paymentamount 12/15/17 $470.08 6/27/18 $512.81 1/15/18 $494.85 7/31/18 $508.84 2/15/18 $505.63 3/15/18 $486.55 4/15/18 $489.87 5/15/18 $501.10 6/15/18 $512.81 7/15/18 $508.84 8/15/18 $537.43 Tot al $4,507.26 $1,021.65 $3,485.61 In respo nse, Mr. Martinez represented that he was current o n his First Lien, his Plan paym ents, and his m aintenanc e paym ents. He alleged that a W ells Fargo em plo yee to ld himthat so m e o f the m aintenanc e paym ents went to the First Lien instead o f the Sec o nd Lien. He also stated
4that when he attem pted to m ake the A u gust 2018 m aintenanc e paym ent o n

O c t ob er 1, 2018, a Wells Fargo em plo yee to ld himthat W ells Fargo had
c lo s ed the ac c o unt fo r the Sec o nd Lien. He argued that it was no t his fault if W ells Fargo m isapplied his paym ents. He listed his purpo rted m aintenanc e paym ents b etween A pril 2018 and Septemb er 2018, which were applied to either the First Lien o rthe Sec o nd Lien:

Paymentdat e A mount Pai d t o 4/30/18 $489.87 Fi r st Li en 5/30/18 $501.10 Fi r st Li en 6/27/18 $512.81 Sec ond Li en 7/31/18 $508.84 Sec ond Li en 8/xx/18 $537.43 Fi r st Li en 9/1/18 $508.51 Fi r st Li en 9/27/18 $486.55 Sec ond Li en
He attached c o pies o f the depo sit rec eipts evidenc ing his paym ents. A t the hearing o n the Stay R elief Mo tio n, c o unsel fo rW ells Fargo po inted o ut that, altho ugh Mr. Martinez c laim ed that he tim ely m ade all o f his m aintenanc e paym ents, m o st o f them were applied to his First Lien, as
no ted in the o ppo sitio n. C o u nsel fo r W ells Fargo stated that, if Mr. Martinez intended to pay the Sec o nd Lien, W ells Fargo c o u ld redirec t the paym ents, b u tit wo uld likely result in a default o n the First Lien. He

5suggested that the c o urt c o ntinue the hearing fo r thirty days to allo w the

atto rneys to wo rk o ut a so lutio n. Mr. Martinez’s c o unsel agreed to the
c o ntinuanc e. A t the c o ntinued hearing, c o unsel fo r W ells Fargo said that Mr. Martinez’s c o unsel had b een unrespo nsive to his multiple
c o m munic atio ns regarding the applic atio n o f Mr. Martinez’s paym ents. He also stated, “Perhaps, Judge, m o st tro ub ling is sinc e we have filed o ur
m o tio n we have no paym ents fo r Septemb er, O c t ob er and N o vemb er and that is tro ub ling.” C o unsel suggested that the c o urt issue an adequate pro tec tio n o rder whereb y Mr. Martinez wo uld m ake an initial paym ent o f $1,500, fo llo wed b y regular paym ents (in additio n to his cure paym ents and m aintenanc e paym ents) to cu re his po s tpetitio n default o n the
m aintenanc e paym ents. Mr. Martinez’s c o unsel apparently 3 said that W ells Fargo had refunded Mr. Martinez appro xim ately $1,500 fo r the funds that were
m isapplied to the First Lien. He agreed to the term s o f W ells Fargo ’s pro po sed adequate pro tec tio n o rder. The b ankruptcy c o urt explained to Mr. Martinez, “[Y ]o u have the ab ility to m ake a paym ent o f $1500 o n o r b efo re Dec emb er 1. And then starting Dec emb er 14 yo u wo uld no t o nly b e m aking yo u r regular

3 Mr
. Mar ti nez’s counsel appear ed by telephone; the connecti on was bad, so both the cour t and the tr anscr ib er had di ffi culty under standing hi m. 6paym ents o n whatever date they’re regularly due, b ut yo u’d alsob e

c atching up o n the – o n the paym ents fo r – that are still o wed o n this
m atter.” Mr. Martinez indic ated that he understo o d. C o unsel fo r W ells Fargo drafted a pro po sed stipulatio n and o rder fo r adequate pro tec tio n per the c o urt’s direc tio n, b ut Mr. Martinez’s c o unsel refused to sign the stipulatio n and o rder. W ells Fargo filed an ex parte applic atio n requesting that the c o urt enter the o rder granting the Stay R elief Mo tio n and o rdering adequate pro tec tio n. The b ankruptcy c o urt entered the o rder (“Stay Relief O rder”), which attached and inc o rpo rated an adequate pro tec tio n o rder (“A PO ”). The A POfirst pro vided that Mr. Martinez mu st c o ntinue m aking his
m o nthly m aintenanc e paym ents to ward the Sec o nd Lien and direc ted him to “m ake regular m o nthly paym ents in the am o unt o f $519.56 (variab le)
c o m m enc ing 12/15/2018.” The A POadditio nally pro vided that Mr. Martinez must cure the po stpetitio n default o n m aintenanc e paym ents (to t aling $4,569.37 thro ugh N o vemb er 2018) b y: (1) paying $1,500 b y Dec emb er 1, 2018; and (2) paying equal m o nthly installm ents o f appro xim ately $341.04 thro ugh Septemb er 2019, in additio n to his regular m o nthly m aintenanc e paym ents. Finally, the A POpro vided that Mr. Martinez was entitled toa
m axim umo f three no tic es o f default; thereafter, W ells Fargo wo uld b e entitled to request term inatio n o f the auto m aticstay.
7C. T he m otion for rec ons ideration

Sho rtly thereafter, Mr. Martinez filed a m o tio n to alter o r am end the Stay Relief O rder under Ru le 9023 (“Rec o nsideratio n Mo t io n”). He argued that W ells Fargo did no t have the right to seek “m o dific atio ns” to the Plan in the guise o f adequate pro tec tio n. He requested that the b ankruptcy c o urt
vac ate the Stay R elief O rder. The b ankruptcy c o urt entered an o rder (“R ec o nsideratio n O r der”) denying the R ec o nsideratio n Mo t io n o n Feb ruary 7, 2019. It no ted that the R ec o nsideratio n Mo t io n was rife with pro c edural defec ts. A s to the m erits
o f the m o tio n, the c o u rt stated that “[t]he Plan deals with prepetitio n deb ts. The A POdealt with Deb to r’s po stpetitio n failure to pay o ngo ing m o nthly
ob ligatio ns.” It no ted that it had stated in the C o nfirm atio n O rder that the “c o nfirm atio n o f the Plan [was] witho ut prejudic e to the rights o f secured
c redito rs with respec t to po s t-petitio n defaults b y the deb to r(s).” A lternatively, the c o u rt held that Mr. Martinez fo rfeited this argum ent b ec ause he failed to raise it in o ppo sitio n to the Stay R elief Mo tio n o r at the hearing o n that m o t io n. Finally, the c o urt held that there was no equitab le b asis togrant Mr. Martinez relief. Mr. Martinez tim ely appealed fro mb o th the Stay R elief O rder and the R ec o nsideratio n O rder.

8JU RISD ICT ION

The b ankruptcy c o urt had jurisdic tio n pursuant to28 U .S.C . §§ 1334 and 157(b )(2)(G). W e have jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . § 158. ISSU E S (1) Whether the b ankruptcy c o urt erred in granting the Stay R elief Mo tio n and o rdering Mr. Martinez to m ake adequate pro tec tio n paym ents. (2) Whether the b ankruptcy c o urt erred in denying the R ec o nsideratio n Mo t io n.ST A ND A RD OF RE V I E W “Ab ankruptcy c o u rt’s determ inatio ns regarding stay relief are reviewed fo r an ab use o f disc retio n[.]” V ea l v. Am . H

o m e Mo rtg. S ervicing, Inc. (In re V

ea l) , 450 B.R . 897, 915 (9th C ir. BA P 2011) (c iting Kro nem yer v. Am . Co ntra cto rs Indem . Co . (In re Kro nem yer) , 405 B.R . 915, 919 (9th C ir. BA P 2009)). Sim ilarly, we review fo r ab use o f disc retio n a b a nkruptc y c o urt’s denial o f a m o tio n fo r rec o nsideratio n. S ee Aha nchia n v. Xeno n Pictures, Inc. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010); Tenna nt v. R o ja s (In re Tenna nt) , 318 B.R
. 860, 866 (9th C ir. BA P 2004). To determ ine whether the b ankruptc y c o u rt has ab used its disc retio n, we c o nduc t a two -step inquiry: (1) we review de no vo whether the b ankruptcy c o urt “identified the c o rrec tlegal rule to apply to the relief requested” and (2) if it did, whether the b ankruptcy c o urt’s applic atio n o f

9the legal standard was illo gic al, im plausib le, o r witho ut suppo r t in

inferenc es that m ay b e drawn fro m the fac ts in the rec o rd. United S ta tes v. Hinkso n , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262-63 & n.21 (9th C ir. 2009) (en b anc ). D ISCU SSION A . M r. M artinez waiv e d his argu m e nt that W e lls Farg o was barred froms eeking

adequate protec tion paym ents . The b ankruptcy c o urt held that Mr. Martinez failed to raise his argum ent c o nc erning c laimprec lusio n in c o nnec tio n with the Stay R elief Mo tio n, so he c o uld no t m o ve fo r rec o nsideratio n o n that b asis. W e agree. A ltho ugh the federal rules do no t ac kno w ledge a rec o nsideratio n
m o tio n, “[a] ‘m o tio n fo r rec o nsideratio n’ is treated as a m o tio n to alter o r am end judgm ent under [C ivil Rule] 59(e) if it is filed within [fo urteen] days
o f entry o f judgm ent. O therwise, it is treated as a [C ivil] Rule 60(b ) m o tio n fo r relief fro ma judgm ent o ro rder.” S ee Am
. Iro nwo rks &Erecto rs, Inc. v. N
. Am . Co nstr. Co rp. , 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (c itatio n o m itted). The N inth C irc uit has instruc ted that a “[C ivil] Ru le 59(e) m o t io n
m ay no t b e used to raise argum ents o r present evidenc e fo r the first tim e when they c o uld reaso nab ly have b een raised earlier in the litigatio n.” K o na Enters., Inc. v. Esta te o

f Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The b ankruptcy c o urt c o rrec tly no t ed that Mr. Martinez failed toraise the argum ent that W ells Fargo is prec luded fro m seeking stay relief either in his o ppo s itio n to the Stay R elief Mo tio n o r at the hearing o n that m o tio n.
10In fac t, at the hearing, Mr. Martinez and his c o unsel did no t even o bjec t to

the A PO . He presented the b ankruptcy c o urt with no reaso n why it sho uld
rec o nsider its earlier ruli ng. A dditio nally, Mr. Martinez m erely repeats o n appeal the argum ents raised in the R ec o nsideratio n Mo tio n. He do es no t address the b a nkruptc y c o u rt’s ho lding that his argum ent was untim ely. He thus waived any
challenge to the c o urt’s determ inatio n that he failed to tim ely raise this argum ent. S ee Indep. To w ers o f W a sh. v. W a shingto n , 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th C ir. 2003) (“[W ]e will no t c o nsider any c laim s that were no t ac tually argued in appellant’s o p ening b rief. R ather, we ‘review o nly issues which are argued spec ific ally and distinc tly in a party’s o pening b rief.” (c itatio ns o m itted)). Furtherm o re, even if the b ankruptc y c o urt were required to c o nsider his argum ents raised in c o nnec t io n with the R ec o nsideratio n Mo tio n, they
are m eritless. Fo r the reaso ns stated b elo w, the b ankruptcy c o urt did no t ab use its disc retio n in issuing the A POand requiring Mr. Martinez tocure his failure to m ake po s tpetitio n m aintenanc e paym ents. B. W ells Farg o was not prec luded froms eeking adequate protec tion paym ents pos tc onfirm ation. Mr. Martinez argues that the b ankruptc y c o urt erred b y granting the Stay Relief Mo tio n and requiring himto c o m ply with the A PO, b ec ause W ells Fargo did no t objec t to o rappeal fro mthe plan c o nfirm atio n. His

11argum ents are m eritless.

A s a general rule, “[w]hen the b ankruptcy c o urt c o nfirm s a plan, its term s b ec o m e b inding o n deb to r and c redito r alike. C o nfirm atio n has prec lusive effec t

, fo rec lo sing relitigatio n o f ‘any issue ac tually litigated b y the parties and any issue nec essarily determ ined b y the c o nfirm a tio n o rder.’” Bulla rd v. Blue H ills Ba nk , 135 S. C t. 1686, 1692 (2015) (citatio ns o m itted). Put ano ther way, we rec ently stated that “[a] plan is a c o ntrac t b etween the deb to r and the deb to r’s c r edito rs. The o rder c o nfirm ing a
chapter 13 plan, upo n b ec o m ing final, represents a b inding determ inatio n o f the rights and liab ilities o f the parties as spec ified b y the plan.” D erha m Burk v. M rdutt (In re M rdutt) , 600 B.R . 72, 76-77 (9th C ir. BA P2019) (c iting Ma x R eco very, Inc. v. Tha n (In re Tha n) , 215 B.R . 430, 435 (9th C ir. BA P 1997); 8 C o llier o n Bankruptcy ¶ 1327.02 (Richard Levin & Henry J. So m m er eds. 16th ed. 2019)). But the c o nfirm a tio n o rder do es no tprec lude litigatio n ab o ut the deb to r ’ s po st-c o nfirm atio n defaults. The plan and c o nfirm atio n o rder determ ine what the deb to r m ust do ; they do no t dec ide whether the deb t o r has do ne tho se things. W e have held that “[p]o st-c o nfirm atio n defaults
wo uld no t b e c o nsidered at the c o nfirm atio n hearing and are therefo re no t subjec t to res judic ata flo wing fro mthe o r der.” Ellis v. Pa rr (In re Ellis) , 60 B.R . 432, 434 (9th C ir. BA P 1985). W e no ted that “[f]ailure to m ake po st-c o nfirm atio n paym ents c an c o nstitute c ause fo r lifting the stay.” Id. at
12435. Mr. Martinez’s b asicargum ent is that W ells Fargo c anno t seek to

fo rc e himto inc rease his paym ents, b ec ause the paym ent term s in the Plan
c anno t b e c o ntested after c o nfirm atio n. He c o ntends that, after the b ankruptcy c o urt c o nfirm ed the Plan, W ells Fargo had no “right to m ake
m o dific atio ns thro ugh an insistenc e o f an ‘adequate pro tec tio n plan’ [sic ].” Mr. Martinez’s argum ent b o rders o n frivo lo us. The b ankruptc y c o urt did no t require himto pay m o re than the Plan pro vided. The prob lem
aro se b ec ause Mr. Martinez had paid less than the Plan required. The c o urt sim ply gave him a chanc e to c atch up o n his po stpetitio n m aintenanc e paym ents. A s the b ankruptcy c o urt c o rrec tly explained, “[t]he Plan deals with prepetitio n deb ts. The A P Odealt with the Deb to r’s po stpetitio n failure to pay o ngo ing m o nthly o b ligatio ns.” Im po rtantly, the C o nfirm atio n O rder pro vided that “[c ]o nfirm a t io n o f the Plan is without prejudic e to the rig hts of s ec ured c reditors with res pec t to pos t-petition defaults b y the deb to r (s).” (Em phasis added.) In o ther wo rds, the Plan required Mr. Martinez tom ake his regular po stpetitio n m aintenanc e paym ents to W ells Fargo , and W ells Fargo was entitled to seek a rem edy when Mr. Martinez b reached his Plan. S e e W a tso n v. D itech F in. LLC

(In re W a tso n) , BA P N o . HI-17-1012-TaLB, 2017 W L 5196710, at *3 (9th Cir. BA P N o v. 9, 2017), a ff’d , 754 F. A pp’x 599 (9th C ir. 2019) (rejec ting the deb to r’s argum ent
13that stay relief was im p r o per fo r his failure to m ake po stc o nfirm atio n

paym ents “b ec ause [c redito r] failed to obj ec t to his chapter 13 plan, which
was c o nfirm ed, final under § 1327, and thus res judic ata as toall issues that
c o u ld have b een raised”). Therefo re, W ells Fargo ’s failure toobjec tto plan c o nfirm atio n did no t prevent it fro mseeking relief fro mstay o radequate pro tec t io n when Mr. Martinez defaulted under the Plan. C. M r. M artinez’sargum ent that W ells Farg o s c hem ed to “c reate” his default is m eritles s . Mr. Martinez c o ntends that the b ankruptcy c o u rt sho uld no t have
o rdered himto m a ke adequate pro tec tio n paym ents, b ec a use he was no t in default. W e rejec t this argum ent. Sec tio n 362(d)(1) perm its the b a nkruptc y c o urt to grant relief fro m the auto m aticstay fo r c ause, “inc luding the lac k o f adequate pro tec t io n.” The dec isio n whether to grant o r deny relief fro m the auto m aticstay is determ ined o n a c ase-b y-c a se b asis and “is c o m m itted to the so und disc retio n o f the b ankruptcy c o urt.” Benedo r Co r p. v. Co nejo Enters., Inc. (In re Co nejo Enters., Inc.) , 96 F.3d 346, 351 (9th Cir. 1996). W e have previo usly instruc ted that “the b ankruptcy c o u rt m ust have disc retio n to fix any initial lum p sumam o unt [o f adequate pro t ec tio n paym ents], the am o unt payab le perio dic ally, the frequenc y o f paym ents, and the b eginning date, all as dic tated b y the c irc um stanc es o f the c ase and

14the so und exerc ise o f that disc retio n.” P a c co m Lea sing Co rp. v. D eicoElecs.,

Inc. (In re D eico Elecs., Inc.) , 139 B.R . 945, 947 (9th C ir. BA P 1992). Sec t io n 361 “sets fo r th three no n-exc lusive exam ples o f what m a y c o nstitute adequate pro tec tio n: 1) perio dicc ash paym ents equivalent to dec rease in value, 2) an additio nal o r replac em ent lien o n o ther pro perty, o r 3) o ther relief that pro vides the indub itab le equivalent.” P isto le v. Mello r (In re Mello r) , 734 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1984) (c itatio n o m itted). Mr. Martinez argues that W ells Faro purpo sefully engineered his default under the Sec o nd Lien. He c o ntends that W ells Fargo failed to pro perly apply paym ents to his ac c o unt and “tam pered with” his ac c o unt
numb ers toc ause himto default o n the Sec o nd Lien. These argum ents are patently untenab le. First, W ells Fargo refunded the allegedly m isapplied funds fo r Mr. Martinez touse as paym ent to ward the Sec o nd Lien. It is unc lear why Mr. Martinez is no w unwilling to pay am o u nts that he was earlier willing to pay. 4 Sec o nd, there is no questio n that Mr. Martinez was in default on the
m aintenanc e paym ents. W ells Fargo ’s c o unsel represented to the c o urt, and Mr. Martinez did no t deny, that Mr. Martinez had no t m ade the Septemb er,

4 Mr
. Mar ti nez appar ently tr i ed to pay the S econd Li en wi th the check that he r ecei v ed fr om Wells Far go for the mi sappli ed funds, but he failed to pr oper l y endor se i t. The r ecor d i s unclearas to the status of that payment. 15O c t ob er, o r N o vemb er 2018 m aintenanc e paym ents. 5 A dditio nally,

altho ugh Mr. Martinez asserts that he m a de the A pril thro ugh A ugust 2018
m aintenanc e paym ents (so m e o f which were m isapplied), he do es no t
ac c o u nt fo r the o verdue paym ents b etween Dec emb er 2017 and March 2018. There is nogenuine dispute that he is in default. Third, even if W ells Fargo “tam pered” with his ac c o unt numb er, this allegedly o c c urred after the c o urt issued the A PO, and it did no t c ause the default, as Mr. Martinez alleges. Furtherm o re, even if W ells Fargo changed the ac c o u nt numb er asso c iated with the Sec o nd Lien, m a king it diffic ult to
m ake paym ents at a b r anch, the A POpro vided that Mr. Martinez wo uld send his paym ents to a P.O . Bo x address and no t m a ke them at a b ranch. Therefo re, the b a nkruptc y c o urt did no t err when it rejec ted Mr. Martinez’s argum ents that W ells Fargo “c reated” a default. CONCL U SION The b ankruptcy c o urt did no t err in granting the Stay R elief Mo tio n, issuing the A PO, o r denying the R ec o nsideratio n Mo tio n. W e A FFIRM.

5 Ther e i s some ev i d ence inthe r ecor d that Mr
. Mar ti nez at least attempted to make the Januar y 2019 payment, albei t at a br a nch locati on, r ather than at the addr ess di r ected by the APO. 16