Opinion ID: 621950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The BAP Appeal

Text: The Millers appealed the bankruptcy court's order granting relief from stay to the BAP. The BAP began its decision by noting that [t]he details surrounding the assignment to Deutsche Bank are not part of the record on appeal. Aplee. Supp.App. at 6 n. 8. In particular, the record submitted to the BAP did not even contain a copy of the Note, much less the original. [3] In its decision, the BAP spent little time discussing the adequacy of proof that Deutsche Bank was in possession of the original Note, and the legal consequences thereof. Instead, the BAP relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Though noting that the bankruptcy court had not expressly mentioned this doctrine, it concluded that the court had relied on the state court's decision on the standing issue. The BAP further concluded that in light of this doctrine, which generally prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by parties who have lost in state court and who seek review of state court decisions in federal court, the bankruptcy court properly declined to revisit the state court's decision that Deutsche Bank was an `interested person' entitled to a Rule 120 order of sale. Aplee. Supp.App. at 16. Armed with the state-court decision finding Deutsche Bank had standing to proceed with the foreclosure, the BAP reached a further conclusion that Deutsche Bank had standing to seek relief from stay.