Court Opinion

ID: 9930348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 18:01:17.082124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:13:58.960969
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                     FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 6 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JOSE HUMBERTO AGUILA                         No.   23-60013
GALVAN,
                                                    BAP No.22-1106
                   Debtor,

------------------------------                      MEMORANDUM*

JOSE HUMBERTO AGUILAR GALVAN,

                   Appellant,

  v.

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

                   Appellee.

                             Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                              Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
             Lafferty III, Corbit, and Faris, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                 Submitted February 6, 2024 **

Before: BENNETT, BADE, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

       Debtor Jose Humberto Aguilar Galvan appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate

       *     This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Panel’s (BAP) decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting in rem

relief from a stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) to creditor PHH Mortgage

Corporation.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review the

BAP’s decision de novo and the underlying Bankruptcy Court order for abuse of

discretion. In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2021); In re First

Yorkshire Holdings, Inc., 470 B.R. 864, 868 (9th Cir. BAP 2012).

      We agree with the BAP that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion

by granting in rem relief from a stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4). To obtain relief

under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4), the creditor must establish that (1) the “debtor’s

bankruptcy filing [was] part of a scheme”; (2) “the object of the scheme [was] to

delay, hinder, or defraud creditors”; and (3) “the scheme . . . involve[d] either (a)

the transfer of some interest in the real property without the secured creditor’s

consent or court approval, or (b) multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the

property.” In re First Yorkshire Holdings, Inc., 470 B.R. at 870. As the BAP

correctly noted, the record demonstrates that Galvan’s family “attempted numerous

times to transfer interests in the Property to other parties without the consent of the

1 As shown by the documents submitted by PHH in support of its motion for relief

under § 362(d)(4), PHH had obtained a beneficial interest in the note and deed of
trust on real property owned, at least in part, by Galvan’s parents. These
documents were more than sufficient to establish PHH’s “colorable claim to the
property,” which is all that is required to bring a motion under § 362(d)(4). See In
re Griffin, 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013).

                                          2
secured creditor and, along with Debtor, filed nine bankruptcy cases to avoid

foreclosure, all the while failing to make payments on the loan secured by the

Property.” Indeed, Galvan filed this bankruptcy proceeding even though he was

not a borrower on the loan and only obtained an interest in the property after filing

this action.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3