IN RE: RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Erlinda Abibas Aniel, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment affirming a bankruptcy court decision disallowing her claims against GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMACM”) and Executive Trustee Services, LLC (“ETS”). Aniel refinanced her home in 2007. In 2012, she faced possible foreclosure and sued various financial institutions, including GMACM and ETS. In that suit, she alleged, inter alia, that the transfer of her loan to a securitization trust did not comply with that trust's deadlines and that assignments of her loan to HSBC Bank U.S.A. (“HSBC”) in 2009 and to GMACM in 2011 were executed without authority. Residential Capital, LLC, and its subsidiaries, including GMACM and ETS (collectively, the “Debtors”), filed for bankruptcy. Aniel filed proofs of claims in the bankruptcy proceeding based on her lawsuit. The bankruptcy court sustained the Debtors’ objections to Aniel's claims in part, reasoning that Aniel lacked standing to challenge compliance with the securitization trust's terms and that evidence submitted by the Debtors demonstrated that the 2009 assignment was authorized. After a trial about the validity of the 2011 assignment, the bankruptcy court also found that the 2011 assignment was authorized because HSBC executed a Power of Attorney granting GMACM authority to execute assignments, and an authorized GMACM officer utilized that authority to assign the loan to GMACM. Aniel moved for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that GMACM could not assign the rights of its principal to itself. The bankruptcy court denied reconsideration. Aniel appealed, and the district court affirmed. Aniel now appeals from the district court's judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review a bankruptcy court's orders that have been appealed to the district court independently, reviewing factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 761 F.3d 303, 308 (2d Cir. 2014). Upon such review, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough March 29, 2017 order.

We have considered Aniel's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.