IN RE: Everton Aloysius STERLING (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Everton Aloysius Sterling, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order (the “2016 order”) denying his motion to (1) set aside its earlier ruling granting 1279 St. John’s Place, LLC (the “creditor”) relief from an automatic bankruptcy stay (the “2015 order”) and (2) hold an additional evidentiary hearing. Sterling had opposed the creditor’s motion to lift the automatic stay, arguing that it did not have standing to so move. The bankruptcy court ruled that the creditor established standing by virtue of its possession of the note and allonge for properties in which Sterling had an interest, and lifted the stay. Sterling then filed a motion to set aside the 2015 order and for an additional evidentiary hearing about the creditor’s standing; the bankruptcy court denied the motion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conduct a plenary review of bankruptcy appeals, assessing the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In re N. New England Tel. Operations LLC, 795 F.3d 343, 346 (2d Cir. 2015). Discretionary rulings of a bankruptcy court are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Ball v. A.O. Smith Corp., 451 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (evidentiary decisions); In re 310 Assocs., 346 F.3d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 2003) (reconsideration); In re Mazzeo, 167 F.3d 139, 142 (2d Cir. 1999) (lift stay).

Sterling’s arguments on appeal are without merit. The creditor is a proper party to the action to lift the automatic stay because, as holder of the note and allonge, it could seek foreclosure in state court, and is therefore a “party in interest.” See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); In re Comcoach Corp., 698 F.2d 571, 573–74 (2d Cir. 1983).

Nor was Sterling entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 regarding the creditor’s standing. The creditor’s production of the original note and allonge to the bankruptcy court was sufficient to establish its standing. Sterling’s challenge to the validity of the assignment may be fully litigated in the state court foreclosure action.

We have considered Sterling’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.