Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Sonja RITTER, Debtor. Sonja Ritter, Appellant, v. Lois I. Brady, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Sonja Ritter appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying her motion to reopen her bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court's ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. ( In re Boyajian ), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ritter's motion to reopen and motion for reconsideration because Ritter failed to demonstrate grounds for such relief. See Curry v. Castillo ( In re Castillo ), 297 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A bankruptcy court's decision to reopen is entirely within its sound discretion, based upon the circumstances of each case.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) ); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023, 9024 (making Rules 59 and 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases). Contrary to Ritter's contention, the Supreme Court has held that the lien avoidance mechanism in 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) is not available when a claim secured by a lien has been allowed under § 502. See Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 416-20, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992); accord Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1995, 1999-2001, 192 L.Ed.2d 52 (2015) (applying Dewsnup’s interpretation of § 506(d) to wholly underwater mortgage liens).
We reject as without merit Ritter's contention that the bankruptcy court was required to grant her motion to avoid PNC Bank's junior lien on the basis of PNC Bank's failure to oppose the motion. We reject as unsupported by the record Ritter's contentions that the bankruptcy court was biased against her as a pro se litigant or failed to give due consideration to her motion to reopen or motion for reconsideration.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-60064
Decided: July 13, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)