Brawders v. County of Ventura (In Re Brawders) (2007)

Brawders v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).

In re Brawders, 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2007); Miller v. United States, 363 F.3d 999, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 2004).

E.g., Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2007) (adequacy of notice regarding proposed modification of creditors’ rights in Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan); Peralta-Cabrera v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 837, 843 (7th Cir. 2007) (adequacy of notice of deportation hearing); DeJulius v. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 942 (10th Cir. 2005) (adequacy of notice procedures in securities fraud class action); Lobzun v. United …

E.g., Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Browders), 503 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. *779 2007) (adequacy of notice regarding proposed modification of creditors’ rights in Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan); Peralta-Cabrera v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 837, 843 (7th Cir.2007) (adequacy of notice of deportation hearing); DeJulius v. New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund, 429 F.3d 935, 942 (10th Cir.2005) (adequacy of notice procedures in securities fraud class action); Lobzun v. Unit…

The BAP reasoned that although principles of res judicata and finality can make even “illegal” provisions of a Chapter 13 plan binding, this proposition is subject to “major limitations.” First, a debtor asserting res judi-cata “has the burden of proof on all elements and bears the risk of non-persuasion.” Id. at 867 (citation omitted).

Long v. Bullard, 2 117 U.S. 617 , 620-21 (1886); Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 , 418 3 (1992); In re Brawders, 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2007); 4 § 506(d)(2).

Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 868 (9th Cir.2007).

See, e.g., In re Smith, 582 F.3d 767, 778-79 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussing standard of review regarding adequacy of notice of bankruptcy petition) (collecting cases); In re Brawders, 503 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Whether adequate notice has been given for purposes of due process in a particular instance is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.”).

The adversary proceeding is still pending. 6 review de novo.” Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2007).

Brawders 20 v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 870 (9th Cir. 2007); Tully Constr.

In re Brawders, 503 F.3d 856, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2007) (“liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy 27 unaffected”). 6 Moreover, even if the scrivener’s error would have impacted rights to Lot 112 28 when the error existed, the affidavit correcting the error was filed years before Plaintiff obtained an interest in Lot 112. 1 quiet title, and declaratory judgment—were not precluded by the prior state court litigation, 2 they nevertheless fail because Plaintiff did not obtain inju…

See Simmons, 765 F.2d at 553 (“The Code and the Rules do not envision the use of a plan as a means for objecting to proofs of claims.”); County of Ventura Tax Collector v. Brawders (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy state, liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected . . . .”); Work v. County of Douglas (In re Work), 58 B.R. 868, 871 (Bankr.

See Brawders v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders) , 503 F.3d 856 , 863 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) ("We use the term "res judicata" in its generic sense-encompassing doctrines that have been more precisely called claim preclusion and issue preclusion as well as the codification in Section 1327 of the effect of confirmation.").

“Absent some action by the 3 representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens ordinarily pass 4 through bankruptcy unaffected . . . .” Brawders v. Cnty. of 5 Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir. 2007); see 6 Schlegel v. Billingslea (In re Schlegel), 526 B.R. 333, 342 (9th 7 Cir. BAP 2015).

“Absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens 19 ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected . . . .” Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th 20 Cir. 2007); see Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___ , 21 135 S. Ct. 1995, 1997 , 192 L.

“Absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens 19 ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected . . . .” Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th 20 Cir. 2007); see Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___ , 21 135 S. Ct. 1995, 1997 , 192 L.

Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 620-21 , 6 S.Ct. 917 , 29 L.Ed. 1004 (1886); Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 418 , 112 S.Ct. 773 , 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992); In re Brawders, 503 F.3d at 872.

Brawders v. 3 Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 4 2007).

However, Ocwen as a secured creditor is not -17- 1 required to file a proof of claim in a chapter 7 case in order to 2 preserve its security interest or liens; such interests pass 3 through the bankruptcy unaffected despite the absence of a proof 4 of claim. § 501(a); Rule 3002(a); Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 , 5 418 (1992); Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 6 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 We conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in 8 determini…

However, Ocwen as a secured creditor is not -17- 1 required to file a proof of claim in a chapter 7 case in order to 2 preserve its security interest or liens; such interests pass 3 through the bankruptcy unaffected despite the absence of a proof 4 of claim. § 501(a); Rule 3002(a); Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 , 5 418 (1992); Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 6 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). 7 We conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in 8 determini…

Brawders v. 6 Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 7 2007).

Brawders v. 6 Cnty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 7 2007).

Id. at 867 (confirmation has no preclusive effect on matters requiring adversary proceeding, or where plan does not give adequate notice of proposed treatment).

Specifically, she contends that 10 U.S. Bank failed to establish standing because it did not file a 11 proof of claim in her case, or show that it had any interest in 12 the 2006 note. 13 Secured creditors such as U.S. Bank are not required to file 14 proofs of claim in chapter 7 cases in order to preserve their 15 security interests or liens; such interests pass through the 16 bankruptcy unaffected despite the absence of a proof of claim. 17 § 501(a); Rule 3002(a); Dewsnup …

Brawders v. Cnty. of Ventura (In re 20 Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).

“Absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected.... ” County of Ventura Tax Collector v. Brawders (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir.2007).

Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.1989)).

See id.

See Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2007) (stating standard of review); see also Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867-68 (9th Cir.2007) (absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected).

See Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1078-79 (9th Cir.2007) (stating standard of review); see also Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867-68 (9th Cir.2007) (absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy estate, liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected).

See Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.2007). 6 .

See Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Browders), 503 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.2007). 6 .

See Brawders, supra. IV, DISCUSSION Like the Bankruptcy Court, this Court finds that the principles set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Brawders, supra, control the outcome of this appeal.

See id.

See Schlegel v. Billingslea (In re Schlegel), 526 B.R. 333, 342 (9th Cir. BAP 2015) (citing Brawders v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 872 (9th Cir. 2007)).

Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth 7 Circuit have repeatedly affirmed that “stipulations serve both 8 judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts 9 will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed 10 consent.” CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 11 1999); see also Brawders v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 12 503 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that “basic contract 13 principles apply in interpreting stipulation…

Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth 7 Circuit have repeatedly affirmed that “stipulations serve both 8 judicial economy and the convenience of the parties, [and] courts 9 will enforce them absent indications of involuntary or uninformed 10 consent.” CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 11 1999); see also Brawders v. Cty. of Ventura (In re Brawders), 12 503 F.3d 856, 863 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that “basic contract 13 principles apply in interpreting stipulation…

See, e.g., Brawders v. County of 17 Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2007) 18 (“Absent some action by the representative of the bankruptcy 19 estate, liens ordinarily pass through bankruptcy unaffected, 20 regardless whether the creditor holding that lien ignores the 21 bankruptcy case, or files an unsecured claim when it meant to 22 file a secured claim, or files an untimely claim after the bar 23 date has passed.”); Bisch v. United States (In re Bis…

See, e.g., Cnty. of Ventura v. Brawders (In re Brawders) , 503 F.3d 856 , 325 B.R. 405 (BAP 9th Cir. 2005) ; Harstad v. First Am.

Piedmont Trust Bank v. Linkous (In re Linkous), 990 F.2d 160, 162-63 (4th Cir.1993) (confirmation order is not preclusive as to issue of valuation and quantification of secured claim where secured creditor, though given notice of the confirmation hearing, was afforded no notice that court would hold a hearing on valuation); see also Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856 , 867-68 (9th Cir.2007) (chapter 13 plan that does not clearly state its intended e…

See, e.g., Brawders v. County of Ventura (In re Brawders), 503 F.3d 856, 867 (9th Cir.2007); In re Hanson, 397 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir.2005); Banks v. Sallie Mae Servicing Corp. (In re Banks), 299 F.3d 296, 302 (4th Cir.2002).

See, e.g., Browders v. County of Ventura (In re Browders), 503 F.3d 856, 871 (9th Cir.2007) (citing, inter alia, Millspaugh, 302 B.R. at 100 nn. 20-21).