Opinion
No. 10-35923 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01688-JLR
10-17-2012
In the Matter of: TERESA PEQUIGNOT, Debtor, TERESA PEQUIGNOT, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Pequignot appeals pro se from the district court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying Pequignot's objection to a secured claim filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") in Pequignot's bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo. Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc. (In re Lundell), 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not err in denying Pequignot's objection to Deutsche Bank's secured claim because Pequignot failed to come forward with evidence that rebutted the proof of claim's prima facie validity. See Diamant v. Kasparian (In re S. Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 1999) (proof of claim is prima facie evidence of claim's validity, and "debtor must come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption of validity"); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) (consumer has three business days after transaction's consummation to exercise right to rescind, unless required notices and disclosures are not provided); Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.3-205(b) (instruments indorsed in blank become payable to bearer).
Pequignot's remaining contentions concerning the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.