Opinion
No. 17-60083 BAP No. 17-1012
02-22-2019
In re: MARK RAIMUNDO WATSON, Debtor. MARK RAIMUNDO WATSON, Appellant, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Mark Raimundo Watson appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting Ditech Financial, LLC's motion for relief from the automatic stay. 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 granting relief from the automatic stay because Ditech Financial, LLC presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. See Arkison v. Griffin (In re Griffin), 719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) ("A proceeding to determine eligibility for relief from a stay only determines whether a creditor should be released from the stay in order to argue the merits in a separate proceeding. . . . [A] party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue."); see also Spokane Law Enforcement Fed. Credit Union v. Barker (In re Barker), 839 F.3d 1189, 1198 (9th Cir. 2016) ("[A] secured creditor, who does not wish to participate in a Chapter 13 plan or who fails to file a timely proof of claim, does not forfeit its lien." (citation omitted)); Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.