Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of theFirst Circuit.Paul R. CORREIA and Tammie K. Correia, Debt-ors.Paul R. Correia and Tammie K. Correia,Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as TrusteeUnder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement SeriesITF INABS–2005–A, Defendant–Appellee.Bankruptcy Nos. MB 10–064, 07–10280–WCH.Adversary No. 08–01359–WCH.June 30, 2011.
Chapter 13 debtors brought ad-versary proceeding to set aside bank's postpetitionforeclosure of their home. The United States Bank-ruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts,Wil-liam C. Hillman, J., granted summary judgment forbank. Debtors appealed.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held thatdebtors lacked standing to challenge validity of mortgage assignment, based upon alleged noncom-pliance with pooling and servicing agreement.Affirmed.West Headnotes
51BankruptcyBefore addressing the merits of an appeal,bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) must determineits jurisdiction, whether or not the issue has beenraised by the litigants.
51BankruptcyBankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) has thepower to hear appeals from final judgments, orders,and decrees, or, with leave of the court, from inter-locutory orders and decrees.
51BankruptcyDecision is “final,” for purposes of appeal, if itends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothingfor the court to do but execute the judgment.
51BankruptcyOrder granting summary judgment is a “final”order, for purposes of appeal, where no countsagainst any defendants remain.
51BankruptcyBankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment for bank in debtors' adversary proceedingto set aside postpetition foreclosure was “final” or-der over which bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP)had jurisdiction.
51BankruptcyBankruptcy court could refuse to consider ar-gument raised by debtors for first time in respond-ing to summary judgment motion by bank in debt-ors' adversary proceeding to set aside postpetitionforeclosure.
51BankruptcyChapter 13 debtors were not parties to or third-party beneficiaries of pooling and servicing agree-ment (PSA) that created trust into which their noteand mortgage were deposited, and thus lackedstanding to challenge validity of mortgage assign-ment, based upon alleged noncompliance with PSA,Page 1--- B.R. ----, 2011 WL 2937841 (1st Cir.BAP (Mass.))
(Cite as: 2011 WL 2937841 (1st Cir.BAP (Mass.)))
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.