Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: Yong Ho Pak and Kum Jae Pak v. Aurora Loan Services LLC

December 14, 2011

IN RE: YONG HO PAK AND KUM JAE PAK, DEBTORS. YONG HO PAK; KUM JAE PAK, APPELLANTS,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California Honorable Robin L. Riblet, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding Bk. No. 9:11-bk-10174-RR

SUSAN M SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM*fn1

Argued And Submitted On November 16, 2011, at Pasadena, California

Filed - December 14, 2011

Before: MARKELL, HOLLOWELL, and PAPPAS, Bankruptcy Judges.

INTRODUCTION

Yong Ho Pak and Kum Jae Pak (the "Paks") appeal the bankruptcy court's order granting Aurora Loan Services LLC ("Aurora") relief from the automatic stay. We AFFIRM.

FACTS

On October 19, 2006, the Paks executed a promissory note

(the "Note"), payable to SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc. ("SCME"), to finance the purchase of real property located in Santa Maria,

California (the "Property").*fn3 To secure their obligations under the Note, the Paks executed a deed of trust (the "Deed of Trust") against the Property, also in favor of SCME. However, the named beneficiary under the Deed of Trust was Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), as nominee for SCME and its successors and assigns.

On January 12, 2011, the Paks filed a Chapter 7*fn4 bankruptcy petition. The Paks listed Aurora as a secured creditor, with a first priority deed of trust against the Property (valued at $521,500.00) and a claim totaling $717,013.00 ($195,513.00 of that amount being unsecured).*fn5

On January 31, 2011, Aurora moved for relief from the automatic stay to foreclose on the Property. The basis for its motion was two-fold. First, Aurora claimed a lack of adequate protection sufficient to constitute cause for relief under Section 362(d)(1). Second, Aurora claimed that it was entitled to relief ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.