In the Matter of: TERESA PEQUIGNOT v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: TERESA PEQUIGNOT,
Debtor,
TERESA PEQUIGNOT,
Appellant,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY,
Appellee.
No. 10-35923
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01688-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35923 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --