Patrick Jay McCauley and Patricia Lee McCauley

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re:
PATRICK J. MCCAULEY and
PATRICIA L. MCCAULEY,
Debtors.
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-23919-C-11
DCNs: PPM-23 & PPM-24
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
ALLOWANCE OF CONTESTED CLAIMS NOS. 2 AND 3
Chapter 11 Debtors Patrick J. McCauley and Patricia L.
McCauley object to Claims No. 2 and No. 3 filed by Bette M.
Dambacher and Gary P. Dambacher, Trustees Dambacher Family Trust.
(“Dambachers”).
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Objections
to claims are core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear
and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).
In view of the debtors’ history of bankruptcy case filings,
this Court has exercised its discretion to conduct a trial
proceeding with presentation of testimony and evidence in the
interest of determination of the merits of the subject claims
with a final order in an issue-preclusive manner, instead of a
more summary procedure that could necessitate a later trial if
the claims issues linger.
Case Background
This is the Debtors’ fourth bankruptcy case affecting the
contested claims: (1) No. 2013-50194, chapter 12, filed
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1/31/2013, dismissed 4/28/2020; (2) No. 2021-20485, chapter 12,
filed 2/10/2021, dismissed 6/29/2021; (3) 2025-20833, chapter 11,
filed 2/26/2025, dismissed 7/11/2025; and (4) No. 2025-23919,
chapter 11, filed 7/30/2025 now pending in this Court.
This Court conducted a trial on the Debtors’ objections to
Claims Nos. 2 and 3 in order to fix the allowed amounts of the
respective claims so that the Debtors may formulate a chapter 11
plan. The procedure is as provided by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 3012.
The Debtors concede that the Claimants have allowable claims
but challenge the amounts owed and demand an accounting.
At trial, the Debtors testified by way of declaration, made
oral presentations, and presented an “Evidentiary Brief” in
support of their objections. The Creditors rested on their
written presentations. The evidentiary record is now closed.
In addition to the in-court presentations and trial
exhibits, the Hearing Record consists of:
Claim No. 2 $727,780.90 (Mortgage 8/10/2003 - Modoc County)
Claim No. 3 $418,873.82 (Judgment 3/7/2007 renewed - Tuolumne
County 9/20/2014; renewed again 10/20/2023)
Debtors’ Objection to Claim No. 2 (Dkt. 118)
Creditor Response (Dkt. 152)
Debtors’ Objection to Claim No. 3 (Dkt. 123)
Creditor Response (Dkt. 151)
Debtors’ Evidentiary Brief on Claims Nos. 2 & 3 (Dkt. 189)
Debtors’ Status Conference Statement (Dkt. 190)
Stipulation and Order Between Debtors and Dambacher Trust,
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Dist. of Nevada, Case No. BK-13-50194-btb,
Nevada Dkt. No. 252 (10/3/2019)
Order Terminating Automatic Stay Upon Default of Second Amended
12 Plan, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Dist. of Nevada, Case No. BK-13-
2
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
50194-btb, Nevada Dkt. No. 241 (9/25/2019)
Order Dismissing Chapter 12 Proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 1208 Effective June 15, 2020 (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Dist. of
Nevada, Case No. BK-13-50194-btb, Nevada Dkt. No. 305
(4/28/2020).
Findings of Fact
I
Allowance of Claim No. 2
Claim No. 2 for $727,780.90 is based on a Note and Deed of
Trust with respect to certain property in Modoc County,
California.
The Note for $350,000.00 at 6.5% interest was dated August
10, 2003.
Dambachers purchased from the original mortgagees the Note
and Deed of Trust in advance of a pending foreclosure, taking an
Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded July 6, 2020. Their
explanation is that to have allowed the foreclosure would have
placed them in the position of a “sold out junior” and erased
their status as judgment lien creditors based on a recordation in
Modoc County of their Tuolumne County judgment. That explanation
is credible as it accurately states California mortgage
foreclosure law.
The accounting included in the proof of claim as of July 29,
2025, documents an accumulated debt of $727,780.90.
The components consist of: principal, interest from 6/15/20
to 7/29/25, recording fee, attorney fees (7/6/20 - 2/27/25),
foreclosure fees, Modoc County Tax Collector, interest on
advances, and attorney fees (2/28/25 - 7/29/25).
The Debtors’ Status Conference statement (Dkt. 190), says
3
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Debtors contend that additional accounting and supporting
documentation are necessary to determine the correct amount of
the claim, including documentation relating to principal balance
calculations, advances, taxes, fees, foreclosure-related
activity, and other charges in the proof of claim.”
The only specific item directly questioned is payment of
$111,974.42 to the Modoc County Tax Collector. Neither the amount
nor the validity of the taxes are questioned. Rather, the Debtors
contend that a Farm Credit loan may have been available to pay
those taxes and that the ensuing loan may have been forgiven.
The Dambachers respond that the taxes were paid by them to
prevent an imminent tax sale.
There is no question that the Modoc County taxes were due
and payable. They were paid and became a legitimate component of
the secured debt.
The Debtors’ assertions are not enough to rebut the prima
facie validity of the $727,780.90 proof of claim.
This Court is persuaded that Claim No. 2 is allowable in the
full amount claimed.
II
Allowance of Claim No. 3
A
Claim No. 3 for $418,873.82 is based on a judgment of the
Tuolumne County Superior Court in favor of Dambachers against
Patrick J. McCauley, individually and dba Mayar’s Halal Meat, and
2XP Ranches, LLC, entered March 7, 2007, in the amount of
$157,261.90.
4
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No Satisfaction of Judgment has ever been recorded in
Tuolumne County with respect to the 2007 judgment.
The Tuolumne County judgment was renewed September 20, 2014,
in the amount of $150,103.35, which amount reflected the terms of
the Debtors’ Second Amended Chapter 12 Plan (“Chapter 12 Plan”)
confirmed by the Nevada Bankruptcy Court July 29, 2014.
The 2014 renewal noted that judgment interest calculated at
10% in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 685.10 from the date of judgment to the date of confirmation of
the Chapter 12 Plan was $118,125.36.
The Tuolumne County judgment was renewed again on October
20, 2023, in the amount of $355,674.26.
The 2023 renewal explained at Attachment 6.b. that the
judgment debt was calculated based on the original judgment debt,
plus interest at the legal rate of 10%, plus costs, and giving
credit of $37,714.00 for payments received under the Chapter 12
Plan.
The rationale for disregarding the terms of the Chapter 12
Plan is that the effect of the March 4, 2020, dismissal of the
Chapter 12 case on account of unreasonable delay prejudicial to
creditors per 11 U.S.C. § 1208(c)(1) and material default by the
debtors with respect to the terms of a confirmed plan per 11
U.S.C. § 1208(c)(6), operated to eliminate the terms of the
Chapter 12 Plan.
Proof of Claim No. 3 for $418,873.82 adds to the 2023
renewal interest at the legal rate of 10% for the 649 days
between October 20, 2023, and the date of filing the instant
Chapter 11 Petition on July 30, 2025.
5
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B
Chapter 12 Plan
Pursuant to the Debtors’ Second Amended Chapter 12 Plan, the
judgment debt was reduced to $125,000 with interest at 5% as of
July 29, 2014, with a requirement of annual payments and then a
$25,000 balloon payment at the end of the Plan.
At the time of the Chapter 12 confirmation, judgment
interest of about $118,125.36 had accrued pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure § 685.10, but was treated as zero in the
chapter 12 plan, with a correlative lump sum of $25,000 due at
the end of the plan.
The Debtors claimed at that time that they were entitled to
credits totaling $109,805.92 in calculating the amount of the
judgment debt. By reducing the amount of the judgment debt and by
reducing the judgment interest rate from 10% to 5% the Chapter 12
plan took into account, and netted out, the credits then claimed
by the Debtors.
The renewal of the 2007 judgment filed December 31, 2014,
was signed by “Milton M. Dambacher” September 20, 2014, and took
into account the Debtors’ first Chapter 12 Plan payment of
$2,526.00 and noted the effect of the Chapter 12 Plan.
Debtors had made the first payment of $2,526.00 on August 1,
2014. Interest accrued under the Chapter 12 Plan terms from July
29, 2014, to December 31, 2014.
Ultimately the Debtors made the following payments:
8/1/2014, $2,526.00; 9/1/2015, $8,787.00; 9/1/2016, $8,797.00;
10/9/2017, $8,797.00; 11/26/2018, $8,797.00.
The Second Amended Chapter 12 Plan provided for $25,000.00
6
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorney’s fees at the end of the plan. In addition, it
prescribed a 25% penalty ($31,250.00) if Debtors defaulted or the
case was dismissed or converted.
The Debtors defaulted in 2019. They failed to make the
required balloon payment at the end of the plan.
After taking into account the payments the Debtors had made
under their Chapter 12 plan, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court entered
an Order on September 25, 2019, declaring that the judgment that
Dambachers may enforce and collect pursuant to its Tuolumne
County judgment lien was $178,470.01 as of September 17, 2019.
By Order entered October 3, 2019, pursuant to stipulation of
the Dambachers and McCauleys, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
temporarily suspended enforcement of the judgment lien, clarified
that “the judgment upon which the Dambacher Trust may collect is
$178,470.01 as of September 1, 2019, plus interest at the legal
rate, and an additional sum of $10,000.00 for Dambacher Trust’s
attorney’s fees, which shall be paid upon the sale of the
Debtors’ home and farm (aka ranch), whether voluntarily or
involuntarily.”
The Debtors did not appeal the Nevada Bankruptcy Court’s
Order of October 3, 2019.
The stipulation was premised on the promise of the Debtors
to sell their home and farm (aka ranch).
The Debtors did not honor their promise embodied in the
stipulation.
By Order entered April 28, 2020, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
dismissed the Debtors’ chapter 12 case effective June 15, 2020,
on the bases of unreasonable delay and material default of plan
7
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
terms under a confirmed plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1208(c)(1) & (c)(6).
The Debtors did not appeal.
Conclusions of Law
I
Proof of Claim No. 2
Proof of Claim No. 2 for $727,780.90 is based on a mortgage
debt incurred August 10, 2003, with respect to certain real
property in Modoc County, California.
The Dambachers took an Assignment of Deed of Trust from the
original mortgagees on July 6, 2020, in order to prevent a
pending foreclosure that would have had the effect of making them
a “sold out junior,” hence eliminating their judgment lien status
against that Modoc County property of the Dambachers’ judgment
lien based on the 2007 judgment of the Tuolumne County Superior
Court that is the subject of Proof of Claim No. 3.
This Court believes the Dambacher evidence regarding the
circumstances and intention of taking that Assignment.
The proof of claim is in proper form prescribed by Rule
3001, is accompanied by evidence the security interest has been
perfected, and is accompanied by an itemized statement of the
debt.
Having been signed and filed in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, it is entitled to status as prima
facie evidence of the claim’s validity and amount.
The Debtors contest the inclusion in the mortgage debt of
the payment by Dambachers of $111,974.42 to the Modoc County Tax
Collector. There is no contention that the $111,974.42 Modoc
8
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
County tax debt was not due and owing.
The Dambacher testimony is that they paid the Modoc County
tax debt to prevent a tax foreclosure. This Court believes that
testimony.
The Debtors’ testimony is that they believed that a Farm
Credit loan may have been available to the Debtors or to their
son to pay $111,974.42 to Modoc County Tax Collector and that
Farm Credit might have eventually forgiven such debt.
The Debtors’ double-barreled may and might speculations are
too remote and too uncertain to rebut the prima facie evidence of
the validity and amount of Proof of Claim No. 2.
Hence, Proof of Claim No. 2 will be allowed in the full
amount claimed.
II
Proof of Claim No. 3
A
Proof of Claim No. 3 for $418,873.82 is based on a judgment
of the Tuolumne County Superior Court in favor of Dambachers
against Patrick J. McCauley, individually and dba Mayar’s Halal
Meat, and 2XP Ranches, LLC, entered March 7, 2007, in the amount
of $157,261.90.
Proof of Claim No. 3 is in the proper form prescribed by
Rule 3001, is accompanied by evidence the judgment lien security
interest has been perfected, and is accompanied by an itemized
statement of the debt.
Having been signed and filed in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, it is entitled to status as prima
9
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facie evidence of the claim’s validity and amount.
The Debtors attempt to rebut the prima facie evidence of the
claim’s validity with various assertions that are not backed by
evidence that this Court finds to be credible. In order to
believe them, this Court would be required to ignore the official
records regarding the Tuolumne County Superior Court judgment and
disregard California law regarding enforcement of judgments.
The Debtors have not presented evidence sufficient to
persuade this Court that the Claimants’ prima facie evidentiary
case has been rebutted.
The Debtors testified that the original judgment creditor,
Claimants’ predecessor Milton M. Dambacher (now deceased), was
always generous and supportive of them and did not immediately
seek to enforce his recorded judgment. The initial lack of
judgment enforcement activity tends to confirm their view that
Milton M. Dambacher was willing to stay his hand. This Court
believes the Debtors’ testimony in that respect.
Although the Debtors assert that, as early as 2008, they
believed that the judgment debt would be forgiven, it is plain
that the recorded judgment continued to be enforceable at the
discretion of the judgment creditor.
If the judgment debt had actually been forgiven, then
Tuolumne County records would include recorded Satisfaction of
Judgment. There is no recorded Satisfaction of Judgment.
It is significant that Milton M. Dambacher personally signed
the 2014 renewal of judgment. That is persuasive evidence that
the 2007 judgment debt was not forgiven by Milton M. Dambacher.
It is plausible that the effect of the Great Recession after 2008
10
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on real estate values rendered judgment enforcement temporarily
undesirable as an uneconomic enterprise until the real estate
market recovered. Hence, the lack of enforcement by the judgment
creditor does not warrant an inference of an intent to forgive
the judgment debt. In any event, the absence of a recorded
Satisfaction of Judgment is conclusive.
Upon the death of Milton M. Dambacher, the present Claimants
as successor trustees of the Dambacher Family Trust, became the
judgment creditors and have ever since sought to enforce, or at
least to preserve, their judgment lien rights.
B
In their Nevada Chapter 12 case, the Debtors obtained
significant benefits regarding the judgment when the Bankruptcy
Court reduced the amount of the judgment debt, effectively erased
more than $100,000 in accrued judgment interest, and judicially
reduced judgment interest rate from the 10% prescribed by
California law to 5% for the duration of the Chapter 12 plan.
The Debtors contend that the two credits totaling
$109,805.92 were not taken into account. The Nevada Bankruptcy
Court’s erasure of more than $100,000 in 2014 represents an
accommodation of the credits claimed by the Debtors. It follows
that the credits were taken in account at the time of confirming
the Debtors’ Chapter 12 plan in 2014.
When the Debtors defaulted in 2019, the Nevada Bankruptcy
Court did a careful accounting, giving credit for all payments
the Debtors had made during the plan and fixed the adjusted
judgment debt at $178,470.01.
11
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In addition, pursuant to a stipulation to which the Debtors
were party, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court also provided that
interest would be at the “legal” rate, which under California law
is 10%, not the 5% the Debtors had enjoyed during the Chapter 12
plan.
The Nevada Bankruptcy Court’s Order was not appealed and
became final and binding on the Debtors. Their claim objection
amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on that order.
By Order entered October 3, 2019, pursuant to stipulation of
the Dambachers and McCauleys, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
temporarily suspended enforcement of the judgment lien, clarified
that “the judgment upon which the Dambacher Trust may collect is
$178,470.01 as of September 1, 2019, plus interest at the legal
rate, and an additional sum of $10,000.00 for Dambacher Trust’s
attorney’s fees, which shall be paid upon the sale of the
Debtors’ home and farm (aka ranch), whether voluntarily or
involuntarily.”
The Debtors did not appeal the Nevada Bankruptcy Court’s
Order of October 3, 2019.
The stipulation was premised on the promise by the Debtors
to sell their home and farm (aka ranch).
The Debtors did not honor their promise embodied in the
stipulation.
By Order entered April 28, 2020, the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
dismissed the Debtors’ chapter 12 case effective June 15, 2020,
on the bases of unreasonable delay and material default of plan
terms under a confirmed plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1208(c)(1) & (c)(6).
The Debtors did not appeal the dismissal order.
12
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C
Effect of Dismissal of Chapter 12 Case
As a matter of law, the dismissal of the Chapter 12 case
operated to eliminate the orders of the Nevada Bankruptcy Court
judicially adjusting the amount of the judgment debt and reducing
the judgment interest to 5% from the 10% prescribed by California
law.
Specifically, unless the court, for cause, orders otherwise,
a dismissal of a case reinstates any lien voided under Bankruptcy
Code § 506(d). 11 U.S.C. § 349(b)(1)(C).
Upon dismissal, the property right inherent in the judgment
lien “revests ... in the entity in which such property was vested
immediately before the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C.
§ 349(b)(3).
As Congress explained at the time of enacting Bankruptcy
Code § 349(b):
The basic purpose of the subsection is to undo the
bankruptcy case, as far as practicable, and to restore all
property rights to the position in which they were found at
the commencement of the case.
House Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 337-338 (1977);
Senate Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 48-49 (1978); 3
COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.03, 16th ed. Richard Levin & Henry J.
Sommer, eds. in chief (2026).
Section 349(b) applies to the dismissal of Chapter 12 cases.
In re Derrick, 190 B.R. 346, 350-51 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 1995), see
also, In re Whitmore, 154 B.R. 314, 316 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1993).
Since a judgment lien is a property right, the Nevada
Bankruptcy Court’s provisions in the Chapter 12 Plan judicially
13
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adjusting the amount of the judgment debt and reducing the
judgment interest rate from 10% to 5% were exercises in
overriding the Dambacher judgment lien. The underlying legal
analysis justifying altering a property right that is fixed by
governing state law is that § 506(d) operated to “void” the
California judgment lien.
The lien, however, would be permanently “void” only if the
Debtors successfully performed their obligations under the
Chapter 12 Plan, completed all payments under the plan, and
received a Chapter 12 discharge pursuant Bankruptcy Code § 1228.
11 U.S.C. § 1228.
As it turned out, the Chapter 12 case was dismissed for
unreasonable prejudicial delay and material plan default without
the entry of a Chapter 12 discharge.
The effect of the Chapter dismissal was to reinstate the
Dambacher judgment lien as it existed before commencement of the
Chapter 12 case. Accordingly, the judgment lien was not “void”
per § 506(d). Further, the property right inherent in judgment
lien revested in the Dambachers.
D
Judgment Interest
During trial in this Court, the Debtors expressed puzzlement
about the interest calculation, particularly the legitimacy of
charging interest on interest. They conceded they did not know
how judgment interest is calculated.
The analysis of interest under the California judgment
enforcement statute has two phases.
14
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the first phase of California judgment enforcement, post-
judgment interest accruing at a rate of 10% from entry of
judgment is not compounded (i.e., no interest on interest) with
respect to a judgment that has not yet been renewed.
Renewal of a judgment, however, triggers the second phase.
The renewed judgment debt includes the judgment amount, together
with all judgment interest accrued and not paid before renewal.
Thereafter accrued unpaid interest from the first phase is added
to and becomes part of the principal amount of the judgment, upon
which 10% accrues. Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 683; OCM Principal
Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 168 Cal.
App. 185, 193 (2008); See Cal. Law Revision Comm’n comment to
§ 683.
In short, the California judgment renewal provisions
effectuate a compounding of post-judgment interest.
The renewed judgment included in Proof of Claim No. 3
correctly states the governing law at attachment 6.b. when it
states, “the amounts set forth under Paragraph 5 are based upon
the amount of the judgment as originally entered on March 7,
2007, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum, as adjusted for
payments” made by the Debtors during the course of the Plan.
The adjustments are consistent with the payments identified
by the Nevada Bankruptcy Court.
It follows that Claim No. 3 is allowed in the full amount
claimed as of the date of filing this chapter 11 case.
Conclusion
This Court having rendered these Findings of Fact and
15
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conclusions of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
52, as incorporated by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052
and 9014, it is ORDERED:
The Objection to Proof of Claim No. 2 is OVERRULED; and
Claim No. 2 is ALLOWED in full as claimed; and
The Objection to Proof of Claim No. 3 is OVERRULED; and
Claim No. 3 is ALLOWED in full as claimed; and
Any Chapter 11 Plan proposed by the Debtors must take into
account the full allowed amounts of Claim No. 2 and Claim No. 3.
Separate judgments allowing Claim No. 2 and Claim No. 3
shall be entered.
16
August 27, 2026
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK OF COURT
SERVICE LIST
The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the attached document,
via the BNC, to the following parties:
Patrick Jay McCauley
25247 County Road 1
Cedarville, CA 96104
Patricia Lee McCauley
25247 County Road 1
Cedarville, CA 96104
David C. Johnston
1600 G. Street, Suite 102
Modesto, CA 95354
17
Filed 08/27/26 Case 25-23919 Doc 206