In re: ROBERT J. HEATON; BRIDGETTE HEATON v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ROBERT J. HEATON;
BRIDGETTE HEATON,
Debtors,
______________________________
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
as Trustee, FKA Bank of New York,
Appellant,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; et
al.,
Appellees.
No. 16-60010
BAP No. 15-1346
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Taylor, Kurtz, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted September 11, 2017**
San Francisco, California
FILED
SEP 13 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SANDS,*** Senior District
Judge.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel properly dismissed Bank of New York
Mellon’s (BNYM) appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order retroactively
annulling the automatic stay. Creditors and lienholders lack “independent standing
to appeal an adverse decision regarding a violation of the automatic stay.” In re
Pecan Groves of Arizona, 951 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1991). Assuming the
bankruptcy court’s order directly and adversely affected BNYM’s pecuniary
interests, BNYM nonetheless lacks standing to appeal because it is a lienholder.
BNYM’s reliance on In re Goodman, 991 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1993), is
misplaced. There, the court held that corporate entities are not eligible to recover
damages for willful violations of an automatic stay. Id. at 618–20. As a corporate
creditor, BNYM would not be eligible to seek damages for willful stay violations
under Goodman. The court in Goodman did state that non-corporate creditors
would be eligible to pursue such claims. Id. at 618. That statement is dictum,
however, because it was not necessary for the court’s holding. And to the extent it
conflicts with Pecan Groves’ holding that creditors lack standing to challenge
violations of the automatic stay, Pecan Groves of course controls.
*** The Honorable W. Louis Sands, Senior United States District Judge
for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
BNYM’s policy arguments, offered in support of its claim that creditors
should have standing to protect their own interests, are unavailing. The court in
Pecan Groves considered and rejected the very arguments that BNYM now
advances. 951 F.2d at 245. As a three-judge panel, we are not free to revisit those
arguments here.
Finally, contrary to BNYM’s contention, Pecan Groves is not factually or
procedurally distinguishable. The court’s conclusion that the appellants lacked
standing turned on their status as creditors or lienholders, not the fact that they
acquired their secured interest after the stay violation occurred. Id. Because
BNYM is a lienholder, Pecan Groves controls.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --