In re: RONALD MARTINEZ v. Wells Fargo Bank N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: RONALD MARTINEZ,
Debtor,
------------------------------
RONALD MARTINEZ,
Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Appellee.
No. 19-60052
BAP No. 19-1037
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Faris, Spraker, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
* 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).
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellant Ronald Martinez, a Chapter 13 debtor, appeals the decision of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of
relief from the automatic stay to Appellee Wells Fargo and its denial of Martinez’s
motion for reconsideration. The decision of a bankruptcy court granting stay relief
is a final decision reviewable by this Court, In re Am. Mariner Indus., Inc., 734 F.2d
426, 429 (9th Cir. 1984), and we affirm.
We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that
the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court's ruling. In re Boyajian, 564 F.3d 1088,
1090 (9th Cir. 2009). The BAP reviewed for abuse of discretion the bankruptcy
court’s determination regarding stay relief, In re Gruntz, 202 F.3d 1074, 1084 n.9
(9th Cir. 2000), and the denial of Martinez’s motion for reconsideration, Ahanchian
v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010). Decisions regarding
stay relief are committed to the bankruptcy court’s sound discretion, In re Conejo
Enters., Inc., 96 F.3d 346, 351 (9th Cir. 1996), and thus will be reversed only if
“based on an erroneous conclusion of law or when the record contains no evidence
on which [the bankruptcy court] rationally could have based that decision,” In re
Windmill Farms, Inc., 841 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988) (quotations omitted).
Martinez argues that the bankruptcy court erred when it granted stay relief
through an adequate protection agreement, requiring Martinez to pay an additional
monthly sum to cure his post-petition defaults, because (1) he was not in default, so

-- 2 of 3 --

3
he could not be required to pay more than is provided under the Chapter 13 plan;
and (2) Wells Fargo cannot manufacture his default by misapplying payments,
intended to cover his obligations under the Chapter 13 plan, to his mortgage (also
with Wells Fargo). The bankruptcy court may grant stay relief for cause. 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(d)(1).
Here, Martinez failed to demonstrate that he was current on the payments
required by his Chapter 13 plan: (1) regular monthly maintenance payments on his
home equity loan and (2) additional monthly payments designated by the plan to
cure the pre-petition arrearage on his home equity loan. And even if Wells Fargo
did misapply certain payments, these misapplied sums do not account for all of
Martinez’s missed payments. Nor did the terms of Martinez’s Chapter 13 plan
prohibit Wells Fargo from seeking a remedy if Martinez breached his plan
obligations. The plan only dealt with Martinez’s pre-prepetition debts and provided
that “[c]onfirmation of the [p]lan is without prejudice to the rights of secured
creditors with respect to post-petition defaults by the debtor(s).” Accordingly, the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in granting stay relief through an
adequate protection agreement.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --