In re: James Emerson Davis, NC-16-1400-FBJu

Debtor James Emerson Davis executed a promissory note (2006) secured by a deed of trust and later defaulted; assignments transferred the beneficial interest to CSMC (U.S. Bank as trustee) serviced by Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS).
Davis sued in state court challenging Appellees’ standing and validity of the allonge; the state court granted summary judgment to Appellees and that decision was on appeal.
Davis filed Chapter 11 (Mar 2016) and an adversary for declaratory relief; the bankruptcy court abstained and dismissed the adversary without prejudice.
Appellees filed a proof of claim with note, allonge showing endorsements (including a blank endorsement), assignments, and loan history; SLS declared it was servicer, in possession of the note, and holder on behalf of CSMC.
Davis objected to the claim but submitted no evidentiary declarations or affidavits (only filings and copies of the claim exhibits); he argued standing/possession issues and that SLS’s agency was unproven.
Bankruptcy court overruled the objection without an evidentiary hearing, finding the proof of claim entitled to the Rule 3001(f) prima facie presumption and that Davis had not produced evidence to rebut it; the court also denied Davis’s motion for reconsideration. The BAP affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bankruptcy court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the objection to the proof of claim	Davis: court should remand for an evidentiary hearing so he can present evidence challenging standing/possession	Appellees: proof of claim (with authenticated exhibits and servicer declaration) created a prima facie case and Davis offered no counter-evidence	Held: No hearing required; Davis failed to rebut Rule 3001(f) presumption and provided no evidence, so court did not abuse discretion
Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration	Davis: counsel was surprised and did not request an evidentiary hearing at the hearing (mistake/surprise)	Appellees: no timely request was made and new evidence/arguments could have been presented earlier	Held: Denial affirmed; Davis failed to show excusable neglect, surprise, or a basis for reconsideration

In re Garner, 246 B.R. 617 (9th Cir. BAP 2000) (objector must present counter-evidence to rebut a properly filed proof of claim; trial court may rule without live testimony when no rebuttal evidence is proffered)
Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (when standing is affirmatively questioned, servicer must present evidence of agency or entitlement to enforce; insufficiency may require hearing)
Diamant v. Kasparian (In re Southern Cal. Plastics, Inc.), 165 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 3001(f) gives prima facie evidentiary effect to a properly filed proof of claim)
In re Irvine-Pacific Commercial Ins. Brokers, Inc., 228 B.R. 245 (9th Cir. BAP 1998) (discussion of claims procedure and allowance under § 502(a))
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for reviewing abuse of discretion with a two-step inquiry)
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Thacker (In re Taylor), 599 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of Hinkson standard to bankruptcy appeals)
Rawson v. Calmar S.S. Corp., 304 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1962) (written findings supersede off-hand oral remarks)