Overview

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-The bankruptcy court did not err when it granted a bank’s motion for summary judgment on a Chapter 11 debtor’s claim that the bank could not enforce a note the debtor signed when she borrowed money to purchase a condominium in Nevada; [2]-A proof of claim the bank filed against the debtor’s bankruptcy estate substantially complied with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 and was prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of its claim, the debtor did not refute at least one of the facts essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency, and the bank’s evidence showed that it was entitled under U.C.C. § 3-301 to enforce the note because it possessed the original note that was indorsed in blank. Parties’ litigation lawyer San Diego appeal.

Outcome

The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court’s judgment.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff consumer appealed judgments from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which, in an action alleging unfair practices, ruled in favor of defendant funeral providers on a motion for summary judgment and a demurrer.

Overview

The consumer purchased a casket and other items that were obtained by the funeral providers from third party vendors and were sold at a profit to the consumer. The court held that the funeral providers did not violate the cash advance provisions of the Funeral Rule, 16 C.F.R. §§ 453.1-453.9 (2008), because they did not misrepresent the charges for those items. The court stated that the Funeral Rule was not triggered solely because funeral goods or services were purchased from a third party for resale to a consumer at a higher price. Rather, the rule was violated only when markups were charged to customers who had been led to believe that they would not have to pay such charges. Cash advance items, within the meaning of 16 C.F.R. § 453.1(b) (2008), referred to items that were described explicitly or implicitly as such. When no such representations were made, the goods or services were not cash advance items and the providers were not required under 16 C.F.R. § 453.3(f)(2) (2008) to disclose their markups. The consumer’s breach of contract cause of action also lacked merit because the contract accurately stated the charges.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgments.