[00:00:00] Speaker 03: We will issue a decision promptly. [00:00:02] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:00:06] Speaker 03: Madam Clerk, would you please call the next case? [00:00:12] Speaker 02: Enrae Van Dam. [00:00:13] Speaker 02: Armand Dirk Van Dam, appearing pro se. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: Kelly Dove, appearing for appellees. [00:00:20] Speaker 03: All right, good morning. [00:00:21] Speaker 03: Mr. Van Dam, would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal? [00:00:25] Speaker 00: Yes, I would like to reserve about four minutes, if I could. [00:00:29] Speaker 03: All right, and you'll have to keep track of the clock yourself, but I'll try to remind you. [00:00:34] Speaker 03: Please go ahead. [00:00:36] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:39] Speaker 00: May I please the court? [00:00:42] Speaker 00: My name is Armin van der Tranden. [00:00:44] Speaker 00: English is my third language and I appear as pro se. [00:00:48] Speaker 00: When I get stressed, I refer to my old language, German. [00:00:54] Speaker 00: So bear with me. [00:00:56] Speaker 00: This is a long extended case. [00:00:59] Speaker 00: since 2004. [00:01:04] Speaker 03: Mr. Van Dam, before you start, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I just wanted to mention just upfront that you do have two appeals here, but we're giving you 15 minutes to cover both of them. [00:01:15] Speaker 03: So I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. [00:01:18] Speaker 03: Sorry for interrupting you. [00:01:19] Speaker 03: Please go ahead. [00:01:20] Speaker 00: Thank you so much. [00:01:21] Speaker 00: Because Article 3 standing is jurisdictional and may be raised at any stage. [00:01:27] Speaker 00: Appellants [00:01:29] Speaker 00: myself respectfully to request that the panel require counsel to identify and produce evidence of the real party in interest. [00:01:39] Speaker 00: Specifically, proof that US Bank NA and Wells Fargo Bank NA were entitled to enforce the note and deed of trust. [00:01:50] Speaker 00: Now known to be held by Tiffany and Bosco and is required under UCC [00:01:58] Speaker 00: 3-301. [00:02:04] Speaker 00: This appeal is about standing in jurisdiction and candor to the court. [00:02:10] Speaker 00: The declaration from Nicole Lane and ECF 25 submitted by Kelly Dove prove that Tiffany and Bosco, not US Bank and not Wells Fargo has held the original promissory note [00:02:26] Speaker 00: and collateral loan file since 2019 until current. [00:02:33] Speaker 00: Tiffany and Bosco never appeared in this case and Tiffany and Bosco is currently not represented by Kelly Dove. [00:02:42] Speaker 00: There's no proof that Tiffany and Bosco gave agency to US Bank or to Wells Fargo to enforce the note or the deed and trust. [00:02:53] Speaker 00: There's no assignment. [00:02:55] Speaker 00: from Tiffany and Bosco to US Bank. [00:02:58] Speaker 00: There's no valid assignment from Bank of America to US Bank. [00:03:04] Speaker 00: Under UCC Section 3-301 and in reveal, the enforcing party must be the person entitled to enforce the note and must prove real authority from the holder. [00:03:22] Speaker 00: Under Edelstein, Nevada law requires reunification of the note. [00:03:29] Speaker 00: Indeed, before foreclosure. [00:03:31] Speaker 00: This never happened in this case. [00:03:36] Speaker 00: Now, an important issue that I'm going to raise is the trustee substitution of NDSC. [00:03:48] Speaker 00: Plans to be assigned by US Bank. [00:03:53] Speaker 00: is a conflict created by Kelly Duff herself. [00:03:59] Speaker 00: In this case before this panel, case number NV22-1175, Kelly Duff claimed through Snellen-Wilmer before this court that NDSC was assigned and TD Service Company was removed [00:04:22] Speaker 00: on December 3, 2004. [00:04:24] Speaker 00: This was to validate the 2007 and 2008 defaults and received an order from Judge Nagagawa in case number 21-01067 based on the concept that NDSC was assigned to [00:04:52] Speaker 00: by the US bank to the case on December 3, 2004. [00:05:01] Speaker 00: Now, this created a big conflict because now before this panel, Kelly Dove claims the removal occurred on November 19, 2013. [00:05:12] Speaker 00: This happened because in the previous case that I mentioned before this court, [00:05:22] Speaker 00: Kelly Duff did not file in their proof of claim the November 19, 2013 assignment to NDNC. [00:05:34] Speaker 00: Why did she not submit that? [00:05:37] Speaker 00: Because NDNC was assigned by Bank of America, which was a conflict with her claimed assignment of US Bank in 2010. [00:05:49] Speaker 00: So three years later, so they admitted that evidence in the proof of claim in my 2019 bankruptcy case. [00:06:00] Speaker 00: Now she is claiming that the removal occurred on November 19, 2013. [00:06:07] Speaker 00: Now this creates a big conflict because if NDC wasn't assigned in 2013, it could never foreclose in 2007 and 2008. [00:06:20] Speaker 00: and the TD service company is removed in 2013, only TD service could have filed a notice of default in 2007 and 2008. [00:06:32] Speaker 00: So this is fraud upon the court. [00:06:35] Speaker 00: Because Kelly Dove right now claims a different assignment. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: And that Mr. Van Dam, let me apologize for interrupting you. [00:06:42] Speaker 01: But the issues in this case are these two cases are [00:06:47] Speaker 01: Whether the bankruptcy court abuses discretion in dismissing your dismissing the case and whether or not, you know, their abuse is discretion in denying an extension of the automatic state, right? [00:06:58] Speaker 01: Those are the issues. [00:07:00] Speaker 01: Please address those issues. [00:07:02] Speaker 00: I will address those issues. [00:07:04] Speaker 00: Your Honor, my case was dismissed on March 13th, 2025. [00:07:10] Speaker 00: The automatic state was still in place until March 13th. [00:07:18] Speaker 00: Right after the trustee cell, and then I go to the heart of the issue, I filed a motion to vacate on February 24th, 25th at 914 AM. [00:07:35] Speaker 00: I drove after that, it was the day of the trustee cell, I drove after that, I drove to the trustee cell place in which the trustee cell was, [00:07:47] Speaker 00: put it up from 10 o'clock to 10.30. [00:07:50] Speaker 00: Then the 10.30 came along and the trustee sale still did not occur. [00:07:58] Speaker 00: So it was moved up to 11 o'clock. [00:08:00] Speaker 00: On 11 o'clock, the trustee sale was held. [00:08:04] Speaker 00: Looking at the docket later, Judge Breaker issued an order at 9.44 [00:08:12] Speaker 00: 60 minutes before the trustee sale was held. [00:08:16] Speaker 00: So there's ex parte communication between Snell and Wilmer and Judge Sprager, which is a conflict of interest. [00:08:24] Speaker 00: And furthermore, I filed my case on January 21st, 2025. [00:08:30] Speaker 00: And on January 22nd, 2025, US Bank filed a motion to dismiss [00:08:37] Speaker 00: Now, US Bank is not the trustee and not the beneficiary because Kelly Dove declared that Tiffany and Bosco, through a declaration from Nicole Lane, which is the assistant of Kevin Soderstrom, who is an attorney for Tiffany and Bosco and represents US Bank. [00:09:00] Speaker 00: So why would the assistant of candidate Kevin Soderstrom file a declaration? [00:09:05] Speaker 00: But she disclares that Tiffany and Bosco holds the deed of note. [00:09:09] Speaker 00: So they have no authority to file a motion to dismiss the second day. [00:09:15] Speaker 00: Now, after the trustee cell, the day after the trustee cell, I was claimed to be a non-party. [00:09:22] Speaker 00: Well, under Sturgell, you cannot file an order or file claims against the non-party. [00:09:29] Speaker 00: I filed the bankruptcy claim because I am the only one that holds the obligation under my name. [00:09:36] Speaker 00: It was my assumption that I'm a full hundred percent responsible for that loan. [00:09:43] Speaker 00: Kelly Duff declares that I am in the non-party in two cases. [00:09:48] Speaker 00: Case number A-24-909044. [00:09:54] Speaker 00: I'm declared a non-party. [00:09:56] Speaker 00: I cannot litigate in this case. [00:09:57] Speaker 00: I have no rights. [00:09:59] Speaker 00: I cannot use my due process. [00:10:02] Speaker 00: In my federal case, I'm also declared a non-party. [00:10:05] Speaker 00: Now, if I'm a non-party, I cannot be held liable for a loan that was agreed upon in 2008. [00:10:15] Speaker 00: And then furthermore, my ex-wife, Geraldine Van Dem, was included in the bankruptcy estate who didn't file bankruptcy. [00:10:27] Speaker 00: We filed a divorce [00:10:29] Speaker 00: on August 5th, 2022, during my bankruptcy case from 2019. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: Kelly Dove didn't object to my divorce, US Bank didn't object to my divorce, and the loan was separated. [00:10:45] Speaker 00: She was never liable under the loan modification. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: Now, this liability lacks standing for US Bank and Wells Fargo to foreclose because what [00:10:59] Speaker 00: Valsfargo did, signed a loan modification with me as sole borrower and Valsfargo Bank as lender. [00:11:09] Speaker 00: Now, I submitted ample evidence that on August 22, 2007, Aurora Loans received the BNC mortgage. [00:11:29] Speaker 00: September 15, 2008, Aurora loans filed for bankruptcy under Lehman. [00:11:39] Speaker 00: US Bank never held a loan. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: US Bank is never assigned. [00:11:44] Speaker 00: Judge Spraker dismissed my case without a hearing. [00:11:47] Speaker 00: He scheduled my hearings for April 1st, 2025. [00:11:54] Speaker 00: He dismissed, in this case, he dismissed [00:11:58] Speaker 00: of all my cases on February 24th, the day of the trustee sale, 50 minutes, 60 minutes before the trustee sale. [00:12:09] Speaker 00: And then declaring me after the trustee sale a non-party. [00:12:14] Speaker 00: It violates my due process. [00:12:18] Speaker 00: And US Bank, by the declaration, and Kelly Dove herself in case number, in a related case, [00:12:27] Speaker 03: Mr. Van Dam, I just wanted to let you know that you're approaching only three minutes left, so you may want. [00:12:34] Speaker 02: I will do it one more time. [00:12:35] Speaker 02: All right. [00:12:35] Speaker 02: One more time. [00:12:36] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:12:37] Speaker 03: All right. [00:12:38] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:12:38] Speaker 03: Dove. [00:12:41] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: Kelly Dove for Appellees. [00:12:46] Speaker 04: As Your Honors recognize, the issues that we're here about today are whether Judge Spraker abused his discretion in declining to extend the automatic stay [00:12:57] Speaker 04: and in dismissing Mr. Van Dam's bankruptcy while also imposing a two-year bar. [00:13:03] Speaker 04: Appreciating that Mr. Van Dam is pro se, it is still the case that Mr. Van Dam has at no point in any of the briefing or argument actually addressed those issues or below. [00:13:17] Speaker 04: And I would note that Judge Breaker, I think, handled this case masterfully and gave Mr. Van Dam every opportunity to make his record [00:13:26] Speaker 04: and address the salient points. [00:13:29] Speaker 04: In particular, while Mr. Van Dam did not appear at the February 18th hearing on the stay extension, he did appear at a March 4th hearing that was extensive and in which Judge Breaker at numerous times tried to redirect Mr. Van Dam to address the issues that were relevant to his decisions, namely whether Mr. Van Dam could satisfy his burden [00:13:54] Speaker 04: to show that this bankruptcy was not filed in bad faith. [00:13:57] Speaker 04: Given Mr. Van Dam's extensive history of bankruptcy filings, no demonstrated ability to reorganize, no demonstrated ability to address this debt, no demonstration that this bankruptcy was filed for any purpose other than avoiding the foreclosure sale. [00:14:17] Speaker 04: And at each turn, Mr. Van Dam turned back to [00:14:21] Speaker 04: the same arguments you've been hearing today about assignments that happened many years ago, loan modification from almost 20 years ago. [00:14:29] Speaker 04: And notably, all of those issues have been adjudicated in many cases, including in the bankruptcy before Judge Nakagawa, which was affirmed before the BAP several years ago, and then in turn affirmed at the Ninth Circuit during which [00:14:48] Speaker 04: Mr. Van Dam raised the same arguments he's raising today about myself, about the beneficiary, about the servicer. [00:14:56] Speaker 04: So there has been no identification of error by Judge Breaker. [00:15:01] Speaker 04: Notably, this is an abuse of discretion standard where Judge Breaker's findings, which I think have been careful and thorough. [00:15:09] Speaker 04: And I think the record demonstrates have given Mr. Van Dam every opportunity to make his record and every opportunity to raise [00:15:18] Speaker 04: these salient points. [00:15:19] Speaker 04: We've seen no hint of an abuse of discretion in Judge Breaker's rulings. [00:15:24] Speaker 04: And so I'd be happy to entertain questions from the panel, but otherwise, we'll give back my time. [00:15:31] Speaker 03: All right, thank you. [00:15:34] Speaker 03: Judge Neiman, Judge Corbett, any questions? [00:15:39] Speaker 03: No. [00:15:39] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:15:40] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:15:41] Speaker 03: All right, Mr. Van Dam, you've got about three minutes left. [00:15:45] Speaker 00: Yes, I'd like to. [00:15:47] Speaker 00: the panel to maybe inform me on who Kelly Duff is representing today? [00:15:57] Speaker 03: No, you're here to make argument. [00:15:58] Speaker 03: So that's what we're doing today. [00:16:00] Speaker 03: We're not answering questions. [00:16:01] Speaker 03: You're making argument. [00:16:03] Speaker 00: OK. [00:16:04] Speaker 00: So my argument here is that the US bank is not assigned by Tiffany and Bosco. [00:16:14] Speaker 00: Tiffany and Bosco is the only company [00:16:17] Speaker 00: that can litigate this case. [00:16:19] Speaker 00: Now I think there's a great deal of fraud [00:16:27] Speaker 00: in this case, because every single document that has been submitted, assignment is submitted by BNC, so-called, in 2008 to LaSalle Bank. [00:16:41] Speaker 00: This is impossible because Bank of America purchased LaSalle Bank in 2007, October 1st, 2007. [00:16:48] Speaker 00: LaSalle Bank then assigned Bank of America in 2009, which is impossible because Bank of America purchased LaSalle Bank on October 1st, 2007. [00:17:00] Speaker 00: Aurora Loan received all BNC mortgages. [00:17:05] Speaker 00: I submitted ample evidence and now this panel will take a judicial notice. [00:17:11] Speaker 00: Kelly Duff cannot litigate a claim that she has no authority to litigate. [00:17:17] Speaker 00: She has no standing, she has no jurisdiction, and this court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because Tiffany Ambasco is declared by Nicole Lane to hold the deed of note. [00:17:30] Speaker 00: Now, this was at the 11th hour because Kelly Dove submitted a motion, an opposition in a related case where she admits that Geraldine Fendin has no obligation on the loan. [00:17:45] Speaker 00: Even she did not collect or even try to collect against Geraldine from them. [00:17:50] Speaker 00: So now, if she is claiming that the deed is still in place and that Geraldine is still obligated under the deed, where is the agreement? [00:18:01] Speaker 00: Now, if the deed is still operative, then the deed and her obligation is extinguished by the operation of law. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: And that is under NRS 106-240. [00:18:14] Speaker 00: And it extinguished on January 10th, 2018 as NDSC filed a notice of default on January 10th, 2008. [00:18:26] Speaker 00: That notice of default was never rescinded. [00:18:31] Speaker 00: So that default is still in effect and she's not obligated on the loan modification. [00:18:37] Speaker 00: So it automatically extinguished on January 10th, 2018. [00:18:43] Speaker 00: Geraldine has no obligation. [00:18:45] Speaker 03: Now, Judge Spraker... Mr. Van Dam, your time is up. [00:18:49] Speaker 03: If you want to make one last statement to just conclude your argument, you can, but your time is up. [00:18:54] Speaker 00: Judge Spraker resided over this case perfectly, like Kelly Buff says, but Judge Spraker included Geraldine's estate. [00:19:05] Speaker 00: By claiming I was not a non-party, he included a non-debtors estate, which is prohibited. [00:19:13] Speaker 03: All right. [00:19:13] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:19:14] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:19:16] Speaker 03: All right. [00:19:17] Speaker 03: This matter is submitted, and we will issue a decision promptly. [00:19:21] Speaker 03: Thank you both very much. [00:19:23] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:19:23] Speaker 03: Madam Clerk, would you like to call the last case?