FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: CLIVE AND No. 13-16602
YOLANDA PACE,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00339-JCM-
GWF
CLIVE PACE and YOLANDA PACE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Chapter 11 debtors Clive and Yolanda Pace appeal the district court's
affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in their adversary
proceeding against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and other defendants, seeking
quiet title to real property and a declaration that defendants' loans on the properties
were unsecured. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, we need not recount it here.
The Paces primarily argue that JPMorgan and Bank of America do not have
valid claims because they failed to produce original promissory notes and deeds of
trust. However, JPMorgan and Bank of America filed certified copies of the notes
and deeds and made the originals available to the Paces at hearings and settlement
conferences.
The Paces allege that the notes and deeds are now invalid because they were
previously split. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the notes and deeds
were in fact split because the fact remains that they are currently reunited in the
care of the defendant banks. Per Edelstein v. Bank of New York Mellon, 286 P.3d
249, 252 (Nev. 2012), separating a note and deed of trust does not render either
instrument irreparably void. See also In re Montierth, 354 P.3d 648, 651 (Nev.
2015).
The Paces’s remaining arguments depend on their first. Because we hold that
there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the validity of JPMorgan and
Bank of America’s claims, we accordingly hold that the Paces have not established
a genuine issue of material fact regarding their quiet title claim.
AFFIRMED.