Filed: Sep. 15, 2021
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2021
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 21-9001
21-9002
IN RE KITTERY POINT PARTNERS, LLC,
Debtor.
KITTERY POINT PARTNERS, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
George J. Marcus, David C. Johnson, and Marcus|Clegg on brief
for appellant.
Andrew W. Sparks, Drummond & Drummond, LLP, Adam R. Prescott,
and Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson, P.A. on brief for appellee.
September 15, 2021
PER CURIAM. In this case, debtor-appellant Kittery
Point Partners, LLC (KPP) seeks to challenge both an order of the
bankruptcy court overruling its objection to a proof of claim and
the bankruptcy court's ensuing entry of judgment on that claim.
Faced with the bankruptcy court's adverse rulings, KPP prosecuted
two first-tier appeals to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the
First Circuit (the BAP). Both of those appeals proved unavailing,
and KPP now brings the matters before this court.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties'
extensive briefs. In addition, we have the benefit of the
bankruptcy court's comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions
of law, see Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing
LLC & Todd Enright (In re Kittery Point Partners), No. 17-20316,
2018 WL 1613573 (Bankr. D. Me. Mar. 12, 2018), and its order
overruling KPP's objection to the disputed claim, see In re Kittery
Point Partners, LLC,
613 B.R. 42 (Bankr. D. Me. 2019). Finally,
we also have the benefit of the BAP's exegetic rescript. See
Kittery Point Partners, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (In re
Kittery Point Partners),
623 B.R. 825 (1st Cir. BAP 2021).
Having fully digested the papers in the case and
canvassed the applicable legal standards (including those
established by pertinent provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules), we
see no need to tarry. As we have explained in earlier cases —
with a regularity bordering on the monotonous — "when lower courts
- 2 -
have supportably found the facts, applied the appropriate legal
standards, articulated their reasoning clearly, and reached a
correct result, a reviewing court ought not to write at length
merely to hear its own words resonate." deBenedictis v. Brady-
Zell (In re Brady-Zell),
756 F.3d 69, 71 (1st Cir. 2014)
(collecting cases). This is such a case. The claims of error
advanced here have, for the most part, been convincingly rebutted
by the BAP and/or the bankruptcy court. The other claims that the
debtor now advances are either procedurally defaulted (since they
were not seasonably raised below) or fatally undeveloped. In
either event, those other claims are waived. See United States v.
Zannino,
895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
We need go no further. We summarily affirm the judgment
below for substantially the reasons elucidated by the BAP and the
bankruptcy court in the opinions already mentioned.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
- 3 -