District Judge Cathy Seibel

The Hoti parties’ apartment complex secured a promissory note as part of a mortgage agreement. Note holder GECMC sought foreclosure before Hoti’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy application. In 2010, bankruptcy court entered into the record the parties’ “cash collateral order,” containing attorneys’ electronic signatures in their representative capacities. Under Bankruptcy Rule 9024—incorporating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60—Hoti sought relief from the order under Rules 60(b)(6), (d)(1), and/or (d)(3). They claimed the underlying mortgage’s chain of title was flawed due to an allegedly forged power of attorney, defeating GECMC’s standing to assert a secured claim in the bankruptcy proceedings. District court affirmed denial of the Rule 9024 motion. In addition to waiving their arguments on appeal that counsel executing the order lacked permission to do so, the court found the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for relief based on fraud on the court. Further, it was neither an abuse of discretion nor legal error for bankruptcy court to find that the delay in bringing the Rule 9024 motion precluded a claim for equitable relief.