In re: Speer

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 7/15/2016. (Panchenko, I)

July 15, 2016
In re Sheri Speer, No. 3:14-cv-1912 (RNC)
ORDER dismissing appeal
Sheri Speer, proceeding pro se, challenges the Bankruptcy
Court’s entry of an order for relief during the initial Chapter 7
phase of her bankruptcy case. Following entry of that order, Ms.
Speer filed this appeal, then converted the case to one under
Chapter 11. On February 18, 2015, the Court granted appellees’
motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Ms. Speer’s
conversion of the case mooted the appeal. See (ECF No. 25). The
Bankruptcy Court subsequently granted the creditors’ motion to
re-convert the case to one under Chapter 7, at which point Ms.
Speer moved to reopen this appeal. The motion was granted but
the parties were directed to address whether the appeal remains
moot notwithstanding the re-conversion. After considering the
parties’ supplemental submissions, I conclude that the appeal
does remain moot and therefore dismiss the appeal.
As discussed in the ruling of February 2015, the conversion
of a petition from one chapter to another ordinarily serves to
moot an appeal taken from a pre-conversion order. AmeriCredit
Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Tompkins, 604 F.3d 753, 755 (2d Cir. 2010).
Conversion of the case to a new chapter “renders the [order]
irrelevant and [the] court unable to provide effective relief.”
Id. Because a court may not adjudicate a matter in which “the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” the
appeal will be dismissed as moot. Id. (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
Ms. Speer contends that the appeal is not moot. Relying on
11 U.S.C. § 348(a), she argues that the order for relief entered
in the original Chapter 7 proceeding was “unaffected” by both the
conversion and re-conversion. (ECF No. 40) at 3. The appellees
respond that her reliance on section 348(a) is misplaced. I
agree.
Section 348(a) provides that “[c]onversion from a case under
one chapter of [the Bankruptcy Code] to a case under another
chapter . . . does not effect a change in the date of the filing
of the petition, the commencement of the case, or the order for
relief.” Id. The purpose of this section is to make clear that
“the sections of the Code that are keyed to the dates of the
filing of the petition, the commencement of the case or the entry
of the order for relief are unaffected by conversion.” 3 Alan N.
Resnick, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 348.02 (16th ed. 2016). It is
intended “to preserve actions already taken in the case before
conversion” and to “avoid . . . the resetting of deadlines and

the reopening of limitations periods.” In re Bell, 225 F.3d 203,
213 (2d Cir. 2000). This section does not address the
substantive underpinnings of the original order for relief and
would not prevent an appeal of that order from being mooted by a
voluntary conversion. See Tompkins, 604 F.3d at 755.
Because the appeal remains moot, notwithstanding the reconversion, it is hereby dismissed.
So ordered.
/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge