Steffen v. Menchise
Filing
21
ORDER: Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot 18 is GRANTED. This appeal is dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending deadlines and motions and thereafter close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/18/2012. (MEB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IN RE:
TERRI L. STEFFEN,
Debtor.
_______________________________/
TERRI L. STEFFEN,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 8:12-cv-1053-T-33
Bankr. No. 8:01-bk-9988-MGW
DOUGLAS MENCHISE,
Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Appellee
Trustee Douglas Menchise’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot,
filed on December 6, 2012. (Doc. # 18).
On December 7, 2012,
the Court ordered Appellant Terri L. Steffen to respond to the
Motion to Dismiss by December 17, 2012. (Doc. # 20). However,
Appellant has failed to file a response to the Motion and the
time for doing so has now passed.
Accordingly, the Court
considers the Motion to Dismiss to be unopposed.
Upon due
consideration of the Motion and the record before the Court,
the Court grants the Motion.
Discussion
On October 28, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court granted the
Trustee’s Motion to Sell Real Property at 16634 Sedona De
Avila,
Tampa,
Florida
33613
Expedited Motion for Ejectment.
and
granted
the
(Doc. # 6-10).
Trustee’s
Thereafter,
the Trustee marketed the subject property and eventually
entered into a contract for sale of the property.
On January 12, 2012, the Trustee filed an Expedited
Motion to Approve Sale of the subject property. (Doc. # 6-13).
On February 6, 2012, upon finding that no stay pending the
appeal of several prior Bankruptcy Court orders was in effect,
the Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s motion to approve
the sale. (Doc. # 1-2).
The Bankruptcy Court expressly found
that the purchasers were “good faith purchasers within the
meaning and effect of 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), and will enjoy all
protections thereby afforded therein.” Id. at 2.
The sale of
the subject property was consummated and recorded on or about
February 9, 2012. (Doc. # 18-1).
The Appellant appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s sale order
to this Court and on February 15, 2012, filed an Expedited
Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in the Bankruptcy Court. (Doc.
# 6-17).
However, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion on
April 5, 2012, ruling that enforcement of its sale order
“shall not be stayed in any manner or for any reason.” (Doc.
# 6-20).
-2-
Appellant lists the following three preliminary issues on
appeal:
I.
Whether the Bankruptcy Court violated the
Debtor’s
substantive
and
procedural
due
process rights when it granted the Trustee’s
Application to Sell Real Property pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 363 while two appeals were pending
that called into question the exempt status of
the subject real property.
II.
Whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its
discretion and ignored basic principles’ of
equity and fairness by granting the Trustee’s
Application to sell real property while two
appeals were pending that concerned the
property.
III. Whether the Court clearly erred by authorizing
the sale prior to the 14 day stay as required
by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 6004(h).
(Doc. # 1-4).
The Trustee now moves to dismiss this appeal as moot
because the subject property has been sold to a good faith
purchaser pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), “which prevents an
appellate court from granting effective relief if a sale of
property is not stayed.” (Doc. # 18).
The Court agrees with
the Trustee that this appeal is due to be dismissed as moot.
“In order to protect those who purchase property from a
bankrupt estate, the Bankruptcy Code provides that once a sale
is approved by the bankruptcy court and consummated by the
parties, the bankruptcy court’s authorization of the sale
-3-
cannot be effectively altered on appeal.” Cargill, Inc. v.
Charter Int’l Oil Co., 829 F.2d 1054, 1056 (11th Cir. 1987).
Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code states:
The reversal or modification on appeal of an
authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this
section of a sale or lease of property does not
effect the validity of a sale or lease under such
authorization to an entity that purchased or leased
such property in good faith, whether or not such
entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless
such authorization and such sale or lease were
stayed pending appeal.
11 U.S.C. § 363(m).
“Because this provision prevents an appellate court from
granting effective relief if a sale is not stayed, the failure
to obtain a stay renders the appeal moot.”
at 1056.
Cargill, 829 F.2d
This rule applies even where the debtor has sought
a stay pending appeal but the stay has been denied. In re
Baker, 339 B.R. 298, 303 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). It is undisputed
that the Appellant was not granted a stay of the sale of the
subject property pending this appeal and the sale of the
property to good faith purchasers has been consummated. (Doc.
# 6-20).
Thus, pursuant to § 363(m), this Court is unable to
grant any effective relief as to the sale of the subject
property, and this appeal is therefore dismissed as moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
-4-
(1)
Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot (Doc. # 18)
is GRANTED.
(2)
This appeal is dismissed as moot.
to
terminate
all
pending
The Clerk is directed
deadlines
and
motions
and
thereafter close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
18th day of December, 2012.
Copies: All Counsel of Record
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?