IRENE H. LIN et al v. SHARER
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 8/22/2016. (km)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In re IRENE H. LIN,
Bankruptcy Action No. 13-20829 (KCF)
Debtor,
IRENE H. LIN,
Appellant,
v.
BARRY SHARER, Trustee,
ON APPEAL FROM THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 15-8039 (MAS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee.
SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Appellant Irene H. Lin's ("Debtor") appeal from
the Bankruptcy Court's Order dated October 30, 2015 (the "Sale Order"). (Notice of Appeal, ECF
No. 1.) The Sale Order granted Appellee Barry Sharer's ("Trustee") motion authorizing the sale
of real property located at 21 Bridge Street, Metuchen, New Jersey (the "Property"). (Id.) After
careful consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Debtor's appeal and
affirms the Bankruptcy Court's Sale Order.
I.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review 1
A district court has appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcy court's final judgments, orders,
and decrees. See 28 U.S.C. § l 58(a) (2010). The standard ofreview for bankruptcy court decisions
1
The Court assumes familiarity with the facts, which are set forth in detail in Lin v. Neuner, No.
14-5230 (FLW) (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2015).
"is determined by the nature of the issues presented on appeal." Baron & Budd, P. C. v. Unsecured
Asbestos Claimants Comm., 321B.R.147, 157 (D.N.J. 2005). Findings of fact are reviewed under
a clearly erroneous standard, where factual findings may only be overturned "when 'the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed."' In re Cellnet Data Sys., Inc., 327 F.3d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States
v. US. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Legal conclusions, on the other hand, are subject
to de nova, or plenary, review by the district court. See Donaldson v. Bernstein, 104 F.3d 547, 551
(3d Cir. 1997). If it is alleged that the bankruptcy court abused its discretionary authority, "the
district court may only inquire whether the [bankruptcy court's] decision rests upon a clearly
erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion oflaw, or an improper application of law to fact."
Id. (citing Int'! Union, UAWv. Mack Trucks, Inc., 820 F.2d 91, 95 (3d Cir. 1987)).
II.
Discussion
The issue on appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in granting the
Sale Order authorizing the sale of the Property. 2 Debtor argues that the Bankruptcy Court abused
its discretion in granting the Sale Order because the Bankruptcy Court: (1) operated a faulty
ECF/CM filing system; (2) retroactively granted Trustee's attorney immunity from criminal
offenses; and (3) ignored Debtor's allegation that Trustee "had been stealing, embezzling, and
siphoning from [Debtor]." (Appellant's Moving Br. 9-10, ECF No. 3.) In addition to these
2
On February 10, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Lease Order pending the appeal of the
Sale Order. See In re Lin, No. 16-0931 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 22, 2016). Therefore, even though Debtor
did not seek a stay order from the Sale Order, this appeal is not moot, as the Property has not yet
been sold. See, e.g., Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc., 141 F.3d 490, 499 (3d
Cir. 1998) ("[T]here are two prerequisites for section 363(m) statutory mootness: (1) the
underlying sale or lease was not stayed pending the appeal, and (2) [the] court, if reversing or
modifying authorization to sell or lease, would be affecting the validity of such a sale or lease.")
(quotations omitted); see also 11 U.S.C. § 363(m).
2
allegations, Debtor argues that "[t]he Bankruptcy Judge should be removed for incompetence and
misconduct for knowingly operating a faulty ECF ICM filing system." (Id at 11.) In opposition,
Trustee argues that the appeal of the Sale Order should be dismissed because Debtor's arguments
on appeal are unrelated to the Sale Order and were never raised in Debtor's opposition to the
motion authorizing the Sale Order. 3 (Appellee's Opp'n Br. 5, ECF No. 5.)
The Court will not consider Debtor's arguments on appeal, as they were not raised in the
Bankruptcy Court proceedings. The Third Circuit has consistently recognized that "an appeals
court will not consider issues not raised in the court below." In re Indian Palms Assocs., Ltd., 61
F.3d 197, 212 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Trailways Lines, Inc. v. Trailways, Inc. Joint Council of
Amalgamated Transit Union, 785 F.2d 101, 104 n.2 (3d Cir. 1986)); see also In re Elian, No. 10-
49482, 2015 WL 5164796, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2015) (quoting United States v. Dell'Aqui/la, 150
F.3d 329, 334-35 (3d Cir. 1998)) ("[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised in
[bankruptcy] court will not be heard on appeal.").
Here, Debtor's arguments on appeal were not raised before the Bankruptcy Court. On
appeal, Debtor argues that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in granting the Sale Order
because the Bankruptcy Court erred in operating an adequate ECF /CM filing system, granting
Trustee's attorney immunity from offenses, and ignoring Debtor's allegations. In Debtor's
opposition to the motion authorizing the Sale Order, however, Debtor's sole argument was that the
Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the sale because of the possible reversal of two
Bankruptcy Court orders that Debtor previously appealed. Thus, Debtor's arguments on appeal
3
On appeal, Trustee also argues that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to hear the motion
granting the Sale Order. Because Debtor did not raise this issue on appeal, the Court will not
consider the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to grant the Sale Order.
3
were never raised nor discussed in Debtor's opposition to the Sale Order, and the Court will not
consider Debtor's new arguments on appeal.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Debtor's appeal is denied, and the Sale Order is affirmed.
An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
M~IPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
AugusQ_~.2016
4
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?