LIN v. SHARER

Filing 8

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 R. SHARER,

ON APPEAL FROM THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 16-0931 (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 February 10, 2016 (the "Lease Order"). (Notice of Appeal,
ECF No. 1.) The Lease Order granted Appellee Barry R. Sharer's ("Trustee") motion authorizing
the lease ofreal 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 Lease 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. § 158(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 of law, 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
Lease Order authorizing the lease of the Property. Debtor argues that the Bankruptcy Court abused
its discretion in granting the Lease Order because the Bankruptcy Court: ( 1) operated a faulty
ECF/CM filing system; (2) retroactively granted Trustee's attorney immunity from offenses; and
(3) ignored Debtor's allegation that Trustee "had been stealing, embezzling, and siphoning from
[Debtor]." (Appellant's Moving Br. 10, ECF No. 3.) In addition to these allegations, Debtor argues
that "[t]he Bankruptcy Judge should be removed for incompetence and misconduct for knowingly
operating a faulty ECF/CM filing system. " 2 (Id. at 11.) Trustee counters that Debtor's appeal

2

The Court notes that Debtor's arguments on this appeal are entirely identical to the arguments
made in support of her appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's decision authorizing the Sale Order.
See In re Lin, No. 15-8039 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2015).

2

should be dismissed because Debtor's arguments on appeal were never raised in her opposition to
the motion authorizing the Lease Order.
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. 15242, 2015 WL 5164796, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2015) (quoting United States v. Dell'Aquilla, 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 sole argument before the Bankruptcy Court opposing the Lease Order was
that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the Lease Order because of the possible
reversal of two Bankruptcy Court orders that Debtor previously appealed. See In re Lin, No. 158039 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2015). The Bankruptcy Court noted that Debtor's objection to the
Lease Order was "almost word-for-word the same objection that the Debtor filed ... in opposition
to the sale itself."3 (Mot. Hr'g Tr. 7:17-19, Feb. 9, 2016, ECF No. 7.) In contrast, Debtor's appeal
alleges that the Bankruptcy Court conducted the proceedings improperly and that the Bankruptcy
Judge should be removed. This argument was never raised in the Bankruptcy proceedings, and it
is entirely unrelated to the Lease Order. As such, the Court will not consider Debtor's new
arguments on appeal.

3

The Bankruptcy Court also stated that Debtor's opposition to the Lease Order was the third time
that Debtor interposed Trustee's motion with "a baseless objection premised ... solely on the
pendency of appeals." (Mot. Hr'g Tr. 7:19-21, Feb. 9, 2016.)
3

III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Debtor's appeal is denied, and the Lease Order is affirmed.

An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.

MIC~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Augustad-;-2016

4