Case ID: br_506/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Joseph Cox FINLEY, Debtor. Joseph Cox Finley, Appellant, v. Nancy L. James, Chapter 7 Trustee; Thomas R. Dreiling; Faggionato Fine Arts, Ltd.; Trustees of The John Edwards Discretionary Trust for Untitled (Pope) 1950; R. Bruce Johnston, Appellees.
    No. 11-60008.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2013.
    Joseph Cox Finley, Bainbridge Island, WA, pro se.
    R. Bruce Johnston, pro se., Diana K. Carey, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Sarah L. Atwood Law Offices Of Sarah L. Atwood, PLLC, Lawrence R. Ream, Esquire, Bulli-vant Houser Bailey, PC, Richard Birinyi, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC, Seattle, WA, for Appellees.
    Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Debtor Joseph Finley petitions for review of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) dismissal of his appeal for lack of standing. We affirm.

The BAP correctly determined that Debtor lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy order authorizing the sale of an asset of the bankruptcy estate, because he was not a “person aggrieved” by the order. Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441 (9th Cir.1983).

To have standing on appeal, a debtor carries the burden to “demonstrate that [he] was directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order of the bankruptcy court.” Id. at 443. But Debtor presented no evidence in support of his assertion that a successful appeal could result in returning residual assets to him.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.