Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04467/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04467-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4467

___________

In re: Samuel Smith, Sr., *

*

Debtor, *

______________________________ *

*

Ross H. Briggs, * Appeal from the United States

* Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Appellant, * for the Eighth Circuit.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

John V. LaBarge, Jr., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2006

Filed: December 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter, the debtor’s attorney, Ross Briggs,

appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) dismissing as moot

his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s1

 order denying him attorney’s fees. For

Appellate Case: 05-4467 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2006 Entry ID: 2119577
-2-

reversal, Briggs argues, inter alia, that the BAP erroneously dismissed his initial

appeal as moot where it was still possible to order the debtor to pay the disputed

attorney’s fees and where the issue was “capable of repetition yet evading review.”

The BAP dismissed Briggs’s initial appeal upon the trustee’s motion after the

debtor had fulfilled his obligations under the plan; the trustee had, pursuant to a

bankruptcy court order, returned all the excess funds in the estate to the debtor; the

bankruptcy court had discharged the debtor; and Briggs had not sought or obtained a

stay of any of the relevant orders. We conclude that, because reversal of the

bankruptcy court’s denial of attorney’s fees would have been inequitable and

impracticable at that time, the BAP did not err in dismissing Briggs’s appeal as moot.

See In re Little, 253 B.R. 427, 430 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000) (“[I]n bankruptcy

proceedings, the mootness doctrine . . . involves equitable considerations. Thus,

although effective relief may conceivably be fashioned, if implementation of that

relief would be inequitable, the appeal may be determined to be moot.”); cf. In re

Roller, 999 F.2d 346, 347 (8th Cir. 1993) (where debtors were appealing conversion

order but had failed to obtain stay of conversion order or of subsequent trustee

appointment or liquidation of assets under new plan, reversal of conversion order was

no longer practicable and district court properly dismissed appeal as moot).

Moreover, the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases “capable of repetition yet

evading review” did not apply. See Iowa Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc.,

427 F.3d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 2005) (where prompt application for stay pending appeal

could have preserved issue for appeal, issue was not one that evaded review (cited

case omitted)). We therefore affirm the BAP’s dismissal order.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4467 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2006 Entry ID: 2119577