Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02136/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laviana Investments, N.V.
Appellant
UVAS Farming Corporation (Sivam, S.A., purchaser of UVAS)
Appellee

Document Text:

United Scares OJ!H'f of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. I..f OEC¥..ER 

Clerk 

LAVIANA INVESTMENTS, N.V., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UVAS FARMING CORPORATION 

(SIVAM, S.A., PURCHASER OF UVAS), 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND * JUDGMENT 

No. 89-213 6 

(D.C. No. 88-1127-M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Laviana Investments, N.V., appeals the district court's 

dismissal of its bankruptcy appeal as moot. We reverse. 

Laviana initially argued below and here that the sale of 

substantially all of the debtor's estate did not moot Laviana's 

appeal because of the exception to mootness set out in Onouli-Kona 

Land Co. v. Richards (In re Onouli-Kona Land Co.), 846 F.2d 1170 

(9th Cir. 1988). It has now abandoned that contention. It urges 

instead its alternative argument that its appeal is not moot 

because the trustee still retains approximately $260,000 in 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

3 6. 3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2136 Document: 01019969831 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 1 
proceeds of the property sale after disbursements to the secured 

creditors and payment of some administrative expenses. 

At oral argument, the trustee conceded that Laviana's appeal 

is not moot to the extent that a decision on the merits in favor 

of Laviana would give it a claim against the remaining proceeds. 

The trustee asserts, however, that Laviana did not preserve this 

alternative argument for appeal. 

We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that Laviana 

raised its alternative argument before the district court. In 

fact, the court specifically addressed in its Memorandum Opinion 

Laviana's contention that "effective relief is still possible 

because the trustee is still in possession of the proceeds of the 

sale of the Winery to SIMAV." Rec., vol. I, doc. 29 at 5. we 

agree with the trustee that Laviana's appeal is not moot insofar 

as success on the merits will give Laviana a claim against the 

remaining proceeds prior to any claim the unsecured creditors may 

have to those proceeds. 

The judgment of the district court dismissing Laviana's 

appeal as moot is reversed. The case is remanded to the district 

court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order and 

judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2136 Document: 01019969831 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 2