Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00021/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
LSF9 Master Participation Trust
Appellee
Joshua Moon Bae Sunoo
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

IN RE JOSHUA MOON BAE SUNOO, aka 

Joshua Sunoo, aka Nevkar Group LLC,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

JOSHUA MOON BAE SUNOO,

 Appellant,

v.

LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST,

 Appellee.

BAP No. CO-16-021

Bankr. No. 16-14036

Chapter 7

ORDER DISMISSING 

APPEAL AS MOOT

_________________________________

Before KARLIN, Chief Judge, MICHAEL and MOSIER, Bankruptcy Judges.

_________________________________

Joshua Sunoo (the “Appellant”) appeals the Order Granting Relief from Stay1 entered on 

July 21, 2016, which granted LSF9 Master Participation Trust (the “Appellee”) relief from the 

automatic stay to enforce its rights against 4812 Carefree Trail, Parker, CO 80134 (the 

“Property”). Upon filing the appeal, Appellant sought a stay pending appeal in the bankruptcy 

court. The bankruptcy court entered an order denying the request for stay pending appeal on 

August 3, 2016, the same day Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal.

2 Appellant filed his 

Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal in this Court on August 10, 2016.3 The Court 

entered its Order Denying Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal on August 11, 2016.4

1 Bankr. Dkt. Entry 43.

2 Bankr. Dkt. Entry 53.

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-21 Docket No. 30 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 1 of 3
The Court entered its Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed as 

Moot on November 11, 2016 (the “Order to Show Cause”), requiring Appellant to file a 

memorandum with the Court on the issue of whether the appeal is moot.5 In the Order to Show 

Cause, the Court noted, “a bankruptcy appeal becomes moot when the bankruptcy court has 

granted relief from the automatic stay, the debtor has failed to obtain a stay of that order pending 

appeal, and the secured creditor has conducted a foreclosure sale.”6

In response to the Order to Show Cause, Appellant filed Appellant’s Memorandum on 

November 30, 2016 (the “Appellant’s Response”)7 indicating that Appellee foreclosed on the 

Property at a foreclosure sale held by the Douglas County Public Trustee on August 17, 2016. 

The Appellant’s Response also stated that in appealing the Order Granting Relief from Stay, 

Appellant sought review of the bankruptcy court’s determination that the Appellee had standing 

to seek relief from the automatic stay.

The Appellee filed the Appellee’s Response to Appellant’s Memorandum filed in 

Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause why Appeal Should not be Dismissed as Moot on 

3 BAP ECF No. 4.

4 BAP ECF No. 7. 

5 BAP ECF No. 26.

6 BAP ECF No. 26 (citing In re Anderson, 604 F. App’x 735, 740-41 (10th Cir. 2015); Out of 

Line Sports, Inc. v. Rollerblade, Inc., 213 F. 3d 500, 502 (10th Cir. 2000); In re Egbert Dev., 

LLC, 219 B.R 903, 906-07 (10th Cir. BAP 1998) (holding that “Because of the Debtor's failure 

to obtain a stay pending appeal, the Appellee was entitled to treat the Relief Order as a final 

order and take action in reliance upon that Order. This Court is powerless to rescind the 

foreclosure sale on appeal, and reinstatement of the stay would be meaningless. Since this Court 

would be unable to grant any effective relief even if we were to reverse the bankruptcy court's 

Relief Order, we conclude that the appeal is moot. . . . Absent a state law that would allow this 

Court to set aside the foreclosure sale, we are without power to create a remedy under “equitable 

principles.”)).

7 BAP ECF No. 27.

2

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-21 Docket No. 30 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 2 of 3
December 7, 2016 (the “Appellee’s Response”).8 The Appellee confirmed that the Property was 

auctioned at foreclosure sale on August 17, 2016. The Appellee was the highest bidder at the 

foreclosure sale. The Appellee’s Response included the Public Trustee’s Confirmation Deed

transferring title to the Property to Appellee on August 31, 2016 as an exhibit.9

As we noted in the Order to Show Cause, an appeal of an order granting relief from stay 

becomes moot when the appellate court “can no longer grant effective relief because the object 

of the suit has been transferred.”10 The Appellant concedes that the foreclosure sale of the 

Property occurred on August 17, 2016. The Appellant asserts that the bankruptcy court erred in 

granting relief from stay because Appellee did not prove it had standing to seek relief from the 

automatic stay. But we are powerless, with this appeal, to rescind the completed foreclosure.11

Because this Court is thus unable to grant any effective relief even if we were to reverse the 

bankruptcy court’s Order Granting Relief from Stay, we conclude the appeal is moot.12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

For the Panel

Blaine F. Bates

Clerk of Court

8 BAP ECF No. 28.

9 BAP ECF No. 28, Exhibit B.

10 Rollerblade, Inc., 213 F.3d at 501.

11 Egbert Dev., LLC, 219 B.R. at 906.

12 Id.

3

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-21 Docket No. 30 Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 3 of 3