Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02048/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of Tulsa
Appellee
Mother Goose Children's Studio, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

( 

\ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED 

In re: MOTHER GOOSE CHILDREN'S STUDIO, ) 

INC . , ) 

) 

.Debtor, ) 

) 

) 

) 

MOTHER GOOSE CHILDREN'S STUDIO, INC., ) 

) 

Debtor-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

BANK OF TULSA, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

United St.at.ea Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

MAR 1 51989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2048 

(D.C. No. 86-C-498-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-2048 Document: 010110024618 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 1 
( 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Debtor appeals from an order of the district court dismissing 

its appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court as moot. 

Upon motion by appellee, the Bank of Tulsa, the bankruptcy 

court entered an order lifting an automatic stay imposed when the 

debtor filed its petition in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 

Debtor filed a notice of appeal from that order, but did not move 

to stay the bankruptcy court's order pending appeal. Before the 

district court ruled on the appeal, the bank foreclosed on the 

debtor's property and sold it to a third party pursuant to a state 

court order granting it a deficiency judgment and the right to 

seek replevin. 

Because the bank had already foreclosed, the district court 

held that it was without jurisdiction over the appeal. The court 

held that the appeal was moot because it was "unable to devise a 

remedy which would restore the parties to their former positions.'' 

On appeal, the debtor presents arguments going to the merits 

of its appeal from the bankruptcy court. Based on our 

disposition, we do not address these arguments. 

The debtor also argues that the case is not moot because a 

controversy still exists between the parties, and it has the right 

to bring suit for wrongful conversion in state court. The debtor 

asks that the judgments of the bankruptcy court and district court 

be reversed, the security agreement be held void, and the 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2048 Document: 010110024618 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 2 
j 

t 

state-issued writ of replevin be declared void ab initio. Debtor 

also moves for costs and attorney's fees. 

This court has held that 

a party appealing from an order which authorizes the 

sale of property of a debtor should obtain a stay of the 

order. Otherwise the property may be sold to a "good 

faith purchaser," removing the property from the 

jurisdiction of the courts and rendering moot the appeal 

from the order authorizing the sale. 

In re Bel Air Assoc., Ltd., 706 F.2d 301, 304-5 and n.10 (10th 

Cir. 1983). 1 

The debtor has not alleged that the sale was to other than a 

good faith purchaser. Therefore, even if a "controversy" still 

exists between the parties, we cannot provide meaningful relief 

because the property has been sold. See In re Van Iperen, 819 

F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Cada Inv., Inc., 664 F.2d 

1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Furthermore, because we are without authority to review state 

court judgments where the relief sought is in the nature of 

appellate review, we cannot declare a writ of replevin issued by a 

state court void. See Anderson v. Colorado, 793 F.2d 262 (10th 

Cir. 1986); cf. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). 

1 This case was decided under the "old" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 805. 

However, we note that the stay requirements now found at 11 u.s.c. 

§ 363(m) are the same as those under Rule 805. See In re Sax, 796 

F.2d 994, 997 n.5 (7th Cir. 1986); Algeran, Inc":-v. Advance Ross 

Corp., 759 F.2d 1421, 1423-24 (9th Cir. 1985); In re Exennium, 

Inc. 715 F.2d 1401, 1403-04 (9th Cir. 1983). See especially In re 

Sewanee ·Land, Coal & Cattle, Inc., 735 F.2d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 

1984)(Rule 805 merely reflected existing law citing to In re 

Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1977) and 

Country Fairways, Inc. v. Mottaz, 539 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1976)). 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2048 Document: 010110024618 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 3 
We are unable to grant relief to the parties. Therefore, the 

appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-2048 Document: 010110024618 Date Filed: 03/15/1989 Page: 4