Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03096/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B-K of Kansas, Inc.
Appellant
Michael H. Berman
Appellee
Highland Park Bank and Trust Company
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

AUG 2 8 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk In re: B-K OF KANSAS, INC., 

Debtor, 

B-K OF KANSAS, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

HIGHLAND PARK BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 

and MICHAEL H. BERMAN, Trustee, 

Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 89-3096 

(D.C. No. 87-2627-0) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3096 Document: 010110041607 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 1 
Debtor, B-K of Kansas, Inc., appeals from orders of the 

district court dismissing debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy 

court as moot and imposing sanctions against debtor's counsel. 

On December 17, 1987, the bankruptcy court approved the sale 

of debtor's property. Debtor appealed to the district court 

alleging that the bankruptcy court should have accepted a higher 

offer for the property. Debtor then moved in bankruptcy court for 

a stay of proceedings pending appeal. That motion was denied, and 

the property was sold. The district court dismissed debtor's 

appeal, holding that it was moot because the property had already 

been sold and, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), the court could not 

grant relief. The district court also imposed sanctions against 

debtor's counsel for taking a frivolous appeal. Debtor appealed. 

We requested additional briefing on the issue of whether we 

had jurisdiction over the issue of the district court's imposition 

of sanctions on counsel. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 

U.S. 312 (1988) and In re Woosley, 855 F.2d 687 (10th Cir. 1988). 

In response, debtor has agreed that we are without jurisdiction 

over this issue. 

Debtor argues that the bankruptcy court erred by allowing the 

sale of the property and also that the purchaser was not a good 

faith purchaser because the court did not follow the procedures 

set forth by Bankr. R. 9014. 1 

1 We note that by failing to set forth the applicable standards 

of review for the issues raised, debtor has failed to comply with 

the rules of this court. See 10th Cir. R. 28.2(c). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3096 Document: 010110041607 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 2 
In Tompkins v. Frey (In re Bel Air Associates, Ltd.), 706 

F.2d 301 (10th Cir 1983), this court determined that the sale of 

assets to a good faith purchaser moots an appeal from the 

bankruptcy court order approving the sale. 2 Debtor argues, at 

best, that the purchaser was not a good faith purchaser because 

Rule 9014 was not followed. Any alleged lack of compliance with 

that rule does not affect the status of the purchaser. Based on 

our holding in Tompkins, the district court ruled correctly. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED in part. The appeal is DISMISSED 

as to the issue of sanctions. Appellee Highland Park Bank and 

Trust's motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED to be 

imposed against counsel, Bissessarnath Ramcharan-Maharajh. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 38; see also Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 

1514-15 (10th Cir. 1987). The matter is REMANDED to the district 

court for determination of the amount of fees and costs to be 

awarded. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 While debtor did move in bankruptcy court for a stay pending 

appeal, no appeal was taken from the bankruptcy court's denial of 

that motion, and debtor does not argue that the ruling is in 

error. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3096 Document: 010110041607 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 3