United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-7366

Summary Calendar.

In The Matter of Henry BOYD, Jr., Debtor.

Henry BOYD, Jr., Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America/FMHA, Appellee.

Jan. 6, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

BACKGROUND

In conjunction with a loan received from Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA"), Henry

Boyd, Jr. executed a promissory note secured by his residence (the "Property "). Boyd later defaulted

on the loan. In March 1986, FmHA conducted a foreclosure sale where FmHA was the only bidder.

Boyd challenged the foreclosure in district court. FmHA counterclaimed for eviction. The district

court dismissed Boyd's complaint and granted the eviction. In November 1988, this Court affirmed,

861 F.2d 106.

In December 1988, Boyd filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and plan list ing FmHA as the

only creditor. The plan claimed the Property as an exempt asset of Boyd's estate. The plan also

provided fo r monthly mortgage payments to FmHA. Without objection, the bankruptcy court

confirmed the plan.

Shortly after the confirmation, FmHA filed a motion for abandonment and for relief from

automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted FmHA's motion, 107 B.R. 541. Pursuant to the relief

from stay and order from the district court, Boyd was evicted from the Property. FmHA also filed

adversary proceedings to recover rent. Boyd counterclaimed that the foreclosure should be set aside.The bankruptcy court dismissed Boyd's counterclaim and entered summary judgment awarding rent

to FmHA. Later, Boyd filed a motion to hold FmHA in contempt for violating the automatic stay.

The bankruptcy court dismissed his motion.

Boyd appealed the following orders o f the bankruptcy court to the di stri ct court: (1) the

order strikin g his counterclaim; (2) the order denying his motion for reconsideration of the

counterclaim; (3) the summary judgment order awarding rent to FmHA; (4) the order dismissing his

contempt motion; (5) and the order overruling his objection to the dismissal of his contempt motion.

The district court affirmed, and so do we.

DISCUSSION

Boyd contends that because the confirmation order was entered by the bank ruptcy court

without objection, the Property has revested in him free and clear of liens and FmHA is bound by the

plan. Bo yd further posits that because the plan was confirmed, the bankruptcy court had no

jurisdiction to grant FmHA's motion for abandonment and relief from a utomatic stay or to hear

FmHA's adversary proceeding to recover rent. We are not persuaded by this reasoning.

Although the plan was confirmed without objection, a plan confirmation cannot magically

revest Boyd with property that was never property of Boyd's bankruptcy estate. Under § 541(a) of

the Bankruptcy Code property of the debtor's estate includes "all legal and equitable interest of the

debtor in property as of the com mencement of the case." "The nature of the debtor's interest in

property which accrues to the estate is based on nonbankruptcy law." M atter of Pinetree, Ltd., 876

F.2d 34, 36 (5th Cir.1989). In this case, Mississippi law provides that a valid foreclosure cuts off the

mort gago r's right of "redemption and any other rights in and to the property (all of which are

transferred to the foreclosure sale proceeds), with the sole exception of rights perfected prior to the

filing o f the deed of trust under which the foreclose sale is held." P eoples Bank & Trust Co. v. L &

T Developers, Inc., 434 So.2d 699, 708 (Miss.1983).

Boyd filed his Chapter 13 petiti o n thirty-three months after the foreclosure sale had been

concluded and the trustee's deed had been recorded. On the date Boyd filed for bankruptcy he had

no legal rights in the Property. His equitable rights, if any, were extinguished by the district court'seviction order, which was affirmed by this Court. Having no viable interest in the Property at the time

the Chapter 13 petition was filed, Boyd conveyed nothing to his bankruptcy estate.

Boyd's second contention is that FmHA should be held in contempt because it violated the

automatic stay by filing a motion for abandonment and relief from automatic stay, by evicting Boyd

from the Property

, and by filing an adversary proceeding seeking to recover rent. This argument is

without merit because the bankruptcy court granted FmHA relief from the automatic stay.

For the foregoing reasons the decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.