### N OT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALDA M. LUTZ , Debtor

. BAP No. C C

- 22

- 1 0 94

- L FT

Bk. No. 1 : 2 1

- bk

- 1 0143

- VK

MEMOR AN DUM ∗ ALDA M. LUTZ , Ap pell ant , v. J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORPORAT ION , Appellee

. Appeal from the United States Bankruptc y Court for the Cen tral District of California Victoria S. Kaufman , Bankruptcy Judge, Pres i d ing

Before: LAFFER T Y, FARIS , and TAYLOR , Ban kruptcy Judges.

I N T R ODUCT ION Alda Lutz appeals the bank ruptcy court ’ s order denying her motion to order her mortgage lender to modify its p roof of claim to remove certain
attorney s ’ fees and co sts from the arrearage to be paid through her chapter

13 1 plan and instead add t hose amounts to the loan balance

. Shor tly after

∗ Th is d i s p o s it i on is n ot a ppro pri at e f or pu bl ic ation

. Alt h ou g h i t may be ci ted fo r wha t ever pe r s u as i v e value it ma y h a ve, se e Fe d. R

. A p p

. P. 32

. 1, it has n o p recedent ial

v al ue , see 9t h C ir. BA P R u l e 8 024

- 1.

1 Unl es s s p ec i fi e d o t her w ise , a ll ch a p te r a n d se cti on re f e re nces are to t h e 

# FILED

DEC 20 2022

SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT2 that order was entered, the bankruptcy court dismissed Ms. Lutz ’ s case.
We DISMISS this appeal as moot

. FAC TS

Pre

- petition, Ms. Lutz sued the servicer of the loan secured by her residence to prevent forecl osure. Although she initially obtained a preliminary inju nction, that injunction was later dissolved . She then filed a

c hapter 13 petition. The lender, J.P. Mor gan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation ( “JPM ”), filed a proof of claim that included in it s arrearage
claim $75,340. 90 of att orneys ’ fees and costs incurre d in the pre

- pet ition litigation and the foreclosure process. Ms. Lutz objected on the ground that

she had not received notice of those fees an d costs , nor was there a n accounting . After JPM provided a detailed accounting of the fees and costs , the b ankruptcy court entered an order overrul ing Ms. Lutz ’ s objection

. Ms. Lutz then file d a “ Motion to Request an Order tha t a P ortion of J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. ’ s Proof of Claim B e Added to the

L oan Balance

. ” Ms. Lutz argu e d that t he attorney s ’ fees and costs should not be part of the arrearage to be paid through her plan but instead should

be added to the princi pal balance of the loan

. The b a nkruptcy co urt disagreed and denied the m otion

. 2 On Septembe r 1 4, 2022, the bankrup tcy

cour t dismissed the case.

B a nkr up tc y C ode , 1 1 U.S.C . §§ 10 1

– 1 5 3 2

. 2 The bankruptcy court based its ruling on its inte rpretation of Paragraph 9 of the deed of trust, which provides in relevant part : If . . . (b) there is a legal proceeding that might significantly a ffect3 J U RIS D ICTI ON
The ba nkru p tcy court h a d ju r is dicti o n un de r 28 U.S.C. § § 13 3 4 and

1 5 7 (b )( 2 ) ( B )

. As discussed below, we lack juris diction over this appeal.

I S SUE
Is this appeal moot ?

D I SC USS I O N
In determi n ing whether an appeal i s moot, we focus upon whether

we can fashion meaningful rel ief. I. R .S. v. Pattullo (In re Pattullo) , 271 F.3d
898, 901 ( 9 th Cir. 2001). R eversal of th e order on a ppea l would not confer

an y relief on M s. Lutz because there is n o l onger a ny pe nding ch apter 13

reorga nization. In the bankruptcy co ntext the determination of whether a case becomes moot on the dismissal of the bankruptcy hinges on the question of how clos ely the issue in the case is con nected to the underlying bankru ptc y. When the issue be ing liti gated d irectly in volves the debtor ’ s reorganization, the case is mooted by the dismissal of the bankruptcy.
Id. (clean ed u p)

.

Lender’s interest in the P roperty a nd/or rights under thi s Security Instrument[,] . . . Lender’s action can include . . . (c) paying reasonable attorneys’ fees to protect its interest in the Property and/or rights under this Security Instrument . .

. . Any amounts disbursed by L ender unde r this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such intere st, upon notice from Lender to B orrower re questing payment.4 In her response to the BAP C ler k ’ s order for briefing explai ning why the appeal was not moo t , Ms. Lutz sta te d that the app eal is not moo t
because she intends to file a new chapter 13 case , and “ [ t ]o hav e to go through the effort for all parties in a new case would create unnecessary

re d un dancy. ” She ar gues that the Panel can fashion effective re lie f because

th e outcom e of thi s appeal will determine the required plan treatment in
the new case.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a similar argument in

Pa ttullo . There, the IRS mo v ed to di smiss the deb tors ’ ch apter 13 case for lack of eligi bil ity. The ban kruptcy court de nie d the motio n, finding that the IRS was bound by a prio r settlement in which it had stipulated to the

amount of the debtor s ’ unsecured debt . In the absence of tha t ruling,

debtors ’ unsecured d ebts would have been over the e lig ibility limi t

. While

the ap p eal of th e ban kruptcy court ’ s order was under submission to the

Nin th Circuit , the bankruptcy court dis missed the debtors ’ case.
The Ninth Circuit held that t he appeal was moot because it w as

“ entirely de pend en t ” o n the existence of the original c hapter 1 3 case. The

d e btors argu ed that effective relief could be granted because they had filed a new chapter 13 case , and if the Ninth C ircuit affirmed the bankruptc y court, that decision would pr e cl ude reli tiga tion of whether the IRS was bound by its st ipulatio n. The Circuit rejected this argument , noting that it lacked jurisdiction over a moot appeal: “ [W ]e may not issue a decision simp l y to preclude similar argumen ts being raised by the IRS in t he new5 Chapter 13 proceedi ng. To have jurisdiction, we mus t be abl e to grant
eff ective relief within the boundaries of the present case, and we lack that ability. ” Id.
As in Pattullo , th i s appeal is dependent on the existence of the original chapt er 13 case. The bankrupt cy court ’ s decision determined the

treatme nt of JPM ’ s claim unde r the plan , but there is no longer a claim or a plan

. Moreover, Ms. Lutz ’ s argu ment that s he lacked notice of the
attorney s ’ fees and costs is no longer viable

. And Ms. L u tz does not argue that anything in the bankr uptcy court ’ s rulin g would i mpact the par ties ’ rights outsid e o f bankruptcy. Accordingly, we lack jurisd iction over this

app eal.

C O N C L US ION

B ecause we cannot fashion any effective relief, we DISMISS th is appeal as moo t.