[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12244

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:12-cv-00585-JES; 9:06-bk-05685-FMD

In Re: BONITA B. PHILLIPS,

 JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS,

 Debtors.

______________________________________________________

EPIC AVIATION, LLC, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BONITA B. PHILLIPS, 

JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

________________________

No. 13-12357

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:13-cv-00113-JES; 9:06-bk-05685-FMD

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 1 of 6 
2

In Re: BONITA B. PHILLIPS,

 a.k.a. Bonnie B. Phillips,

 JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS,

 Debtors.

____________________________________________________

EPIC AVIATION, LLC, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BONITA B. PHILLIPS, 

a.k.a. Bonnie B Phillips, 

JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS, 

DIANE L. JENSEN,

Chapter 7 Trustee,

 Defendants - Appellees.

 

________________________

No. 13-12536

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:12-cv-00669-JES; 9:06-bk-05685-FMD

In Re: BONITA B. PHILLIPS,

 JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS,

 Debtors.

______________________________________________________

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 2 of 6 
3

EPIC AVIATION, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BONITA B. PHILLIPS, 

JEFFREY S. PHILLIPS, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 24, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Epic Aviation, LLC (Epic) appeals the district court’s consolidated appeal of 

three bankruptcy court orders. The first order granted Bonita B. Phillips and 

Jeffrey S. Phillips (Debtors) an extension of time to make a settlement payment 

(the Auction Order, No. 13-12244). The second order dissolved Epic’s lis pendens

on Debtors’ home (the Lis Pendens Order, 13-12536). The third order authorized 

Debtors to sell their home free and clear of any interest held by Epic (the Sale 

Order, 13-12357). 

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 3 of 6 
4

Epic first appealed the bankruptcy court orders to the district court. The 

district court affirmed the Auction Order and Lis Pendens Order, and vacated the 

Sale Order. 

I. BACKGROUND

As the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we only briefly 

recount the relevant facts. In May 2007, the Debtors entered into a Settlement 

Agreement with the bankruptcy Trustee providing, inter alia, that the Trustee 

would receive a lien on Debtors’ home and $825,000 at the time of sale. The 

Settlement Agreement did not set a payment deadline or prohibit the Trustee from 

selling her contract rights. The bankruptcy court approved the Settlement 

Agreement on October 9, 2007.

On September 28, 2012, the Trustee auctioned her rights in the Settlement 

Agreement. At the auction, Epic bid $825,000. The Debtors then offered to pay 

off the original Settlement Agreement in full. The Trustee told the Debtors to wire 

the money by October 2, 2012; otherwise, she would sell her rights in the 

Settlement Agreement to Epic. 

On October 2, 2012, the Debtors moved for an extension of time to make the 

$825,000 payment. The bankruptcy court issued an order a week later stating that 

if the Debtors failed to pay the full $825,000 by October 11, 2012, the Trustee 

would sell her Settlement Agreement rights to Epic. 

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 4 of 6 
5

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Auction Order Appeal (No. 13-12244)

We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s ruling on a motion 

for an extension of time. In re Coady, 588 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2009). 

After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion. The Settlement 

Agreement contained no payment deadline, and the Debtors’ motion for an 

extension of time was timely filed within the Trustee’s 48-hour deadline.

To the extent Epic argues “[t]he Auction Order is a sale of assets order 

governed by Bankruptcy Code § 363[(b)]” (Appellant Br. 33) Epic’s appeal is 

moot. Epic failed to obtain a stay as required under § 363(m). In re The Charter 

Co., 829 F.2d 1054, 1056 (11th Cir. 1987). 

B. The Lis Pendens Appeal (No. 13-12536)

In light of our affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s discretion to grant an 

extension of time, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dissolving 

Epic’s lis pendens on the Debtors’ home. 

C. The Sale Order Appeal (No. 13-12357)

Epic’s appeal of the Sale Order is moot. The bankruptcy court granted the 

Sale Order. Epic challenged, and the district court vacated, the Sale Order. Now, 

even though Epic has already obtained the relief it desired, Epic appeals, arguing 

that the bankruptcy court erred by granting the Sale Order in the first instance. In 

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 5 of 6 
6

essence, Epic is asking this Court to vacate an order that has already been vacated. 

There is no controversy here. Thus, entertaining this appeal would amount to an 

“impermissible advisory opinion.” Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 315 F.3d 1295, 1299 

(11th Cir. 2002).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the 

Auction Order and the Lis Pendens Order. We dismiss Epic’s Sale Order Appeal 

as moot. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

Case: 13-12244 Date Filed: 09/24/2014 Page: 6 of 6