NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0012n.06

Case No. 15-1754

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: THE VILLAGE AT KNAPP’S 

CROSSING, LLC,

Debtor.

_____________________________________

THE VILLAGE AT KNAPP’S CROSSING, 

LLC,

Appellant,

v.

PIONEER VENTURES, LLC,

Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE 

PANEL FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BEFORE: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; PEARSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. This appeal turns on whether the sale of the Debtor’s primary asset 

mooted its appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order converting the Debtor’s bankruptcy case from 

Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held 

 



The Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District 

of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Case No. 15-1754

In re: The Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC

- 2 -

that the sale mooted the conversion-order appeal. The Debtor now appeals the BAP’s mootness 

determination, as well as the bankruptcy court’s conversion order. We AFFIRM.

The Debtor appealed to the BAP from a bankruptcy-court order converting its case from 

Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, but failed to seek or obtain a stay of the 

conversion order during the appeal’s pendency. Following the case’s conversion to Chapter 7, 

the bankruptcy court authorized the sale of the Debtor’s primary asset—three properties located

at a busy intersection in Grand Rapids, Michigan that the Debtor intended to develop as a 

shopping complex (VKC Property). Yet the Debtor neither obtained a stay nor appealed the 

order authorizing the VKC Property sale. Pioneer Ventures, LLC purchased that property. The 

Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan depended on its developing the VKC Property, and the conversionorder appeal offered no mechanism to return the asset to the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

Determining that a favorable decision would therefore afford the Debtor no relief, the BAP 

dismissed the conversion-order appeal as constitutionally moot. 

We review mootness determinations de novo, Coal. for Gov’t Procurement v. Fed. 

Prison Indus., Inc., 365 F.3d 435, 458 (6th Cir. 2004), affirming if events occur “during the 

pendency of the appeal that make it ‘impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief 

whatever.’” Id. (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)).

We agree with the BAP that the VKC Property sale mooted the Debtor’s appeal of the 

conversion order. As Debtor’s counsel concedes, the Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan cannot succeed

without the VKC Property. Debtor not only failed to obtain a stay of either the conversion order 

or sale-authorization order, but also failed to appeal the sale-authorization order. This appeal of 

the conversion order therefore offers no mechanism to unwind the VKC Property sale. Without 

a path to provide effective relief, the Debtor’s appeal is moot. See In re Roller, 999 F.2d 346 
Case No. 15-1754

In re: The Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC

- 3 -

(8th Cir. 1993) (affirming the dismissal as moot of bankruptcy petitioners’ appeal from an order 

reinstating their Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition because the petitioners’ assets had been 

liquidated following the case’s conversion from Chapter 12 to Chapter 7, and the petitioners 

failed to obtain a stay of either the conversion order or liquidation sales); In re Cook, 730 F.2d 

1324, 1326 (9th Cir. 1984) (dismissing as moot an appeal of a forfeiture decree—entered under 

Chapter 11—that sought the return of property discharged under Chapter 7 because “the 

propriety of the discharge under Chapter 7 has not been appealed and is not before us”).

The Bankruptcy Code bolsters our conclusion that we lack a procedural path to provide 

effective relief. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Because the bankruptcy court ordered the VKC 

Property sale pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b), and the Debtor neither obtained a stay of the saleauthorization order nor argued that Pioneer lacked good faith in purchasing the VKC Property, 

§ 363(m) prevents this court from affecting the sale’s validity. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m)

(preventing a “reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization” to sell property under 

§ 363(b) from “affect[ing] the validity of a sale . . . under such authorization” to a good-faith 

purchaser unless the sale was stayed pending appeal). Section 363(m) also prevents the Debtor’s 

indirect attack on the sale-authorization order by way of this conversion-order appeal. See In re 

Parker, 499 F.3d 616, 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (determining that 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) prevented 

indirect attempts to attack the validity of a bankruptcy court’s order of sale issued under § 363 

when the appellant failed to obtain a stay of that order).

Agreeing that the VKC Property sale mooted this appeal, we AFFIRM.