United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 04-6004/6005 WA

 

In re: *

*

Stephen A. Griffin, *

*

Debtor. *

*

Mary McGehee, * Appeals from the United States

* Bankruptcy Court for the 

Claimant - Appellant, * Western District of Arkansas 

*

Barbara Griffin, *

*

Claimant - Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Stephen A. Griffin, *

*

Debtor - Appellee, *

*

Richard Cox, *

*

Trustee -Appellee. *

 

Submitted: April 21, 2004 

Filed: June 3, 2004

 
1

The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas.

2

Before SCHERMER, FEDERMAN and VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judges

SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge

Mary McGehee (“McGehee”) appeals the bankruptcy court1

 order denying her

Rule 59 motion to amend a sale order. Barbara Griffin (“Griffin”) appeals the

bankruptcy court order denying her request for stay of the sale order. We have

jurisdiction over the appeal of final orders issued by the bankruptcy court. See 28

U.S.C. § 158(b). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

ISSUES

The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in

denying the motion to amend its order approving the sale of an asset free and clear

of liens and whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying a motion

to stay the effect of the sale order. Each of the orders appealed follows and is related

to an order approving the sale by the trustee of property of the estate. The sale has

been completed, rendering this appeal moot. Accordingly, we must dismiss the

appeal.

BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2003, the bankruptcy court approved the motion filed by

Richard L. Cox, ("Trustee”), Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Stephen A. Griffin

(“Debtor”), seeking authority to sell certain real property (the “Lake House”).

Objections to the sale motion had been filed by McGehee and Griffin. The court

overruled and denied such objections. An order authorizing the sale was entered on
2 A second order granting the motion to sell the Lake House was entered on

December 30, 2003. The December 30 order was later vacated on January 5,

2004. The December 23 order is the order which authorized the sale of the Lake

House.

3

 The Order being simultaneously entered in Case Number 03-6069 sets

forth the history of the case and the disputes among the parties in greater detail.

3

the court’s docket on December 23, 2003.2 On December 29, 2003, Griffin filed a

motion to stay the sale of the Lake House and McGehee filed a motion to reconsider

the order authorizing the sale. The court held a hearing on the motion for stay and the

motion to reconsider the sale on January 13, 2004. On January 14, 2004, the court

entered its orders denying the motion to stay the sale and denying the motion to

reconsider the order authorizing the sale.

On January 14, 2004, the Trustee consummated the sale of the Lake House.

On January 16, 2004, the Trustee filed his report of sale with respect to the Lake

House.

On January 21, 2004, McGehee filed her notice of appeal of the order denying

her motion to reconsider the sale and Griffin filed her notice of appeal of the order

denying her motion to stay the sale.

On January 22, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered its order confirming the

Trustee’s sale of the Lake House.3

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and its

conclusions of law de novo. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; Official Comm. of Unsecured

Creditors v. Trism, Inc. (In re Trism, Inc.), 328 F.3d 1003, 1006 (8th Cir. 2003);
4

Jefferson Co. v. Halverson (In re Paulson), 276 F.3d 389, 391 (8th Cir. 2001); Wintz

v. Am. Freightways, Inc. (In re Wintz Cos.), 219 F.3d 807, 811 (8th Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a trustee to sell property of the

estate. 11 U.S.C. § 363(b). Section 363(m) specifically protects the finality of a

bankruptcy sale from reversal on appeal absent a stay. 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). In the

instant case, the Trustee completed the sale of the Lake House in January, 2004. No

stay of the sale order was in effect at the time the sale was consummated.

Furthermore, no evidence was presented nor has either appellant even raised an

argument that the sale was not in good faith. The sale of the Lake House cannot be

reversed on appeal. 11 U.S.C. § 363(m); Trism, 328 F.3d at 1006-07; Paulson, 276

F.3d at 391-92; Nieters v. Sevcik (In re Rodriquez), 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cirl. 2001);

Wintz, 219 F.3d at 811.

Here the sale order is not directly on appeal. However, the two orders which

are the subject of this appeal–the order denying the motion to reconsider the sale

order and the order denying the motion to stay the sale–are directly related to the sale.

The reversal of either order on appeal could not provide any effective relief. Paulson,

276 F.3d at 392. The sale order can no longer be reconsidered because the sale has

been consummated and cannot be reversed on appeal. Therefore a reconsideration

would be meaningless. Likewise, the sale cannot be stayed after it has been

completed. The appeal of any order the reversal of which would affect the validity

of the sale is mooted by the completion of the sale. Trism, 328 F.3d at 1006-07. This

appeal must therefore be dismissed as moot.
5

CONCLUSION

The consummation of the sale of the Lake House renders moot the appeals of

the orders denying the motion to reconsider the sale order and denying the motion to

stay the sale. Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal as MOOT.