By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of t his de c isi on is l im ite d to thec as e an d p ar tie s p ur su an t to 6th C i r

. B A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r

. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).

F ile Nam e: 07b0015n.06 BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

I n re: CARL L . BROWN, J R. AND ) J UNE K. B ROWN, ) ) De bto rs

. )

_____________________________________ ) ) CARL L . BROWN AND JUNE K. B ROWN, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 06-8079 ) CHAD B ROWN AND CARL L . BROWN, I NC., ) ) Ap pe lle e s. ) )

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court for the Souther

n District of Ohio, Easte rn Division Case No. 01- 65026
Arg ued: Aug ust 1, 2007

Dec ided and F iled: November 9, 2007

B e fo re : G REG G, L AT TA , a nd PAR SON S, B a nk

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________
CO UN SEL

ARG UED: Mina N. Kh or ra mi, Col umb us , O hio , f

or Ap pe lla nts . B re tt R. She ra

w, F I SHE R, SKROBOT & SHERAW, C olumbu s , Ohio, for Appe llees. O N B RI E F: Min a N. Kh or ra mi, Col umb us , O hio , fo r Ap pe lla nts

. B re tt R. She ra

w, F I SHE R, SKR OB OT & SHE RA W, Co lum bu s, Ohio, for Appe llees.Ac c or din g to t he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt , Ca

rl L . B ro wn , Inc ., is n ot a c or po ra te e nti ty , b ut a 1 fi c tit iou s n a me un de r w hic h Ch a d B ro wn so me tim e s c on du c te d b us ine ss. Th ere is i n r e a lity on ly one appe llee in this appea l, Chad Br own. 2 ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ J ENNI E D. L ATTA, B an k ru ptcy Appellate Pane l J udg e. Carl L . Br own, J r. and June K. B ro wn , D e bto rs , a

pp e a l an o rd e r o f t

he bankru pt c y

c ourt de nyingthe ir

mot ion to m od if y the ir

c on fi rm e d c ha

pte r 1 3 p lan to a ssume a

le a se of no nr e sid e nti a l re a l pr op e rt y a nd a llo wi ng the c la im of Cha d B ro wn a nd Carl L

. B ro wn , I nc

. in a re du c e d amou

nt n otw ith sta

nd ingthe De bto rs ’ c la im 1 of of fs e t. F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , th e a

pp e a l is DI SMI SSED a s mo ot.
I. ISS UE ON AP P EAL
Th e iss ue s r a ise d b y

the pa rt ie s to this ap pe a l are (1 ) w he the r t he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt e rr e d in de nyingthe De bto rs ’ m oti on to m od if y the ir c on fi rm e d c ha

pte r 1 3 p lan on the ba sis that th e le a se that the Debtor s sought to assume w as dee med re jected by operation of l aw ; an d (2 ) whether the bankruptc y

court e rre d in deny ing the Debtors’ claim of offse t ag ainst the claim for lease arr ear ag es on the basis that the Debtors acte d as mere volunteers. As deter mined by this P anel, howe ver, the primary issue is whether this appe al is moot.

II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW
Th e B a nk ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pa ne l of the Sixth Cir c uit ha s juri sd ic tio n to de c ide thi s a pp e a l. The United States District Court for the S outhern District of Ohio has authoriz ed appeals t o the Panel

a nd a fina l or de r o f t

he ba nk ru ptc y c ourt may be a pp e a le d a s o f r ig ht p ur su a nt t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 158(a) (1). The bankruptc y court’s or der de ny ing the Debtors’ motion to m odify their conf

irmed chapte r 13 plan is a f

inal, appea lable orde r. Ledford v. Brown ( In re Brown) , 219 B.R. 191, 192 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 1998). The court’s or der sustaining the objection to the cr editor’s c laim and allowing the claim in a r ed u ce d am o u nt is also a final appe alable or der. Mi lle r v . M ill e r ( In re Mi lle r) , 284 B .R. 73 4, 73 6 ( B .A .P. 10 th C ir . 2 00 2) ; see also Be nekeCo. v. Economy Lodging Sys., Inc. ( In re Ec onomy Lodging Sys., Inc .) , 234 B.R. 691, 693 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 1999).
Modification of a co n fi rm ed chapte r 13 plan unde r 11 U.S.C. § 1329 is discretionary . A bankruptc y court’s refusa l to modify a conf irmed plan is re viewed f

or an a buse of discr etion. In re Brown, 21 9 B .R. a t 19 2. Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t th e De bto rs a re no t e nti tle d to3

an off set ag ainst the cre ditor’s claim is a conc lusion of law re viewed de novo. See A dell v. John Richards Homes Bldg. Co. ( In re John Richards Home B ldg. Co.) , 439 F.3d 248, 254 ( 6th Cir. 2006). A reviewing court must deter mine whether an appeal pending before it is moot. Carras v. W illiams , 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 n.5 ( 6th Cir. 1986) (“B eca use mootness implicates fe dera l court jur isd ic tio n un de r Ar

tic le I I I , we a re ob lig e d to c on sid e r t he qu e sti on

on our o wn mot ion .” ); se e als o Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Long Shot Dril ling, Inc. ( In re Long Shot Drilling, Inc.) , 224 B.R. 473, 477 (B .A.P. 10th Ci r. 1998) ( “I n addition to determining whether an orde r is ‘final’ . . . , we have an oblig ation to determine the jurisdictional issue of whethe r the a ppeals a re moot . . . .”)

. III
. F AC TS
Carl L

. Br own, J r. (“Carl”) is the older brothe r of Chad B rown (“ Chad”), both of whom are sons of Carl L

. Br own, Sr., dece ased. Be fore his de ath, Br own, Sr. owned and operated a g roce ry store in Columbus, Ohio through a closely held corporation, C arl L

. Br own, I nc. F ollowing B rown, Sr.’s dea th in 1994, Chad assumed owner ship of Carl L . Br own, I nc. and took ove r oper ation of the g roce ry store. B y

1999, Chad had fallen behind in pa y ments to a number of e ntities. The brothers ag ree d that Carl would take ove r oper ation of the g roce ry

. Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt fo un d that a lth ou g h Ca

rl a nd Cha d s ig ne d a

wr itt e n le a se a g re e me nt, the written a g ree ment was not intended by them to be binding. T he cour t’s finding was ba sed upon the testimony of C had and the num ber of items left bl ank in the pre-printed lease form used by the br oth e rs . T he c ourt fo un d that the br oth e rs did a g re e that Carl wo uld pa y re nt o f $ 1, 00 0 p e r m on th for the store premises an d parkinglots. The court fur ther found that this amount was never incre ased. The court he ld that this l ease wa s d ee m ed re jected by operation of law as the r esult of Carl’s fa ilure to assume the lease within sixt y day s after the orde r for

relief in the chapte r 13 ca se. Although the Debtors a ssign a s err or the bankruptc y court’s finding that the parties did not intend the wr itt e n le a se to be bin din g , th is f a c tua l f ind ingis n ot d e te rm inativ e of the ou tc ome of

thi s a pp e a l.
The De btors filed their c hapter 13 petition on Dec ember 21, 2001, in the fac e of a fore closure proce eding fi l ed b y Bank One, N .A., conc erning the store pr emises. They did not, however , schedule the lease nor identi fy Chad as a c reditor. The Debtors f iled a notice of

their bankr

uptcy

case in the fore closure pr ocee ding a n d reque sted that the for eclosure be stay ed. B ank One filed a motion to have the fore closure a ction maintained in ac tive trial status on the basis that neither of the Debtors was a defe ndant and Ba nk One wa s not list ed as a cre ditor in the bankruptcy schedule s. On Fe bruar y 9, 2002, the Debtor s filed an opposition to Bank O ne’s motion, attachinga copy of the lease and re questing that the cour t maintain the stay of foreclosure proce eding s on the basis t hat Carl

wa s th e te na

nt o f t he pr op e rt

y in q uest io n. Ev e n s o, the De bto rs did no t di sc los e or

a tte mpt toPrior to amendment in 2005, 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4) provided: 2
No t w i t h s t a n d i n g p a r a g r a

p h s ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) , i n a c a s e u n d e r a n y c h a p t e r o f t h i s t itl e , if the trustee d o es n ot assume or re ject an une x pired lea se of nonr esidential re al proper ty under w hich the debtor

is the le s s ee wi t h i n 6 0 day s after the date of

the order for r elief, or

within such additional time as the court, for cause, w ithin such 60 da y pe ri od , fix es, the n s uc h le a se is d e e me d r e je c te d, a nd

the tr us te e sh a ll imm e diate ly su rr e nd e r s uc h n on re sid e nti a l r e a l pr op e rt y to t he le sso r. 11 U. S.C. § 365(d)( 4) (2005)

. 4 assume the lea se in their bankr uptcy case . The Debtors’ chapter 13 plan was confirme d on April 17, 2002.
On

July 30 , 2 00 4, Cha d s e rv e d th e De bto rs wi th a no tic e of e vic tio n f

or fa ilure to p a y

re nt. I n response , on Aug ust 2, 2004, almost three y ear s afte r t he fili ng of their pe tition, t he De btors filed

an ame nded Schedule F to add Cha d as t he holder of a disputed c laim for unpaid r ent in the amount of $14,000. The D ebtors also filed a n amende d Schedule G to disc lose the lease from Chad. One day later, the Debtors filed a motion to modify their conf irmed cha pter 13 plan to a ssume the lease

. Chad objecte d to the motion to m odify the plan by

asser ting that the w ritten lease was invalid.
On Oc tob e r 2 8, 20 04, th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt he a rd the mot ion

to m od if y , b ut p os tpo ne d it s
ru lin g to g ive Cha d an op po rt un ity to fi le a pr oo f of c la im. Cha d ev e ntu a lly fi le d a pro of of c la im in the amount of $14,000, to w hich the Debtors objected on the basis th at t h e a m o u n t claimed exceede d the amount owed. T h e mo ti o n to mo d if y a n d o b je c ti o n to c la im w e r e h e a r d by the bankruptc y

court on Mar ch 24, 2006. Af ter the he aring was c ommenced, the court re quested that the pa rt ie s f il e bri efs on the qu e sti on of wh e the r a

ny le a se be tw e e n th e m ha d b e e n r e je c te d a s a matter of la

w. The c ourt continued the he aring , and af ter the f ilin g o f b ri efs, the he aring was conclude d on April 7, 2006. On September

29, 2006, the bankr

uptcy court issued its Finding s of Fa ct, Conc lu s io n s of L aw
an d Memorandum Opinion. The court found the Debtors did not attempt to assume or r ejec t the lease within six ty

day s afte r filing their petition for re lief as r equire d by 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4). As 2

a re sult, the lease was deeme d reje cted as a matter of l aw. There fore , the m otion to modify the plan to assume the lea se wa s denied, in esse nce be cause there was no lea se to assume.
Wit h respe ct to the claim filed by Chad, the court found that as the result of the re jection of the le a se , th e De bto rs effect iv e ly br e a c he d th e le a se a s o f t he da te of the c omm e nc e me nt o f t

he ir bankruptc y

case , Dec ember

21, 2001. The c ourt furthe r found that the l ea s e was made Sept em b er 2 2 , 1 999; that the parties intende d that lease pay ments of $1,000 per

month beg in on5

Oc tob e r 1 , 1 99 9; t

hat th e part ies agr e e d th a t th e De bto rs wo uld ma ke pa y me nts to t

he Oh io Depa rtment of Commerce, Division of L iquor Control, in li eu of r ent; and that as of the filing of the bankruptc y

petition, the Debtors had pa id $15,000 to the Division, and were in a rre ars $12,000. The court re jected the Debtors’ claim that they wer e entitled to offse t ag ainst Chad’s cla im certa in loans and ser vices the D ebtors had pr ovided to Chad on the basis that the D eb t o rs were under no leg al obligation to provide such loans and se rvice s. Acc ording ly , the court allowed Chad’s claim in the reduc ed amount of $12,000.
The De btors filed a tim el y n o tice of a ppeal on Oc tober 10, 2006. The y did not, however , seek or obtain a stay

pending appea l. T h e De b t o rs completed the pa y ments under their

plan on J une 4, 2007, and w ere g rante d a d i s ch ar ge on J uly 20, 2007. The Chapter

13 Trustee filed a

cer tification of fina l pay

ment which shows that Chad’s c laim was paid in full throug h the plan.

IV . D ISC USS ION
Section 1329 of the B ankruptc y C o d e gover ns the modification of a

confirme d chapte r 13 pla n. Mo dif ic a tio n is pe rm itt e d at any

tim e a ft e r c on fi rm a tio n b ut b e fo re the c omp le tio n o f p a y me nts under a plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1329(a)

. Prior to completion of a plan, debtors have a n absolute rig ht to reque st modification “subject to the l imits specifie d in Section 1329(a) and the ba nkruptcy court’s g ood judgme nt and discre tion.” In re Sounak hene , 249 B.R. 801, 803 (B ankr. S.D. Cal. 2000) ( citing In re Po we rs , 2 02 B .R. 61 8, 62 2 (B .A .P. 9th Cir . 199 6) ). On c e a de bto r ha s c omp le te d th e pa y me nts require d by h i s co n fi rm ed plan, howeve r, the plan ma y no longe r be modified. See 11 U. S.C. § 1 32 9( a ); Meza v . Truman ( In re M eza) , 46 7 F .3 d 87 4, 87 8 (5 th Cir . 2 00 6) ; Pr ofi t v . S av ag e ( In re Pr ofi t) , 283 B.R. 567, 573 (B .A.P. 9th Ci r. 2002).
The De btors’ plan wa s confirme d on April 17, 2002. The order appeale d from wa s entere d on October

3, 2006. No stay

pending appea l was re quested or obtained. Pay ments under the pla

n
wer e completed on J une 4, 2007. The De btors wer e g rante d a discha rg e on Jul y

20, 2007. Pursuant to the plain lang uag e of se ction 1329(a) , beca use pay ments u n d er the confirme d plan have been completed, the D ebtors may no longe r modify

their plan. The Debtors’ appea l seeking to overturn the ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s or de r d e nyingthe ir mo ti on to mod if

y the ir c on fi rm e d p lan is moo t. “Mootness re sults when events oc cur dur ing the pendenc y of a litig ation which re n d er the court unable to g rant the r equeste d relief .” Carras v. W

illiams , 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 ( 6th Cir. 1986) ( citing S

. P a c

. Te rm in a l C

o

. v

. I n te r s ta teCo m m e r c e Co m m ’n , 219 U.S. 498, 514, 31 S. C t. 279, 283 (1911)) . Be cause the Debtor s’ plan may no longe r be modified, the Panel nee d not determine whether the lease should be dee med re jected pur suant to section 365(d)( 4).6

Fur ther, Chad’ s allowed c laim was paid in full during t h e p en d ency of this appea l. The Debtors c oncede d at ora l arg ument that their appe al re g arding Chad’s cla im is l ikewise moot.

V. CO NC LU SION

F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e a pp e a l is DI SMI SSED a s mo ot.