Case Name: IN RE: Julie Baker ZALLOUM, Debtor. Julie Baker Zalloum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-05
Citations: 714 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 17-11853 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: IN RE: Julie Baker ZALLOUM, Debtor. Julie Baker Zalloum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 582
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
IN RE: Julie Baker ZALLOUM, Debtor. Julie Baker Zalloum, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-11853 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(March 5, 2018)
Julie Baker Zalloum, Pro Se
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julie Zalloum, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order which dismissed as moot her appeal from the bankruptcy court's order overruling her objections to the proof of claims filed by River Oaks Community Services Association, Inc.'s in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The district court ruled that Ms. Zalloum's challenges were moot because her Chapter 13 case had been dismissed by the bankruptcy court.
Ms. Zalloum argues that the district court erred in dismissing her appeal as moot because (1) an ongoing controversy exists between River Oaks and herself, and (2) the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction and continues to enter orders relating. to other disputes. She also claims that the bankruptcy court erred when it overruled her objections to River Oaks' proofs of claims.
We sit as a second court of review in bankruptcy matters, independently examining the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court, and employing the same standards of review as the district court. See in re Optical Techs., Inc., 425 F.3d 1294, 1299-300 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the bankruptcy court's and district court's legal conclusions, and review the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error. See id. at 1300. Mootness is a question of law subject to de novo review. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011).
Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies. See id. at 1189. Accordingly, federal courts cannot offer advisory opinions on moot questions or on abstract propositions. See id. And federal courts cannot declare principles or rules of law outside those implicated by the matter directly before them. See id. A live controversy must exist at all stages of review. See id. at 1189-90.
A bankruptcy court's dismissal of a debtor's Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the bankruptcy proceedings because, after dismissal, no Chapter 13 plan exists. See Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that the dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings). Applying Salas to this case, the appeal is moot because Ms. Zalloum's Chapter 13 case was dismissed and there is no Chapter 13 proceeding to which Ms. Zalloum could object. We cannot grant any meaningful relief to Mrs. Zalloum in this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.