Opinion ID: 1190341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing as Aggrieved Party

Text: The BAP correctly recognized, [i]n order to have standing to appeal the decision of the bankruptcy court, an appellant must be a person aggrieved. The BAP then concluded [Zahn] is not an aggrieved party. The BAP reasoned that because the bankruptcy court approved a plan Zahn proposed, the bankruptcy court's approval resulted in a judgment in favor of Zahn. Quoting Elkin v. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. (In re Shkolnikov), 470 F.3d 22, 24 (1st Cir.2006), the BAP stated, a party cannot prosecute an appeal from a judgment in its favor. The BAP reasoned, [w]hen the court confirmed her plan, [Zahn] got all the relief for which she asked. We believe there is a flaw in the BAP's reasoning. Zahn was forced, over her express objection, to propose an amended plan. As the BAP noted, Zahn preferred her original plan. Zahn amended her plan with provisions she believed were erroneous and not required by the Bankruptcy Code, in order to avoid dismissal. That a party may appeal from a judgment in his favor when there has been some error prejudicial to him, or he has not received all he is entitled to, has quite generally been held by the courts, and there is no sound reason otherwise. Houchin Sales Co. v. Angert, 11 F.2d 115, 118-19 (8th Cir.1926). The extended length of Zahn's plana consequence of the inclusion of her non-filing husband's IRA distributionsis material and prejudicial to Zahn. Zahn is thereby an aggrieved party.