Court Opinion

ID: 998843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:16:41.230947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:06.849992
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP J. BARKER; DOROTHY E.
BARKER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.                                                                      No. 98-1882

RICHARD M. STEARNS, Trustee-in-
Bankruptcy,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
(CA-98-118-5-BR, BK-97-51-5-ATS)

Submitted: February 18, 1999

Decided: May 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James P. Green, Jr., Henderson, North Carolina, for Appellants. Rich-
ard M. Stearns, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, Kinston, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Barkers filed a petition under Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy
code in January 1997. They entered into an agreement with the trustee
in which they agreed that the trustee would sell all of the Barkers'
farm, except for their house and twenty acres. The land was sold at
public auction in November 1997. The Barkers filed a motion to delay
confirmation of the sale and, after a hearing, the bankruptcy court
denied their motion and approved the sale by order entered December
11, 1997. The Barkers' motion to vacate the confirmation of the sale
was denied and the sale was concluded in February 1998.

The Barkers appealed to the district court seeking an order setting
aside the sale of their farm and giving them the opportunity to pur-
chase it from the bankruptcy trustee. The district court dismissed their
appeal as moot because the Barkers failed to obtain a stay pending
appeal. This appeal followed.

The trustee contends that because the Barkers failed to seek a stay
of the bankruptcy court's order authorizing the sale, 11 U.S.C.
§ 363(m) (1994), applies and renders this appeal moot. We agree.
Section 363(m) provides:

          The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization
          under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease
          of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease
          under such authorization to an entity that purchased or
          leased such property in good faith, whether or not such
          entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such
          authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending
          appeal.

In Development Co. of Am. v. Adamson Co. (In re Adamson Co.),
159 F.3d 896, 897 (4th Cir. 1998), this court held that a lessor's fail-

                     2
ure to obtain a stay of the bankruptcy court's order authorizing the
sale of the debtor's assets and assumption and assignment of the debt-
or's lease to a good faith purchaser rendered moot the lessor's appeal
from the authorization order. See also In re Stadium Management
Corp., 895 F.2d 845, 847 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[a]bsent a stay, the court
must dismiss a pending appeal as moot because the court has no rem-
edy that it can fashion even if it would have determined the issues dif-
ferently"). Here, the Barkers' failure to obtain a stay renders this
appeal moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    3