Court Opinion

ID: 9963887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 15:01:32.624898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:03.196082
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13408    Document: 36-1    Date Filed: 04/26/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                               No. 23-13408
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       In re: GREGORY BRIAN MYERS
                                                               Debtor.
       _______________________________________________
       GREGORY BRIAN MYERS,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       U.S. BANK N.A.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13408     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13408

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00478-JES,
                         Bkcy No. 2:21-bk-00123-FMD
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the response to the jurisdic-
       tional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of standing.
              Gregory Myers filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy un-
       der Chapter 13 in January 2021. U.S. Bank NA (“U.S. Bank”) filed
       a proof of claim (“Claim 5”), and Myers objected to Claim 5 as un-
       timely and because he asserted that he was not liable for the under-
       lying debt. U.S. Bank also filed a motion seeking, among other
       things, relief from the automatic stay. In orders entered on March
       8, 2022, the bankruptcy court overruled Myers’s objection to Claim
       5 as moot, concluding that U.S. Bank would take nothing under the
       bankruptcy plan, and granted U.S. Bank’s motion for relief from
       stay only to the extent that it terminated the automatic stay as to
       U.S. Bank’s interest in a Maryland property. Myers moved for re-
       consideration of both orders, and the bankruptcy court denied both
       motions in orders entered on July 7 and 8, 2022. Myers appealed
       the reconsideration orders to the district court. On appeal, he with-
       drew his appeal of the order denying his motion for reconsidera-
       tion concerning stay relief. The district court affirmed, Myers
USCA11 Case: 23-13408      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-13408               Opinion of the Court                          3

       moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied his mo-
       tion. Myers appealed to this Court.
               We dismiss the appeal because Myers lacks both appellate
       and person-aggrieved standing. Myers voluntarily withdrew his
       appeal of the bankruptcy court order concerning stay relief, so he
       was not aggrieved by the district court’s order concluding that he
       had done so. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353-54 (11th
       Cir. 2003) (providing that we only have jurisdiction over appeals
       where the appellant has appellate standing and that only a litigant
       aggrieved by an order may appeal). Furthermore, Myers is, in sub-
       stance, the prevailing party as to the litigation concerning Claim 5
       because the bankruptcy court concluded that U.S. Bank would take
       nothing under the bankruptcy plan and denied Myers’s objection
       to Claim 5 as moot. See Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. ex rel.
       Manager, 195 F.3d 1225, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999) (providing that a pre-
       vailing party generally lacks standing to appeal because the ap-
       pealed order did not injure him). Furthermore, Myers lacks pru-
       dential standing under the more demanding but non-jurisdictional
       person-aggrieved doctrine, which U.S. Bank raised in response to
       our jurisdictional questions. See Thakkar v. Bay Point Cap. Partners,
       LP (In re Bay Circle Props.), 955 F.3d 874, 879 (11th Cir. 2020). Myers
       has no financial stake in the denial of his objection to Claim 5 as
       moot given the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that U.S. Bank
       would take nothing under the plan. Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford,
       Inc. (In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc.), 764 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir.
       2014) (explaining that a person has standing to appeal a bankruptcy
       court order only if he has a financial stake in the appealed order and
USCA11 Case: 23-13408      Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 04/26/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-13408

       is directly affected by the order because it diminishes his property,
       increases his burdens, or impairs his rights). To the extent that My-
       ers asserts that the bankruptcy court should have reached the mer-
       its of his objection to resolve the issue in future proceedings, an
       order requiring further litigation does not directly harm litigants so
       as to satisfy the person-aggrieved doctrine. See id.