O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA (In re O&S Trucking, Inc.)

Citation:
O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA (In re O&S Trucking, Inc.), 2015 WL 1528302 (8th Cir. BAP April 7, 2015)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed debtor's appeal from order confirming its third amended plan on grounds that the debtor did not have standing and the debtor's arguments were moot.
Procedural context:
Chapter 11 debtor appealed order confirming its third amended plan. According to the notice of appeal, the debtor also indicated that it was appealing two prior orders as to claim objections. The court found that while the confirmation order was a final order for purposes of appeal, the debtor was not an aggrieved party insofar as it obtained confirmation of the plan it proposed. Given that the debtor had also surrendered all of the creditor's collateral, the court could not give any meaningful relief. Appeal dismissed.
Facts:
The debtor operated a fleet of trucks and trailers across the country. A number of its trucks and trailers were financed or leased by Mercedes Benz. Shortly after the case was filed, the creditor filed a motion for adequate protection or to prohibit use of cash collateral. The parties submitted an agreed order resolving the motion. The debtor subsequently filed a motion to determine secured status which the bankruptcy court sustained in part. The debtor sought reconsideration of that order, arguing that it was entitled to additional credits against the creditor's secured claim. The motion was denied, and the debtor appealed. That appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction insofar as the orders were interlocutory in nature and the debtor did not request leave to appeal. The debtor then filed a third amended plan. The plan was confirmed as proposed. During oral argument, the debtor did not allege any error in that order, and the debtor received the relief it requested - namely, confirmation of the plan. The court found that the fact the confirmation order was final in nature did not render the prior orders final and appealable. The debtor could have filed the plan it wanted, propose a new plan after it confirmation was denied, then object to confirmation of the new plan. However, the debtor did none of those things. Because the debtor was not an aggrieved party, it did not have standing to appeal the confirmation order. In addition, the debtor no longer possessed any of the creditor's trucks and the dispute raised by the debtor was mooted by subsequent events. Appeal dismissed.
Judge(s):
Kressel, Schermer, and Nail

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3044 in the system

2938 Summarized

2 Being Processed