Now Updating
PRICE v. SPOKANE ROCK I, LLC

Summarizing by Bradley Pearce

WHATLEY, JR v CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LTD

Summarizing by Lars Fuller

Tanguy v. West

Case Type:
Consumer
Case Status:
Affirmed
Citation:
17-20655 (5th Circuit, Sep 05,2018) Not Published
Tag(s):
Ruling:
Failure to address a lower court's opinion that the appeal was moot under section 363(m) constitutes a waiver of that argument unless the appellant presented evidence at the bankruptcy court, and before appealing the sale order, that the buyer did not act in good faith.
Procedural context:
After the bankruptcy judge authorized the trustee to sell certain property pursuant to section 363(f), the appellants failed to seek a stay of the sale. Following the sale, the appellants filed a notice of appeal with the district court. The district court found that the appeal was moot under section 363(m). The appellants appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but failed to argue that the appeal was not moot under section 363(m), so that this issue was not preserved on appeal.
Facts:
A bankruptcy trustee sued the appellants and obtained certain property as a result of the litigation. The trustee then requested permission to sell the property pursuant to section 363(f). When the appellants objected, the trustee filed an emergency motion to strike, alleging that appellants' attorney had stated at a status conference that the appellants would not object to the trustee's proposed sale. The appellants also did not raise the issue of the buyer's good faith in the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court struck the appellants' objection and entered an order authorizing the trustee to sell the property. The trustee sold the property on February 17, 2017. On February 23, 2017, the appellants filed a notice of appeal with the district court. The district court ruled that the appeal was moot under section 363(m). The appellants appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and argued that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to authorize the sale of the property under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The appellants also argued -- in the reply brief -- that the buyer did not act in good faith. The appellants did not address the district court's decision that their appeal was moot under section 363(m).
Judge(s):
KING, ELROD, and HAYNES

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

2771 in the system

2710 Summarized

8 Being Processed