NANCY K. NEIDICH, TRUSTEE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD R. SALAS, DEBTOR-APPELLEE
JORDAN, Circuit Judge: The primary question in this bankruptcy appeal is whether a debtor can, in his Chapter 13 plan, deduct from his disposable income scheduled payments on a secured mortgage debt, even though he is not making those payments. We leave this question for another day because, due to events taking place after the appeal was filed, the case has become moot. A case becomes moot when “it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Chafin v. Chafin, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Months after the parties filed their briefs, Edward Salas — the debtor — asked the bankruptcy court to dismiss his Chapter 13 case without prejudice so that he could attempt to avoid foreclosure on his home.
The district court granted the requested relief, and dismissed Mr. Salas’ case without prejudice. So, as things stand now, Mr. Salas does not have a Chapter 13 plan containing the deduction that the trustee objects to. Given the dismissal of Mr. Salas’ Chapter 13 case, any ruling on our part would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion concerning the propriety of the challenged deduction. We therefore join the Tenth, Ninth, and Seventh Circuits, as well as the Bankruptcy Appellate Panels of the First and Eighth Circuits, in holding that the dismissal of a Chapter 13. case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings. See In re Pattullo, 271 F. 3d 898, 901 (9th Cir.2001); Belda v. Marshall, 416 F. 3d 618, 620-21 (7th Cir.2005); In re Gordon, 743 F. 3d 720, 722 (10th Cir.2014); Melo v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 496 B.R. 253, 256 (1st Cir. BAP 2013); In re Spencer, 301 B.R. 730, 733 (8th Cir. BAP 2003).
The trustee’s appeal is dismissed, and the decisions of the district and bankruptcy courts on this matter are vacated pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Northington v. Northington, 876 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2017)…es on appeal from the bankruptcy court. North-ington, though, failed to, comply with his Chapter 13 plan, and the bankruptcy court therefore dismissed his proceeding, That dismissal moots TitleMax’s appeal against North-ington. See Neidich v. Salas, 783 F. 3d 1215, 1216 (11th. Cir. 2015) (”[T]he dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.”). . Although a pawnbroker has the right to take possession of pledged property during the redemption period, see id. §…
-
Bruce v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (M.D. Fla. 2023)…ing the stay. See In re Myers, No. 2:22-cv-478-JES, 2023 WL 5720739 at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2023). 2 Normally, the “dismissal of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case moots any appeals arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.” Neidich v. Salas, 783 F. 3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015). However, because Appellant also appealed the dismissal of the underlying case, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal. Cf. Pajarillo v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 2:19-cv- 01020-GMN-NJK, 2020 WL 13535365 at *2 (D. Nev.…
-
Dekom v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (N.D. Fla. 2021)…1573. Because the Court affirms the dismissal of Dekom’s case, his “additional challenges to the [B]ankruptcy [C]ourt’s administration of [his] case are now moot.” See In re Kunsman, 752 F. App’x 938, 941 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Neidich v. Salas, 783 F. 3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015)).9 8 The Bankruptcy Court noted that Dekom’s “outrageous allegations . . . are in keeping with his modus operandi” in both this case and in other cases “when things did not go as [Dekom] would like.” See ECF No. 1-3 at 8 n.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (U.S. 2013)