Irving v. Dye

171 F. App'x 15
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 28, 2006·No. Nos. 04-55616, 04-55977·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Clinton Irving, administrator for the estate of Marie Francis Holt, appeals two distinct orders of dismissal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) arising out of a single case. The BAP dismissed one appeal because Irving lacked standing, the other because the property had been sold and the case thus mooted pursuant to the “bankruptcy mootness rule.”1 The BAP offered Irving a stay, but the estate failed to put up the bond required. The property was thereafter sold and the case mooted because failure to obtain a stay is fatal to the case.2 We therefore affirm the BAP’s dismissal of 04-55616 as moot.

We also affirm the BAP decision in 04-55977 that the probate estate lacked standing because it neither objected to the compromise agreement between the “Cinderella Living Trust” and the bankruptcy estate nor demonstrated that it was “adversely affected pecuniarily.”3

[16] AFFIRMED. All pending motions in these cases are denied as MOOT.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Irving v. Dye, 171 F. App'x 15 (9th Cir. 2006).

171 F. App'x 15 (Irving v. Dye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related