Neidich v. Salas

Eleventh Circuit

Neidich v. Salas

783 F.3d 1215, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 2015 WL 1781527

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2015

DocketNo. 14-13768

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 783 F.3d 1215 (Neidich v. Salas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 2015 WL 1781527 (11th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

[1216]*1216A 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.

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

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.

[1216]*1216A 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 F.3d 1215, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6377, 2015 WL 1781527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neidich-v-salas-ca11-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack