Short v. Short

Third Circuit

Short v. Short

96 F. App'x 846

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 2004

DocketNo. 03-2337

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 846 (Short v. Short) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Short v. Short, 96 F. App'x 846 (3d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant is the debtor in possession in a Chapter 13 proceeding. He seeks to set aside the sale of realty owned by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties. The appellant’s unhappiness with the sale seemingly is caused by the bankruptcy judge’s refusal to issue rulings on the validity of the option used to sell the property or the applicability of a post-nuptial agreement. Apparently, these issues have some relationship to the appellant’s divorce proceedings in Florida.

No stay was secured before an appeal was taken to the District Court, which [847]*847dismissed the case as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Our explanation of the mootness status of unstayed sales orders is set out in L.R.S.C. Co. v. Rickel Home Centers, Inc. (In re Rickel Home Centers, Inc.), 209 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2000) and Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc., 141 F.3d 490 (3d Cir.1998). In Krebs, we said, “there are two prerequisites for section 363(m) ‘statutory’ mootness: (1) the underlying sale or lease was not stayed pending the appeal, and (2) the court, if reversing or modifying the authorization to sell or lease, would be affecting the validity of such a sale or lease.” Id. at 499.

The case before us satisfies both requirements and accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

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

OPINION

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant is the debtor in possession in a Chapter 13 proceeding. He seeks to set aside the sale of realty owned by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties. The appellant’s unhappiness with the sale seemingly is caused by the bankruptcy judge’s refusal to issue rulings on the validity of the option used to sell the property or the applicability of a post-nuptial agreement. Apparently, these issues have some relationship to the appellant’s divorce proceedings in Florida.

No stay was secured before an appeal was taken to the District Court, which [847]*847dismissed the case as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Our explanation of the mootness status of unstayed sales orders is set out in L.R.S.C. Co. v. Rickel Home Centers, Inc. (In re Rickel Home Centers, Inc.), 209 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2000) and Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc., 141 F.3d 490 (3d Cir.1998). In Krebs, we said, “there are two prerequisites for section 363(m) ‘statutory’ mootness: (1) the underlying sale or lease was not stayed pending the appeal, and (2) the court, if reversing or modifying the authorization to sell or lease, would be affecting the validity of such a sale or lease.” Id. at 499.

The case before us satisfies both requirements and accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., in 96-3702 v. Valley Motors, Inc., D/B/A Rea Motors Office of the U.S. Trustee Ronald J. Charapp American Auto Sales Inc., T/d/b/a Wilkinsburg Rambler, Inc. Chrysler Corporation General Motors Acceptance Corporation Benke Motors, Inc. Verona Motor Sales, Inc., Stephen I. Goldring. Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc., D/B/A Rea Motors Office of the U.S. Trustee Ronald J. Charapp American Auto Sales Inc., T/d/b/a Wilkinsburg Rambler, Inc. Chrysler Corporation General Motors Acceptance Corporation Benke Motors, Inc. Verona Motor Sales, Inc., Stephen I. Goldring. Chrysler Corporation, in 96-3757

141 F.3d 490 (Third Circuit, 1998)

In Re: Rickel Home Centers, Inc., Debtor L.R.S.C. Co. v. Rickel Home Centers, Inc. Staples, Inc

209 F.3d 291 (Third Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-short-ca3-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack