Young v. Lynne

Ninth Circuit

Young v. Lynne

38 F. App'x 467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 2002

DocketNo. 01-55153; BAP No. CC-00-01134-BKMa

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. App'x 467 (Young v. Lynne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Lynne, 38 F. App'x 467 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Harry Nelson Young appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) dismissal as moot of his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s judgment extinguishing his interest in property that he co-owned with the debtor, Deborah Lynne, after he stopped making mortgage payments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo jurisdictional issues in bankruptcy, Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States (In re Arnold & Baker Farms), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

[468]*468We conclude that the BAP properly dismissed Young’s appeal. The court may dismiss an appeal where equities weigh in favor of dismissal, especially where the appellant’s failure to obtain a stay resulted in changed circumstances. See In re S.S. Retail Stores Corp., v. Ekstrom, 216 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm.

Young’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Harry Nelson Young appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) dismissal as moot of his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s judgment extinguishing his interest in property that he co-owned with the debtor, Deborah Lynne, after he stopped making mortgage payments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo jurisdictional issues in bankruptcy, Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States (In re Arnold & Baker Farms), 85 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

[468]*468We conclude that the BAP properly dismissed Young’s appeal. The court may dismiss an appeal where equities weigh in favor of dismissal, especially where the appellant’s failure to obtain a stay resulted in changed circumstances. See In re S.S. Retail Stores Corp., v. Ekstrom, 216 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm.

Young’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In Re Arnold & Baker Farms, Debtor. Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms, and Western Cotton Services Corp. v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Western Cotton Services Corp.

85 F.3d 1415 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

S.S. Retail Stores Corp. v. Ekstrom (In re S.S. Retail Stores Corp.)

216 F.3d 882 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. App'x 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-lynne-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack