Sixth Circuit Adopts Minority Interpretation of Mootness

by Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact

“The Meaning of Moot is a Moot Point” – Paul Evans, the Guardian

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that parties arguing mootness under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code must establish that the appellate court is unable to grant effective relief without impacting the validity of the sale.  In so doing, the Sixth Circuit rejected the per se interpretation of section 363(m) adopted by a majority of circuits.

Facts

In 2014, Susan Brown filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In her bankruptcy petition, Brown disclosed her ownership of a Michigan residence valued at $170,000, but subject to secured mortgage claims in the amount of $219,000.  Since Brown had no equity in the residence, she stated her intent to surrender the residence to the bankruptcy estate, and did not claim any exemptions for the value of her redemption rights under Michigan Comp. Law § 600.3240.

The Chapter 7 trustee of Brown’s bankruptcy estate subsequently sought the Bankruptcy Court’s permission to sell Brown’s residence for $160,000 and to distribute the proceeds among Brown’s creditors. Brown objected to the Chapter 7 trustee’s request to sell the residence and sought to amend her initial petition to claim exemptions for the value of the redemption rights she enjoyed under Michigan law. The Bankruptcy Court granted the trustee permission to sell the residence and denied Brown’s requested exemptions.

Brown appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order approving the sale to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which affirmed the decision. Brown then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the .

The Decision

At the outset, the trustee argued that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear Brown’s appeal on two grounds: (1) the case was moot on constitutional, statutory and equitable grounds; and (2) Brown lacked appellate standing because she lacked a pecuniary interest in the distribution of the sale proceeds.

With respect to mootness, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that appeals from a bankruptcy court’s decision to grant the trustee authority to sell certain property are moot if the appellant has failed to obtain a stay from the bankruptcy court’s order and the trustee has already conveyed the property to a bona fide purchaser for value. The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that “a majority of our sister circuits construe section 363(m) as creating a per se rule automatically mooting appeals for failure to obtain a stay of the sale at issue.” Given that Brown failed to obtain a stay from the Bankruptcy Court’s order, the “majority interpretation” of section 363(m) would suggest that Brown’s appeal is moot.

However, despite the majority rule, a “minority interpretation” has been adopted by the Third and Tenth Circuits which requires the party alleging mootness to prove an additional element: that the reviewing court is unable to grant effective relief without impacting the validity of the sale.  See In re ICL Holding Co., 802 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 2015); In re C.W. Mining Co., 641 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011).

After careful analysis, Sixth Circuit adopted the minority approach of the Third and Tenth Circuits. The Court reasoned that such approach is “the superior interpretation” of section 363(m) because: (i) it accommodates the section’s clear preference of upholding the validity of bankruptcy sales without restricting the appellant’s right to contest errors of law made by the bankruptcy court; and (ii) is in line with the plain language of section 363(m), which does not explicitly prevent a reviewing court from redistributing proceeds from a sale. The Sixth Circuit held that since Michigan law permits imposition of a constructive trust over the proceeds from the sale of Brown’s residence, the Sixth Circuit could order relief without disturbing the sale. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that Brown’s appeal was not moot.

With respect to standing, the trustee argued that Brown lacked standing because she owned no equity in the residence and, thus, was not directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the sale. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that since the effect of the bankruptcy court’s order was to deprive Brown of her purportedly exempted share of the sale proceeds, she was adversely affected pecuniarily by the sale order and thus had standing to appeal.

Although the Sixth Circuit rejected the trustee’s arguments with respect to mootness and standing, the Sixth Circuit nonetheless affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order in favor of the trustee.  Relying on its previous decision in Baldridge v. Ellmann (In re Baldridge), 553 F. App’x 598 (6th Cir. 2014) and decisions within the Third and Ninth Circuits, the Sixth Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not support an exemption on the basis of state law redemption rights in a piece of property if the proceeds from the sale of that property are insufficient to satisfy prior obligations owed to secured creditors.  See also Simonson v. First Bank of Greater Pittston (In re Simonson), 758 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1985); Drummond v. Urban (In re Urban), 375 B.R. 882 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007).  Consequently, because Brown owned no equity in the residence, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of Brown’s request for exemptions.

Practical Considerations:

While the Sixth Circuit’s decision affirming the sale order in In re Brown may not be particularly surprising, the Sixth Circuit’s adoption of the “minority interpretation” of mootness with respect to section 363(m) is particularly notable, and attorneys involved in appeals of sale orders should be aware that a growing number of circuits require appellees arguing mootness to establish that the reviewing court is unable to grant effective relief without impacting the validity of the sale. Given that states typically have enacted laws permitting imposition of a constructive trust over sale proceeds, In re Brown suggests that it may be challenging for a party to establish mootness under the minority interpretation.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact
more
less

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.