CADA Investments, Inc., Matter of
| Decision Date | 28 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-3440,79-3440 |
| Citation | 664 F.2d 1158 |
| Parties | 5 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1166 In the Matter of CADA INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation, Debtor. Frank TAYLOR, Appellant, v. John H. LAKE and John H. Lake, D.D.S., Inc. Pension Profit Sharing Trust and Bonnie Dunes Ranch, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard M. Moneymaker, Moneymaker & Morrison, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Douglas W. Stern, Jesse Miller, Miller & Mandel, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before HUG and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.
In the bankruptcy proceedings below, the bankruptcy judge set aside the order confirming a property sale to the first buyer, Taylor, when he learned that a second buyer, Lake, had been unable to communicate a higher offer to the Receiver charged with selling the property. From the district court order affirming this action and allowing a subsequent sale to Lake, Taylor appeals. We affirm.
These bankruptcy proceedings took place under former Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. 2
The sole asset of CADA Investments, Inc., the debtor, was a 60-acre parcel of land located in Indio, California. At the continued first meeting of the creditors on October 31, 1978, the bankruptcy judge appointed a Receiver for the bankrupt estate and ordered a sale of the property at public auction. On November 17, 1978, the public sale was duly noticed for Friday, December 1, 1978, in the courtroom of the bankruptcy judge.
The December 1 auction failed to produce a sale because no suitable bids were received. The court thereupon authorized the Receiver to conduct a private sale of the land.
Sometime shortly thereafter the first buyer, Taylor, submitted to the Receiver a bid in proper form for $300,000. On Thursday, December 7, 1978, Selzer, an attorney for Bonnie Dunes Ranch, the general creditor, contacted the Receiver and stated that he knew of a potential buyer (later revealed to be Lake) who would offer "more than $300,000." On Friday, December 8th, the Receiver executed an agreement to sell the property to Taylor for $300,000 subject to the confirmation of the bankruptcy judge. On Monday, December 11, Selzer, on behalf of Lake, attempted to communicate to the Receiver a bid of $350,000 which had materialized over the weekend. During that day Selzer apparently placed four telephone calls to the Receiver. Selzer never reached the Receiver, however, and messages left with the Receiver's answering service in connection with three of the calls went unanswered. On Tuesday, December 12, the Receiver applied for and received confirmation of the sale to Taylor from the bankruptcy judge. Selzer attempted unsuccessfully to reach the Receiver by telephone on both the 12 and the 13. The Receiver finally returned a call on the 14, at which time the Receiver first learned of Lake's offer and Selzer and Bonnie Dunes first learned that the property had been sold to Taylor.
On December 22, 1978, Bonnie Dunes filed with the bankruptcy court a motion to show cause why the confirmation of sale to Taylor should not be set aside. After a hearing on January 19, 1979, the court vacated the December 12 order confirming the sale to Taylor, and set a new sale date of February 21, 1979. Taylor appealed this action to the District Court in accordance with the applicable bankruptcy statute. 3 Meanwhile, at the new sale on February 21, the court accepted Lake's high bid of $350,000 and confirmed the sale to Lake. Taylor appealed this action to the District Court.
Both appeals were heard by the District Court on June 7, 1979. The court affirmed the bankruptcy judge's order setting aside the December 12 sale, but vacated the February 21 sale and ordered a new one. Taylor took an appeal from the District Court's order to this court. On remand, meanwhile, the bankruptcy court held the new sale on June 25, 1979, where once again Lake bid highest at $350,000. The court accepted this bid, and sale was again confirmed by the bankruptcy judge. The property was conveyed to Lake by Receiver's deed, dated September 12, 1979, at close of escrow on October 3, 1979.
Our threshold inquiry relates to possible mootness of this appeal. This possibility arises because the disputed property has been conveyed by the Receiver to Lake in a grant deed dated September 12, 1979. Taylor did not request a stay of the order of sale authorizing this conveyance, nor did he post a supersedeas bond.
Bankruptcy Rule 805, made applicable to this Chapter XI proceeding by Bankruptcy Rule 11-62, contains the following provision:
Unless an order approving a sale of property ... is stayed pending appeal, the sale to a good faith purchaser ... shall not be affected by the reversal or modification of such order on appeal, whether or not the purchaser ... knows of the pendency of the appeal.
Circuits that have considered the matter agree that when this provision applies-when, in the absence of a stay of the order of sale, a sale to a "good faith purchaser" has been concluded-an appellate court cannot undo the sale. Because the court cannot provide meaningful relief to the appellant under those circumstances, any appeal of the order of sale thereby becomes moot. See, e. g., In re Bleaufontaine, Inc., 634 F.2d 1383 (5th Cir. 1981); In re Rock Industries Machinery Corp., 572 F.2d 1195 (7th Cir. 1978); In re National Homeowners Sales Service Corp., 554 F.2d 636 (4th Cir. 1977); Country Fairways, Inc. v. Mottaz, 539 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1976); In re Abingdon Realty Corp., 530 F.2d 588 (4th Cir. 1976). We have stated that although the Bankruptcy Rules apply by terms only to appeals made to the district court from the bankruptcy court, "practical necessities" counsel that the philosophy of the rules should apply in similar fashion in this court. In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 188-89 (9th Cir. 1977).
In the instant case, although the sale to Lake has apparently been completed, the terms of that sale appear to save Taylor's appeal from the operation of Rule 805. The deed to Lake states that it was "made pursuant to an Amended Modified Order of Sale and Order Confirming Sale of Real Property in the matter of the debtor's estate of CADA INVESTMENTS, INC., ... entered on September 12, 1979, and an Amended Order Reconfirming Sale of said property entered September 12, 1979, certified copies of which Orders are recorded contemporaneously herewith ...." The Amended Modified Order of Sale, in turn, includes a term stating that the "sale is made subject to current taxes, covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements and right(s) of way of record, if any, and the appeal of Frank Taylor of a previous Order of this Court setting aside the sale to Frank Taylor dated December 12, 1978 ...." (emphasis added). The Amended Order Reconfirming Sale decrees that the sale to Lake "pursuant to an Amended Modified Order of Sale and Order Confirming Sale of Real Property entered September 12, 1979, for the sum of $350,000.00 be, and the same is hereby reconfirmed, on the terms and conditions as set forth in said Modified Order, which said terms and conditions are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though fully set forth " (emphasis added). The interest Lake purchased, in other words, is by the terms of the agreement subject to the outcome of Taylor's appeal.
Because Lake's interest is expressly conditioned on the outcome of this appeal, a reversal or modification of the appealed order by this court would not "affect" the sale to Lake in the manner prohibited by Rule 805. His interest in the property would remain, as always, "subject to ... the appeal of Frank Taylor."
Rule 805 does not, in our view, operate to override express terms of this nature in the sale documents. We thus conclude that Rule 805 does not render Taylor's appeal moot.
We note further that here, in contrast to other cases in which we have addressed comparable mootness problems, all essential parties are before the court. In the more frequent case, the buyers as to whom Rule 805 might operate "are not parties to the appeal before the court, and the court therefore cannot give any relief that would affect them." In re Royal Properties, Inc., 621 F.2d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 1980). Because the court "cannot grant effective relief in their absence," the appeal is deemed moot. Id. at 987 (emphasis added). Accord, In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d at 189.
In this case, however, all parties necessary for the granting of effective relief are before the court. Because we have before us all necessary parties, and because Rule 805 does not operate to render this appeal moot, we find that the appeal is not moot and we have jurisdiction to review the decision on appeal.
We turn to the heart of the dispute: whether sufficient grounds existed for the bankruptcy court's decision to set aside the December 12th confirmation of sale to Taylor at $300,000 to allow Lake to bid at $350,000 at a subsequent sale.
Neither Judge Naugle's order in the bankruptcy court, nor Judge Ferguson's order in the district court, gave any reason for the order to set aside confirmation of the sale to Taylor. As it argued before the bankruptcy and district courts, Bonnie Dunes argues on appeal that the confirmation was properly set aside because the Receiver failed to give notice of the sale to creditors-as allegedly required by Bankruptcy Rule 11-24(a) and by Local Bankruptcy Rule 223(k)-and because the Receiver failed to pursue the best possible bid on the property.
We have difficulty affirming the order setting aside confirmation on either of these grounds. It is unclear whether either Rule cited by appellees requires notice in these circumstances, 4 whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Atravasada Land and Cattle Inc.
...[citing Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131[, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L.Ed. 557] (1937); Matter of CAD A Investments, Inc., 664 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.1981); Bankruptcy Rule 924, Title XI, U.S.C. Appendix (1982).] —Id. The policy particularly applies to "agreed" orders......
-
S.E.C. v. American Capital Investments, Inc.
...805 (superceded 1983). We have acknowledged exceptions, albeit ill-defined, to this rule of mootness. In Taylor v. Lake (In re CADA Inv., Inc.), 664 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir.1981), we held the appeal was not moot, despite the sale's closing in the absence of a stay, because the language of the sa......
-
In re International Fibercom, Inc.
...(9th Cir.1990) (citing Chinichian v. Campolongo (In re Chinichian), 784 F.2d 1440, 1443 (9th Cir.1986); Taylor v. Lake (In re CADA Invs., Inc.), 664 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.1981)). That equitable power is established by § 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that a bankruptcy cour......
-
In re FA Potts & Co., Inc.
...57 S.Ct. 382, 385, 81 L.Ed. 557, 561 (1937). This power to set aside orders is broad but not unlimited. Taylor v. Lake (In re CADA Investments), 664 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir.1981). The basic perimeters of this power to set aside are found in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedur......
-
Alla Raykin, section 363 Sales: Mooting Due Process?
...Assurance Soc’y (In re Sun Valley Ranches, Inc.), 823 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir.1987); see also Taylor v. Lake (In re CADA Inv., Inc.), 664 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9thCir. 1981); Willamette Water Front, Ltd. v. Victoria Station, Inc. (In re Victoria Station Inc.), 88 B.R. 231, 234(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1......