Nieters v. Sevcik
| Decision Date | 17 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-2632,00-2632 |
| Citation | 258 F.3d 757 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2001) IN RE: MARCO A. RODRIQUEZ AND VANESSA M. RODRIQUEZ, DEBTORS. MARK E. NIETERS, APPELLEE, v. GARY L. SEVCIK, APPELLANT, ANITA L. SHODEEN, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE. Submitted: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Hansen, Circuit Judge, and Barnes,1 District Judge.
Gary L. Sevcik appeals from the district court's order reversing the bankruptcy court and reinstating an order approving a sale of real estate to Mark E. Nieters. While this appeal was pending, and with no stay pending appeal to inhibit her action, the Chapter 7 Trustee issued a court officer's deed to Nieters for the property. The Trustee and Nieters contend that because the sale is complete, this appeal is moot. We agree.
Sevcik argues that this court is barred from considering whether the appeal is moot because an administrative panel of this court previously denied the Trustee's motion to dismiss based on mootness in an order filed September 22, 2000. We believe that a hearing panel of this court to whom the entire case has been referred for disposition is free to revisit a motion to dismiss for want of appellate jurisdiction even though an administrative panel of the court has previously denied such a motion. See United States v. City of Milwaukee, 144 F.3d 524, 526 n.1 (7th Cir. 1998) (); United States v. Houser, 804 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1986) (same); see also United States v. Morgan, 244 F.3d 674, 675 (8th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (). "Decisions by motions panels are summary in character, made often on a scanty record, and not entitled to the weight of a decision made after plenary submission." City of Milwaukee, 144 F.3d at 526 n.1 (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, challenges to the court's jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. See Olin Water Servs. v. Midland Research Labs., Inc., 774 F.2d 303, 306 (8th Cir. 1985) (). We conclude that the administrative panel's ruling denying the Trustee's motion to dismiss does not affect our hearing panel's ability to make a final ruling on the issue of mootness upon full and final submission of the case for disposition.
Sales in bankruptcy cases are not subject to modification by an appellate court unless the appellant receives a stay pending appeal. In re Wintz Cos., 219 F.3d 807, 811 (8th Cir. 2000). Generally, federal courts are not empowered to give opinions on moot questions or declare rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992). If, while an appeal is pending, an event occurs that eliminates the court's ability to provide any effectual relief whatever, the appeal must be dismissed as moot. In re Security Life Ins. Co., 228 F.3d 865, 870 (8th Cir. 2000). In bankruptcy appeals, the "finality rule" within 11 U.S.C. § 363 (1994) prevents the overturning of a completed sale to a good-faith purchaser in the absence of a stay. In re Wintz Cos., 219 F.3d at 811. This rule protects the finality of bankruptcy sales and the reasonable expectations of good-faith third-party purchasers. Veltman v. Whetzal, 93 F.3d 517, 521 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996). It also reflects the inability of courts to supply a remedy once property has left the bankruptcy estate. Id.; see also In re Van Iperen, 819 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).
Sevcik argues that Nieters is not a good-faith purchaser. He asserts the record is replete with unexplained activity that appears to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Right to Life Political Action v. Lamb
...trial and appellate." Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990); In re Rodriquez, 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 2001). A case, however, will not be moot if one of the following four exceptions apply; "(1) secondary or `collateral' injuries surv......
-
North Dakota v. Heydinger
...2014 WL 7157013, at *1–2 & n. 1 (D. Minn. Dec. 15, 2014). Accordingly, we dismiss the cross-appeal as moot. See In re Rodriquez , 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 2001) (“If, while an appeal is pending, an event occurs that eliminates the court's ability to provide any effectual relief whatever,......
-
In re Src Holding Corp.
...Trustee does not require contribution or indemnity from Dorsey making the Trustee's claim moot. See, e.g., Nieters v. Sevcik (In re Rodriquez), 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cir.2001) ("Generally, federal courts are not empowered to give opinions on moot questions or declare rules of law which can......
-
Iowa League of Cities v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...is unaffected by the rulings of either this administrative panel or the 2010 administrative panel. See In re Rodriquez, 258 F.3d 757, 758–59 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam). 2. Some courts also use the phrase “interpretive” rules interchangeably with “interpretative” rules. 3. A “point source” ......
-
Alla Raykin, section 363 Sales: Mooting Due Process?
...2007); Hazelbaker v. Hope Gas, Inc. (In re Rare Earth Minerals), 445 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2006); Nieters v. Sevcik (In re Rodriquez), 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 2001); In re Abbotts Dairies of Pa., Inc., 788 F.2d 143, 150–51 (3d Cir. 1986).See e.g., Cmty. Thrift & Loan v. Suchy (In re S......