Peoples v. Radloff (In re Peoples)
| Decision Date | 20 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–2686.,13–2686. |
| Citation | 764 F.3d 817 |
| Parties | In re Leanna S. PEOPLES, Debtor, Leanna S. Peoples, Appellant, v. Stuart J. Radloff, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John Edward Toma, argued, Gulf Breeze, FL, for appellant.
James B. Day, argued, Saint Louis, MO, for appellee.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Leanna S. Peoples, a Chapter 7 debtor, appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The BAP, as the panel is commonly known, affirmed a decision of the bankruptcy court 1 approving a settlement between the Chapter 7 trustee—Stuart J. Radloff-and the City of Maplewood, and denying Peoples's motion to set aside the settlement. Because Peoples lacks standing to pursue this appeal, we affirm.
In 2009, Peoples filed suit in state court against her employer, the City of Maplewood, alleging several employment-discrimination claims. In April 2011, Peoples filed a pro se voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. Peoples failed to disclose her pending lawsuit against Maplewood as an asset on the schedules that she submitted with her bankruptcy petition. In August 2011, the bankruptcy court granted Peoples's petition and discharged her from bankruptcy. The bankruptcy case was closed as a “no-asset filing.”
Maplewood then moved for summary judgment in Peoples's state-court action on the ground that Peoples had failed to disclose the suit in her bankruptcy proceeding. In response, Peoples filed a pro se motion to reopen her bankruptcy case, disclosing the existence of her pending suit against Maplewood. In January 2012, the bankruptcy court granted Peoples's motion, and her bankruptcy case was reopened, with the Maplewood litigation listed among the estate's assets. The Chapter 7 trustee then determined that Peoples's interest in the Maplewood litigation was an asset of the estate, subject to administration for the benefit of her creditors.
In September 2012, the trustee filed a Motion to Approve Compromise of Claim, requesting that the bankruptcy court approve an agreement reached by the trustee and Maplewood to settle Peoples's suit against Maplewood for $20,000. The motion recited the “Trustee's position that the compromise is fair and reasonable under the circumstances and that it will avoid the additional expense of additional litigation to determine the merits of [Peoples's] claim.” The motion continued that the “Trustee does not believe that there will be any surplus funds that will result in a distribution to the Debtor.”
The motion was served on Peoples—at the address listed on her pro se motion to reopen—and on the attorney who had represented her in the Maplewood litigation. The motion noted that a hearing on the motion was scheduled for October 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. The motion also contained the following, boldfaced notice:
WARNING: ANY RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THIS MOTION MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY SEPTEMBER 26, 2012.... FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN THE COURT GRANTING THE RELIEF REQUESTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE.
On October 1, Peoples filed a notice of change of address with the bankruptcy court. On October 3, the bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion without a hearing, noting both that “Notice of Trustee's Motion was provided to the Debtor,” and that no responses or objections to the trustee's motion were received. See11 U.S.C. § 102(1)(B).
On October 11, Peoples filed a Motion for Leave to Object to Compromise of Claim, a Request for Hearing on Motion to Approve Compromise of Claim, and a Motion to Set Aside the Order. On November 5, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on Peoples's motions. At the hearing, Peoples stated that she did not receive a copy of the trustee's motion. Peoples indicated that she objected to the settlement because “the amount isn't enough.” Peoples's state-court counsel argued that it was premature to resolve the claim without further discovery and an expert's report. Both the trustee and Maplewood argued that Peoples did not have standing, because she lacked a pecuniary interest in the pending litigation. After the hearing, the bankruptcy court denied Peoples's motions. Peoples then appealed to the BAP.
After argument, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. In re Peoples, 494 B.R. 395 (8th Cir. BAP 2013). The BAP construed Peoples's October 11 filings as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), requesting relief from the bankruptcy court's order approving the settlement between the trustee and the City of Maplewood. The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision because Peoples failed “to meet her burden to show a pecuniary interest to establish her standing to object to the trustee's Motion to Compromise or to pursue this appeal.” Id. at 398. The BAP rejected Peoples's argument based on the potential value of her claim against Maplewood, reasoningthat “[s]tanding may not be conferred when the interest alleged is speculative or contingent.” Id. Peoples appeals.
“On appeal from a decision of the BAP, we act as a second reviewing court of the bankruptcy court's decision, independently applying the same standard of review as the BAP.” In re Treadwell, 637 F.3d 855, 863 (8th Cir.2011) (internal quotation omitted). We review the bankruptcy court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Id.
Peoples argues that the bankruptcy court erred in approving the settlement between the trustee and Maplewood. She contends that the court failed to analyze properly the factors for evaluating a compromise in bankruptcy, see Drexel v. Loomis, 35 F.2d 800, 806 (8th Cir.1929), and that the settlement is not fair and equitable to Peoples. See Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968). Peoples does not address the BAP's holding that she lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's decision.
Standing in a bankruptcy appeal is narrower than Article III standing. The governing rule—a so-called person aggrieved doctrine—was derived from the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, and it carried over to practice under the modern Bankruptcy Code. In re AFY, 734 F.3d 810, 819–20 & n. 10 (8th Cir.2013). The doctrine limits standing “ ‘to persons with a financial stake in the bankruptcy court's order,’ meaning they were ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manchester v. Funderburgh (In re Funderburgh)
...1497, 1500 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting Holmes v. Silver Wings Aviation, Inc., 881 F.2d 939, 940 (10th Cir.1989) ).67 Id.68 In re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2014) (quoting In re Nangle, 288 B.R. 213, 216 (8th Cir. BAP), aff'd, 83 Fed.Appx. 141 (8th Cir.2003) ).69 Id.70 Response Brief i......
-
Boisaubin v. Blackwell (In re Boisaubin), No. 19-6040
...See generally Longaker v. Boston Sci. Corp. , 872 F. Supp. 2d 816, 822 (D. Minn. 2012) (collecting cases).19 Peoples v. Radloff (In re Peoples ), 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2014) ; Moratzka v. Morris (In re Senior Cottages of Am., LLC ), 482 F.3d 997, 1001 (8th Cir. 2007) ; United States e......
-
Westlb AG v. Kelley
...stake in the bankruptcy court's order, meaning [it was] directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order.” In re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2014) (citation and quotations omitted). Courts sometimes explain that a person has standing to appeal an order of a bankruptcy court ......
-
Opportunity Fin., LLC v. Kelley
...doctrine—was derived from the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, and it carried over to practice under the modern Bankruptcy Code.” In re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir.2014). “ ‘Person aggrieved’ is, of course, a term of art: almost by definition, all appellants may claim in some way to be ‘aggr......