Brooks v. The Bank of New York Mellon, No. 8:2009cv01408 - Document 10 (D. Md. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Appellant 10/16/09 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/16/09. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE: KAREN ROBINSON BROOKS : _______________________________ KAREN ROBINSON BROOKS Appellant : v. : THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON Appellee Civil Action No. DKC 09-1408 : : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending in this bankruptcy appeal is a motion by The Bank of New York Mellon ( Bank of New York ) to dismiss the appeal filed by Karen Robinson Brooks ( Debtor ) as moot. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant Bank of New York s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot. I. Background The following where noted. the case of facts is undisputed, except It presents only a partial summary of the facts of and controversy statement is focuses on those moot. Debtor relevant filed a bankruptcy petition on March 24, 2009. to whether Voluntary the Chapter 7 At that time, Debtor owned a residential property located at 9709 Manteo Court, Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 ( the Property ), which was secured by a Deed of Trust held by Bank of New York. Bank of New York moved for relief provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). from On March 30, 2009, the automatic stay Bank of New York alleged that Debtor was delinquent on her monthly mortgage payments, thereby causing equity in the Property to dissipate, and permission to proceed with a foreclosure sale. sought Debtor filed opposition papers on April 15, 2009, contesting Bank of New York s claimed status as holder of a Deed consequently, its authority to sell the Property. of Trust and, A hearing was held before Bankruptcy Judge Wendelin I. Lipp on April 23, 2009. At the conclusion of that hearing, the bankruptcy court orally granted Bank of New York s motion and, on May 4, 2009, a written order was entered authorizing Bank of New York to proceed with the foreclosure sale. Debtor, proceeding pro se, filed a timely Notice of Appeal on May 14, 2009. On June 25, 2009, upon learning that a foreclosure sale had been scheduled, Debtor filed an emergency motion to stay the foreclosure sale pending resolution of her appeal.1 Debtor s motion for an emergency stay was denied by the bankruptcy court on July 7, 2009.2 On July 8, 2009, the bankruptcy court granted Debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. (Bank. Dkt., Paper 1 This motion was initially improperly filed in this court, which denied the motion without prejudice and ordered that it be transmitted to the bankruptcy court for consideration. (Paper 4). 2 There is no indication in the record as to whether the Property has been sold. 2 41). On the same date, Bank of New York filed its Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot. (Paper 6). Bank of New York contends that the discharge order has rendered Debtor s appeal moot because the automatic stay at issue on appeal was terminated by operation of law at the time the discharge order was entered. appeal, Bank of New York If Debtor were to prevail on argues, there would be no remedy available to her; as such, the appeal no longer presents a live controversy. II. Standard of Review [A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. City of Erie v. Pap s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (citation omitted). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases and controversies. Iron Arrow Honor Soc y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (citation omitted). To survive an assertion that a claim is moot, a party must have suffered an actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. (citation omitted). However, even the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot. Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 3 (1996) (citing Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13 (1992)). III. Analysis The discharge order entered by the bankruptcy court renders Debtor s appeal moot. status quo motion, a that time Debtor s appeal seeks a return to the existed when before she was Bank of New shielded York from filed its debt-collecting activities of creditors by the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). That shield no longer exists, however, and cannot be reinstated. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(C), the automatic stay in effect upon the filing by an individual of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition is terminated at the time a discharge is granted. See Riggs Nat l Bank of Washington, D.C. v. Perry, 729 F.2d 982, 986 (4th Cir. 1984) ( the section 362(a) stay continues to run until discharge is granted or denied ). Moreover, bankruptcy courts are without authority to reinstate a stay which has properly been terminated. In re Sykes, 53 B.R. 107, 107 (Bankr.W.D.Va. 1985). Here, upon entry of the July 8, 2009, discharge order, Debtor could no longer avail herself of the protection of the automatic stay against Bank of New York s efforts to proceed with a foreclosure sale on the Property. 4 Thus, even if the bankruptcy court were found to have improperly granted Bank of New York s motion to lift the stay, any opinion on that ruling would be advisory. (D.Mass. 1998). See Shadduck v. Rodolakis, 221 B.R. 573, 579 As there is not a remedy, in whole or in part, that could redress Debtor s alleged injury, her appeal has been rendered moot. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Bank of New York s Motion to Dismiss as Moot will be granted. A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
