Unpublished Disposition, 848 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseIn re: FRANK W. DONALDSON, Debtor.FRANK W. DONALDSON and HARRY McKENZIE, Appellants,v.HIGHLAND FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES,Appellee.In re: HARRY MCKENZIE, Debtor.HARRY McKENZIE, Appellant,v.HIGHLAND FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES, Appellee.
Nos. 87-5604, 87-5876.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 1988.* Decided May 24, 1988.
Before BARNES, KILKENNY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
By previous order of this court, the above cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal pursuant to FRAP 3(b). In the matter of Donaldson v. Highland Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, No. 87-5604, Donaldson and McKenzie appeal pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") dismissal of their appeal of the bankruptcy court's entry of summary judgment in an adversary proceeding arising out of an underlying Chapter 13 petition. In McKenzie v. Highland Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, No. 87-5876, McKenzie appeals pro se an order of the BAP denying his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal to this court.1
The record reflects that the property securing the appellants' deed of trust has already been foreclosed upon, and that a sale of the property has taken place. Neither appellant sought a stay below, either from the bankruptcy court or from the BAP, to block the foreclosure and sale. In addition, McKenzie's underlying Chapter 13 petition has been dismissed.
In the absence of a stay, a foreclosure and sale render moot a bankruptcy debtor's appeal from an order granting relief from an automatic stay to carry out a foreclosure and sale, particularly when a comprehensive change in circumstances has resulted. Algeran, Inc. v. Advance Ross Corp., 759 F.2d 1421, 1423 (CA9 1985). Here, nearly two years have elapsed since the property in question was foreclosed upon and sold to a third party. Because of the appellants' failure to obtain a stay, a comprehensive change in circumstances has resulted, and it would be grossly inequitable for this court to attempt to undo the events of the past two years.
Similarly, the dismissal of McKenzie's underlying Chapter 13 petition precludes us from entering a stay order pending the disposition of his appeal. See, In re Franklin, 802 F.2d 324, 327 (CA9 1987) (dismissal of underlying bankruptcy petition deprives court of appeals of power to reinstate proceeding or to reimpose stay) (citing In re Income Property Builders, Inc., 699 F.2d 963, 964 (CA9 1982)).
Accordingly, the decisions of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in both appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument per FRAP 34(a) and CA9 Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by CA9 Rule 36-3
The issues as stated reflect the gravamen of these appeals, and not the manner in which the appellants have framed them. For example, the opening brief in Donaldson raises three issues involving the putative merits of the underlying proceedings, while the opening brief in McKenzie does essentially the same with two issues. In each appeal, the critical question is one of mootness, not whether the bankruptcy court erred in granting Highland relief from the automatic stay or whether Highland's attorney below acted improperly. More to the point, we decline to address issues not supported by coherent argument. Cf., United States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1486-87 (CA9 1987) (issues raised on appeal but not supported by argument deemed abandoned)
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.
