In Re Linwood R. T. Garrett, T/a Garrett & Company, Debtor.robert A. Canfield, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Linwood R. T.garrett & Company, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Linwood R.t. Garrett, Defendant-appellant,hanover County, City of Richmond, State of Virginia,department of Taxation, High Mileage Tire Company,incorporated, Steel Services, Glamorgan Pipe & Foundrycompany, Buhrman & Sons, Incorporated, Producerscooperative, Incorporated, Strickland Foundry & Machinecompany, Incorporated, Vulcan Materials Company, R. Stuartroyer & Associates, First & Merchants National Bank, Nowknown As Sovran Bank, Defendants, 911 F.2d 722 (4th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 911 F.2d 722 (4th Cir. 1990) Submitted March 16, 1990. Decided July 26, 1990. Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1990

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (C/A No. 89-453-R)

Linwood R.T. Garrett, appellant pro se.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Linwood R.T. Garrett appeals from the district court's order dismissing his appeal of the bankruptcy sale of his real estate. Garrett notes in his appeal he regrets filing under Chapter 7, but appeals only the manner in which the trustee conducted the sale of his property. Since Garrett failed to secure a stay of the approved sale pending appeal and because that interest was sold to a good-faith purchaser, Garrett's appeal of the sale is moot. Willemain v. Kivitz, 764 F.2d 1019 (4th Cir. 1985). Garrett also asked the court to provide him an itemized breakdown of the sale, but since he has no right to such a statement,*  his claim is without merit. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

 *

Garrett was informed by the district court that his land was sold to Gary Thomas for $113,800.00

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.