DAVID LIND V. HANK SPACONE, No. 19-60038 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: DAVID KENNETH LIND, Debtor. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-60038 BAP No. 18-1271 ------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* DAVID KENNETH LIND, Appellant, v. HANK SPACONE, Trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Taylor, Brand, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor David Kenneth Lind appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale of real property, and dismissing in part, Lind’s appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that the purchaser of the real property was a bona fide good faith purchaser. See Onouli-Kona Land Co. v. Estate of Richards (In re Onouli-Kona Land Co.), 846 F.2d 1170, 1173-74 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussing good faith requirement for operation of mootness rule in bankruptcy; explaining that good faith does not depend on value); see also Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for bankruptcy court’s findings of fact). The BAP properly dismissed as moot the remainder of Lind’s appeal because Lind did not obtain a stay of the sale pending appeal. See 11 U.S.C. § 363(m); Adeli v. Barclay (In re Berkeley Delaware Court, LLC), 834 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2016) (under § 363(m), the validity of a sale of property executed under §363 cannot be challenged on appeal unless the bankruptcy court’s authorization and such sale were stayed pending appeal); Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for question of mootness). 2 19-60038 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Lind’s motion to submit a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 19-60038
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.
