IN RE SOTO, 12-01093-BKT. (2013)
Court: Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit
Number: inbco20130610691
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 08, 2013
Latest Update: May 08, 2013
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM. The debtors, Edwin Sepulveda Soto and Arlene Lisette Gonzalez Rivera, appeal from the bankruptcy court's order granting Doral Bank relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(1) with respect to two properties in Puerto Rico. The debtors also appealed separately the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their chapter 13 case for failure to comply with all of their obligations under 11 U.S.C. 521. See Sepulveda Soto v. Doral Bank (In re Sepulved
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM. The debtors, Edwin Sepulveda Soto and Arlene Lisette Gonzalez Rivera, appeal from the bankruptcy court's order granting Doral Bank relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(1) with respect to two properties in Puerto Rico. The debtors also appealed separately the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their chapter 13 case for failure to comply with all of their obligations under 11 U.S.C. 521. See Sepulveda Soto v. Doral Bank (In re Sepulveda..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PER CURIAM.
The debtors, Edwin Sepulveda Soto and Arlene Lisette Gonzalez Rivera, appeal from the bankruptcy court's order granting Doral Bank relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) with respect to two properties in Puerto Rico. The debtors also appealed separately the bankruptcy court's order dismissing their chapter 13 case for failure to comply with all of their obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 521. See Sepulveda Soto v. Doral Bank (In re Sepulveda Soto), BAP No. PR 12-075 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. May 8, 2013). As we have affirmed the dismissal order, id., this appeal has become moot as no effective relief can be granted. See In re Cont'l Mortgage Investors, 578 F.2d 872, 877 (1st Cir. 1978) (holding that appeal is moot when no meaningful relief is available); see also Rochman v. Northeast Utils. Serv. Group (In re Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H.), 963 F.2d 469, 471 (1st Cir. 1992); Kasparian v. Conley (In re Conley), 369 B.R. 67, 70-71 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2007). We are unable to fashion meaningful relief because we cannot reinstate the automatic stay in a case that has been dismissed. See Gorczakowski v. Eastern Airlines Fed. Fin. Credit Union, No. 94-1499, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30356 (1st Cir. Oct. 28, 1994) (holding that once dismissal of underlying bankruptcy case became final, appeal from order granting relief from stay became moot).
Thus, we hereby DISMISS this appeal as MOOT.
Source: Leagle
