USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 93-1032
IN RE BRIDGET M. HAYES,
Debtor.
_________________________
BRIDGET M. HAYES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOHN L. SULLIVAN AND JAMES NAGLE,
Defendants, Appellees.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Feinberg,* Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
Daniel J. Carragher, with whom Day, Berry & Howard was on
____________________ ___________________
brief, for appellant.
Marshall F. Newman, with whom Newman & Newman, P.C. was on
__________________ ______________________
brief, for appellee Sullivan.
Mark A. Berthiaume, with whom Daniel H. Conroy and Goldstein
__________________ ________________ _________
& Manello, P. C. were on brief, for appellee Nagle.
________________
_________________________
May 13, 1993
_________________________
_______________
*Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. Bridget M. Hayes, a Chapter 7 debtor,
Per Curiam.
___________
commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court whereby
she strove to annul the trustee's public-auction sale of her
residence. The debtor named as defendants John L. Sullivan (the
successful bidder) and James Nagle (who had subsequently
purchased the property from Sullivan). Following a non-jury
trial, the bankruptcy court (Kenner, J.) concluded that the sale
had been advertised "widely and sufficiently"; that no fewer than
six qualified bidders attended the auction; and that Hayes had
not proven that the price realized at the auction sale ($110,000)
was grossly inadequate. Based on these, and other, findings, the
bankruptcy court dismissed Hayes's complaint.
On appeal, the district court (Keeton, J.) affirmed.
In a lengthy, thoughtful, and comprehensive opinion, Hayes v.
_____
Sullivan ___ F. Supp. ___ (D. Mass. 1992) [No. 92-12020-K], the
________
court gave three main reasons for its determination that the
bankruptcy court's judgment must stand (any one of which, taken
alone, would have required affirmance of the judgment).
First, the court held that, under the controlling
statute, 11 U.S.C. 363(b)(1), the results of an authorized,
completed auction sale could be set aside, in the absence of
"fraud, mistake, collusion or similar infirmity only on a showing
of gross inadequacy of price." Id. at ___ [slip op. at 12].
___
Because Hayes met neither the standard's fraud prong nor its
adequacy-of-price prong Sullivan was a good-faith purchaser;
plaintiff conceded the absence of fraud; and the bankruptcy
2
judge's finding as to the adequacy of the price was not clearly
erroneous the district court found that the appeal was
groundless.
Second, the court held that Hayes, in her presentation
before the bankruptcy court, had urged the court to apply the
gross inadequacy standard and had thereby waived any right to ask
the district court to invalidate the sale for some lesser reason.
See id. at ___ [slip op. at 15-16]. In other words, Hayes's
___ ___
argument that the court should examine the transaction under a
criterion more searching than gross inadequacy had not been
presented face up and squarely in the bankruptcy court and,
therefore, could not rewardingly be pressed on appeal.
Third, the court ruled that whether it reviewed the
outcome of this authorized trustee's sale in bankruptcy either
under the gross inadequacy standard or the totality-of-the-
circumstances standard pressed on appeal by Hayes, the bankruptcy
court's judgment must be affirmed. See id. at ___ [slip op. at
___ ___
19-20]. This was so because, even if Hayes's newly emergent
view of the governing law was both correct and preserved, the
facts, as supportably found by the bankruptcy judge, did not
sustain her claim.
Given the district court's handiwork, we see no need to
write at length. Indeed, in cases in which "a trial court has
produced a first-rate work product, a reviewing tribunal should
hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its own words
resonate." In re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., ___
________________________________________________
3
F.2d ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No. 92-2216, slip op. at 4]. So
it is here. Whatever the relative merits of the parties'
competing views as to the standard for setting aside authorized,
completed trustees' sales under section 363(b)(1) a matter on
which we express no opinion it is perfectly plain that, taking
the totality-of-the-circumstances approach urged by appellant,
and assuming arguendo that Hayes preserved this theory below, the
________
facts as found by the bankruptcy judge cannot begin to carry the
burden of Hayes's case. That ends the matter. Because the
critical findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
in the bankruptcy court record and are not clearly erroneous, the
judgment below must be affirmed. See, e.g., In re Tully, 818
___ ____ ____________
F.2d 106, 108-110 (1st Cir. 1987) (explicating operation of
clearly erroneous rule in bankruptcy cases); Bankr. R. 8013.
The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the district court's
The judgment is affirmed on the basis of the district court's
_________________________________________________________________
opinion. Costs in favor of appellees.
opinion. Costs in favor of appellees.
_______ ___________________________
4
