Filed: Apr. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 17, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30882 Summary Calendar IN THE MATTER OF: JOHNSON PROPERTIES INC Debtor - - - - - - - - - - - - - GREG WILLIAMS; JIM BIDDIX, Estate of; MARTHA BIDDIX, Estate of, Appellants, v. MARTIN SCHOTT, Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge (01-CV-875) _ Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 17, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30882 Summary Calendar IN THE MATTER OF: JOHNSON PROPERTIES INC Debtor - - - - - - - - - - - - - GREG WILLIAMS; JIM BIDDIX, Estate of; MARTHA BIDDIX, Estate of, Appellants, v. MARTIN SCHOTT, Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge (01-CV-875) _ Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and ..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 17, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-30882 Summary Calendar IN THE MATTER OF: JOHNSON PROPERTIES INC Debtor - - - - - - - - - - - - - GREG WILLIAMS; JIM BIDDIX, Estate of; MARTHA BIDDIX, Estate of, Appellants, v. MARTIN SCHOTT, Appellee. ______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge (01-CV-875) ______________________________________________ Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appellants seek review of the district court’s dismissal of * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. their appeal from the result of an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court. Dissatisfied with the amounts awarded to them in the adversary proceedings for their pre- and post-petition claims, they sought an appeal to the district court. However, the bankruptcy court approved the trustee’s plan for disposition of the assets and payment to creditors (including appellants). The trustee plan had been confirmed and executed, the assets of the debtor sold, and payments to creditors made pursuant to the trustee’s confirmed plan. The bankruptcy case was closed during the pending of appellants’ appeal to the district court. Significantly, appellants sought no stay of the bankruptcy court’s order approving and confirming the plan. The plan having been fully executed, the district court dismissed the appeal as moot. We agree that appellants’ claims become moot. We have reviewed appellants’ arguments and the record and find no merit to any of appellants’ arguments in support of their claim that this appeal has not been rendered moot. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2