BANKRUPTCY BULLETIN
Contributing Author:
Nicole Handlen
University of Minnesota Law School
Juris Doctor Candidate, 2025
Judicial Extern to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kesha Tanabe
In Davies v. Daugherty (In re Davies), 2023 WL 3876685 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. June 8, 2023), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit (“BAP”) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Timothy Michael Davies (the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition to commence a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The Debtor had filed multiple bankruptcy petitions in the preceding year. As a result, the Debtor was not entitled to the benefit of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B). The Debtor then filed a motion seeking to impose the automatic stay in his most recently filed case. The bankruptcy court denied the motion. The Debtor timely appealed to the BAP. While the appeal was pending, his bankruptcy case was dismissed.
The BAP held that dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case caused the Debtor’s appeal to be constitutionally moot. See U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The BAP cited to Williams v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co. (In re Williams), 256 B.R. 885, 895 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001), stating that “[w]hen circumstances change while an appeal is pending that make it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief whatsoever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.” Further citing to Olive St. Inv., Inc. v. Howard Sav. Bank, 972 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1992), the BAP explained that dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case rendered moot the need for an automatic stay in such case, thereby eliminating the BAP’s ability to provide any effective relief to the Debtor on appeal. Upon a determination of constitutional mootness, the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction with respect to such matter.
Thus, the BAP dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To read the BAP’s decision, click here.
Editors-in-Chief:
C.J. Harayda, Stinson LLP
David M. Tanabe, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.