In re: Lawrence Remsen v. Richard Marshack

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-60029

Debtor. BAP No. 21-1267 ______________________________ LAWRENCE REMSEN; ALICIA MARIE MEMORANDUM* RICHARDS,

Appellants, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee; RYAL W. RICHARDS,

Appellees.

In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-60030

Debtor, BAP No. 21-1263 ------------------------------ ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS,

Appellant, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee; RYAL W. RICHARDS,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Gan, Lafferty and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-60031

Debtor, BAP No. 21-1275 ------------------------------ ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS,

Appellant, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee; RYAL W. RICHARDS; LAWRENCE REMSEN, Trustee, Remsen Family Trust,

Appellees.

In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-60032

Debtor. BAP No. 21-1277 ______________________________ LAWRENCE REMSEN; ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS,

2 22-60029

22-60030 Appellants, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee; RYAL W. RICHARDS,

Appellees.

In re: ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS, No. 22-60033

Debtor. BAP No. 21-1276 ______________________________ LAWRENCE REMSEN; REMSEN FAMILY TRUST, Co-Trustee Lawrence Remsen; ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS,

Appellants, v. RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7 Trustee; RYAL W. RICHARDS,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Lafferty, Faris, and Gan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

**

The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3 22-60029

22-60030 Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Chapter 7 debtor Alicia Marie Richards, Lawrence Remsen, and the Remsen Family Trust, Co-Trustee Lawrence Remsen, appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgments dismissing their appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders compelling the turnover of real property and denying a motion for a stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the question of mootness. Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed as moot the appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders because no effective relief could be granted by reversal or vacatur of the orders after the real property was sold. See Castaic Partners II, LLC v. Daca- Castaic, LLC (In re Castaic Partners II, LLC), 823 F.3d 966, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the “test for mootness of an appeal is whether the appellate court can give the appellant any effective relief in the event that it decides the matter on the merits in his favor” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) (providing that a sale to a good faith purchaser may not be modified or set aside on appeal unless the sale was stayed pending appeal).

We do not consider appellants’ contentions regarding the good faith of the purchaser or the homestead exemption because they were raised for the first time

4 22-60029

22-60030 on appeal to this court. See Burnett v. Resurgent Cap. Servs. (In re Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that, absent exceptional circumstances, issues not raised before the BAP are waived).

AFFIRMED.

5 22-60029

22-60030