Where a debtor whose amended Chapter 13 plan was confirmed has filed an appeal seeking review of an earlier order denying confirmation of her original Chapter 13 plan, the appeal should be dismissed as equitably moot.
“Kassiani Demetriadi Pitassi (the ‘Debtor’) filed a notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court’s April 2, 2024 order confirming her amended chapter 13 plan (the ‘Confirmation Order’). By this appeal, she seeks review of the bankruptcy court’s order entered nearly two years earlier denying confirmation of her original chapter 13 plan (the ‘Order Denying Confirmation’).
“The core dispute in this appeal is the Debtor’s inclusion of a provision in her original plan that challenged the validity of two mortgages encumbering her Connecticut real estate. Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for Mortgage IT Trust 2005-2, the holder of one of those mortgages, asserts that preclusionary principles prevented the bankruptcy court from revisiting the foreclosure judgment it obtained in the Connecticut state court and, therefore, the bankruptcy court properly denied confirmation of the Debtor’s original plan. …
“… Based on our analysis below, we conclude that equitable mootness precludes our resolution of this appeal on the merits. …
“Here, the Debtor allowed the Amended Plan to go into effect on April 2, 2024, without attempting to stay the Confirmation Order either in the bankruptcy court or in this court. … Moreover, there is no dispute that one of the surrendered properties — the Jackson Street Property — has been foreclosed upon in the absence of a stay. …
“As for the Elm Street Property, according to the Debtor, it too has been foreclosed upon, through the process of a foreclosure sale. …
“Thus, even if we were to agree with the Debtor that the bankruptcy court should have confirmed the Original Plan, ‘we “can no longer provide any meaningful relief” by ordering the bankruptcy court to do so.’ …
“When we consider the foreclosure of these properties in the face of the Debtor’s lack of diligence in pursuing a stay, it becomes clear that the Amended Plan has proceeded ‘to a point well beyond any practicable appellate annulment[.]’ …
“For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Debtor’s appeal of the Order Denying Confirmation is equitably moot. Accordingly, it is dismissed.”
In Re: Kassiani Demetriadi Pitassi (Lawyers Weekly No. 03-001-25) (15 pages) (Finkle, J.) (BAP No. EP 24-003) (Feb. 6, 2025).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.