Opinion
20-60055 BAP 20-1067
08-31-2022
In re: BERND SCHAEFERS, Debtor, v. BLIZZARD ENERGY, INC.; SHEPARD, Appellees. BERND SCHAEFERS, Appellant,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 30, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Spraker, Gan, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM [*]
Bernd Schaefers appeals pro se from the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel that affirmed the denial by the bankruptcy court of his homestead exemption claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we dismiss the appeal as moot.
Schaefers claimed a homestead exemption in his interest in BKS Cambria, LLC. While this appeal was pending, the bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 7 trustee's motion to abandon all assets of the estate, including any interest in BKS Cambria, LLC. Because BKS Cambria, LLC is no longer part of the estate, Schaefers can no longer claim a homestead exemption in it in the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) (stating that "an individual debtor may exempt from property of the estate ...") (emphasis added).
Thus, this appeal is moot. See In re Nat'l Mass. Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc., 152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that a case is moot when "an event occurs while a case is pending appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant 'any effectual relief'"), quoting Church of Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992).
Because the appeal is moot due to reasons outside of Schaefers' control, vacatur of the decisions below is warranted. See In re Pattullo, 271 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (vacating district court and bankruptcy court orders where bankruptcy appeal was mooted by dismissal of Chapter 13 proceeding). Accordingly, the published decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, In re Schaefers, 623 B.R. 777 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2020), and the order of the bankruptcy court sustaining the objection to the claimed homestead exemption, In re Bernd Schaefers, Dkt. No. 143, Case No. 9:19-bk-11163-MB (Bank. C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020), are VACATED.
Schaefers' requests for judicial notice (Dkt. Nos. 15 and 24) are GRANTED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).