This requirement helps provide the appellee with the scope of the appeal so that the appellee can adequately address and argue the appeal. See Sundale, Ltd. v. Ocean Bank, 441 B.R. 384, 387 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Here, Appellant failed to meet the requirement of Rule 8009.
In re Bracewell, 322 B.R. at 702 (citations omitted). This same three-prong test has been applied in the Southern District of Florida. See, e.g., Sundale, Ltd. v. Ocean Bank, 441 B.R. 384 (S.D. Fla. 2010). A blanket Rule 8009 statement "that merely accuses the bankruptcy court of having 'erred' is insufficient to infer specific grounds for error upon appeal." See Seidling v. Kelly (In re Seidling), 611 F. App'x 668, 670 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
P. 8006. The issue is probably "inferable" because it was raised in the bankruptcy court. Sundale, Ltd. v. Ocean Bank, 441 B.R. 384, 387 (S.D. Fla. 2010). However, the Debtors compounded the problem by not addressing the issue in their initial brief.
The argument is, therefore, properly before the court. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Fernandez, 741 F.2d 355, 360 (11th Cir. 1984); Sundale, Ltd. v. Ocean Bank, 441 B.R. 384, 385-86 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2010) (Moreno, C.J.). . BancGroup does not claim that it has provided, or that it has been given the opportunity to provide, consent to the an assignment of its accounts that would release the FDIC-Receiver from its liability in the deposit accounts.