Benham v. Hagen
678 F. App'x 474
9th Cir.2017Background
- Erik Benham, proceeding pro se, appealed multiple bankruptcy-court orders to the Ninth Circuit after the bankruptcy court dismissed his challenges for lack of standing.
- Three consolidated appeals involved: (1) objection to approval of a sales agreement of assets from Benham’s bankruptcy estate (12-57203); (2) objection to the trustee’s final report and fee application in Maria Vista Estates’ bankruptcy (14-56441); and (3) an adversary proceeding dismissed after Benham failed to respond to motions to dismiss/for summary judgment and to appear at a hearing (14-56705).
- The bankruptcy court found Benham was not a “person aggrieved” and thus lacked appellate standing to challenge the estate-sale approval and the trustee’s report/fee application.
- The adversary proceeding dismissal was upheld because Benham received proper notice but did not object or appear, and his untimely request for more time was denied for lack of excusable neglect.
- The Ninth Circuit panel reviewed standing findings for clear error and reviewed the bankruptcy-court rulings independently, affirmed the dismissals, and granted Benham’s motions to file a late, oversized consolidated reply brief; all other pending motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Benham’s Argument | Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal approval of sale of estate assets | He had a right to object and appeal the sale order affecting his estate | He was not directly and adversely pecuniarily affected; lacked "person aggrieved" standing | Benham lacked standing; appeal dismissed |
| Standing to object to trustee’s final report and fee application (Maria Vista Estates) | He claimed injury from the trustee’s report/fees | He failed to show direct, adverse pecuniary effect from the order | Benham lacked standing; appeal dismissed |
| Dismissal of adversary proceeding after failure to respond/appear | He sought relief from defendants but did not contest motions or attend hearing; later sought extension | Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment; court had proper notice and proceeded | Dismissal proper for lack of objection/appearance; extension denied for no excusable neglect |
| Timeliness and excusable neglect for late extension request | Requested extension after deadlines | Failed to demonstrate excusable neglect under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1) | Denial of extension affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.) (standard for reviewing "person aggrieved" factual finding)
- Allred v. Kennerley (In re Kennerley), 995 F.2d 145 (9th Cir.) (bankruptcy-court rulings reviewed independently on appeal)
- Schneider v. Vennard (In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.), 886 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir.) (appellate court may affirm on any record-supported basis)
- Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441 (9th Cir.) (debtor bears burden to show direct pecuniary injury to have standing; hopelessly insolvent debtor lacks standing)
- Brady v. Andrew (In re Commercial W. Fin. Corp.), 761 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir.) (attendance and objection required to satisfy "person aggrieved" when proper notice given)
- In re Dix, 95 B.R. 134 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1988) (standards for excusable neglect and review of late filings)