In re: Aida Aziz, AZ-16-1133-BTaF

In 2008 Mena Bishara obtained an $830,231 loan from U.S. Bank secured by a deed of trust on Scottsdale property; Bishara later stopped payments and litigated alleged forgery of the loan documents but lost in district court and on appeal.
On September 17, 2015, Bishara quitclaimed the property to his mother, Aida Aziz; eleven days later Aziz filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.
U.S. Bank filed an initial proof of claim (mistakenly naming Aziz as the obligor) and later an amended proof of claim clarifying Bishara was the borrower but asserting lien rights against the property in Aziz’s bankruptcy.
Aziz objected to the amended claim, arguing the loan documents were forged and that U.S. Bank failed to support its claim; U.S. Bank argued she lacked standing and that it sought only to enforce its lien (not a distribution from the estate).
The bankruptcy court issued an "under advisement" order treating Aziz’s claim objection as moot based on U.S. Bank’s representations; Aziz appealed before a final claim order was entered; the court later entered a final order disposing of the objection as moot and subsequently dismissed Aziz’s Chapter 13 case for failure to make plan payments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal from order overruling claim objection	Aziz contended the bankruptcy court erred in overruling her objection to U.S. Bank’s proof of claim.	U.S. Bank argued the appeal is moot because the bankruptcy case was dismissed and the court’s ruling produced no practical relief.	Appeal dismissed as moot; with the case dismissed there is no meaningful relief the Panel can grant and the court made no merits ruling that would have preclusive effect.
Sanctions / costs on appeal	Aziz implicitly opposed sanctions; she appealed pro se.	U.S. Bank sought sanctions under Rules 8020 and 9011 and costs under Rule 8021.	Sanctions denied for failure to file a separate motion as required; costs awarded under Rule 8021 and U.S. Bank given 14 days after entry of judgment to file an itemized bill of costs.

Suter v. Goedert, 504 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard: de novo review of jurisdiction and mootness)
In re Gotcha Int’l L.P., 311 B.R. 250 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (discussion of constitutional mootness for bankruptcy appeals)
In re Ellis, 523 B.R. 673 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (mootness requires inability to fashion meaningful relief)
Ross v. Thompson (In re Levine), 162 B.R. 858 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) (an "under advisement" ruling is not a final appealable order when the judge directs lodging of a final order)
Bevan v. SoCal Commc’ns Sites, LLC (In re Bevan), 327 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (order overruling claim objection may remain appealable where it could have preclusive effect)