In re: Gloria Alcordo Estillore, EC-16-1147-JuTaB EC-16-1151-JuTaB

Debtor Gloria Estillore filed a state-court suit challenging a 2014 foreclosure and related loan servicing issues; those claims became property of her 2015 chapter 7 estate.
Chapter 7 trustee Trudi Manfredo removed the action to bankruptcy court and negotiated a settlement: $46,000 paid by various defendants in exchange for dismissal with prejudice, releases, and withdrawal of a lis pendens.
The bankruptcy court approved the compromise under Rule 9019 on December 22, 2015; Estillore did not appeal that order.
Four months later Estillore moved under Civil Rule 60(b)(6) (via Rule 9024) to set aside the Compromise Order, alleging unfairness, fraud, and unauthorized signatures; the bankruptcy court denied the motion as untimely and improperly brought under 60(b)(6).
The bankruptcy court also dismissed the removed adversary proceeding with prejudice consistent with the approved settlement.
Estillore appealed both the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion and the dismissal; the BAP affirmed both orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal	Estillore claimed an exemption in the litigation proceeds, giving pecuniary interest	Trustee/defendants argued debtor lacks standing to challenge estate assets absent surplus	Held: Estillore has standing because she claimed exemptions and trustee agreed to honor them
Mootness of appeal (Rule 363(m))	Estillore did not seek a stay but argued appeal should proceed	Defendants argued appeal moot under §363(m) because settlement is equivalent to a sale and no stay was obtained	Held: Appeal not moot—court did not make a §363(m) good-faith purchaser finding, so §363(m) safe-harbor did not apply
Denial of Rule 60(b)(6) motion	Estillore asserted extraordinary circumstances, fraud on the court, and unauthorized settlement signatures	Trustee/defendants said motion was untimely, raised appellate-type errors (properly under 60(b)(1) or on direct appeal), and lacked proof of fraud on the court	Held: Affirmed—motion untimely, no extraordinary faultless delay shown, arguments were mistakes better raised on appeal or under 60(b)(1), and fraud allegations were unsupported
Dismissal of adversary proceeding with prejudice	Estillore opposed dismissal as it extinguished her claims	Trustee/defendants: dismissal was a term of an approved settlement and trustee had authority to settle estate claims	Held: Affirmed—dismissal was proper as part of court-approved settlement and Estillore lacked standing to prosecute estate claims

Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors for evaluating compromises in bankruptcy)
Adeli v. Barclay (In re Berkeley Del. Court, LLC), 834 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) (failure to stay sale/order can render appeal moot under §363(m) when good-faith purchaser found)
Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1999) (debtor generally lacks standing to challenge estate asset dispositions absent likely surplus)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (movant must be faultless in delay to obtain equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(6))
Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2006) (fraud on the court is narrowly construed; high burden to obtain Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
Gila River Ranch v. United States, 368 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1966) (Rule 60 motion based on judicial error cannot substitute for timely appeal)
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (limits on using Rule 60(b)(6) to raise claims that should have been appealed)