Donald Nangle v. Kathy Surratt-States, 2003 WL 22955721

Donald Nangle v. Kathy Surratt-States

2003 WL 22955721

8th Cir.

2003

Check Treatment

Docket

In re: Donald NANGLE, Debtor. Donald NANGLE, Appellant, v. Leslie A. DAVIS, Appellee.

No. 03-1779

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Submitted Dec. 5, 2003. Decided Dec. 12, 2003.

141

William O‘Herin, Florissant, MO, Stephen H. Gilmore, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Gary Lee Vincent, Husch & Eppenberger, St. Louis, MO, Leslie A. Davis, Sandberg & Phoenix, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before RILEY, MCMILLIAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Debtor Donald Nangle (Nangle) appeals from a bankruptcy appellate panel order concluding, alternatively, Nangle lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court‘s¹ order approving a settlement. Upon de novo review, see Park v. Forest Serv., 205 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.2000), we conclude that while Nangle had standing to object in the bankruptcy court to the settlement agreement, see Fed. R. Bankr.P.2002(a)(3); In re Thompson, 965 F.2d 1136, 1140 (1st Cir.1992), he lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court‘s order approving the settlement, because he could not show he has a pecuniary interest in the order, see In re Marlar, 252 B.R. 743, 748 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.2000) (party ordinarily has no standing to appeal unless party can show basis for arguing that challenged action caused him cognizable injury, i.e., party was aggrieved by order) aff‘d, 267 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.2001); Spenlinhauer v. O‘Donnell, 261 F.3d 113, 117-19 (1st Cir. 2001) (standing to appeal from bankruptcy court order requires showing that challenged order directly and adversely affects appellant‘s pecuniary interests).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Notes

The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.