Without seeking to overturn the order, challenging harmful legal conclusions by the court below does not confer constitutional standing to appeal, for reasons explained by the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
The bankruptcy court entered an order permissively abstaining and dismissing an adversary proceeding. According to the Panel’s April 22 opinion, the appellant did not seek to overturn the decision to abstain and dismiss but only requested a “review of certain legal conclusions underlying the bankruptcy court’s decision to abstain.”
More specifically, the appellant wanted the panel to change three conclusions of law that influenced the decision by Bankruptcy Judge Scott W. Dales.
The Panel’s per curiam opinion dismissed the appeal for lack of constitutional standing to appeal.
Article III or constitutional standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and that can be redressed by a favorable ruling on appeal. A trial court’s conclusions or logic may be harmful, but do they establish standing to appeal?
The BAP cited the Seventh Circuit for saying, “Someone who seeks an alteration in the language of the opinion but not the judgment may not appeal.” United States v. Accra Pac, Inc., 173 F.3d 630, 632 (7th Cir. 1999). More specifically, the Panel cited the Sixth Circuit for holding that an appellate court reviews the judgment, not the grounds for the judgment.
The BAP admitted that “adverse dicta” can cause harm, “‘but not the sort of harm that the courts, in an effort to limit litigation, deem to create a genuine controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution.’ Chathas v. Loc. 134 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 233 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2000).”
Because the appellant did not seek to overturn the bankruptcy court’s decision to abstain, the BAP dismissed the appeal.
Without seeking to overturn the order, challenging harmful legal conclusions by the court below does not confer constitutional standing to appeal, for reasons explained by the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
The bankruptcy court entered an order permissively abstaining and dismissing an adversary proceeding. According to the Panel’s April 22 opinion, the appellant did not seek to overturn the decision to abstain and dismiss but only requested a “review of certain legal conclusions underlying the bankruptcy court’s decision to abstain.”
More specifically, the appellant wanted the panel to change three conclusions of law that influenced the decision by Bankruptcy Judge Scott W. Dales.
The Panel’s per curiam opinion dismissed the appeal for lack of constitutional standing to appeal.