Narrative Opinion Summary
Stella Kasai mortgaged her home to Finance Factors Ltd. Following a foreclosure sale, which occurred after the Bankruptcy Court allowed relief from the automatic stay, Kasai's appeal regarding this ruling was pending before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP later dismissed her appeal as moot, prompting Kasai to appeal this decision. The court reviews the BAP’s dismissal de novo and affirms the BAP’s ruling. Citing precedent from Onouli-Kona Land Co. v. Estate of Richards, the court notes that appeals from bankruptcy court orders confirming foreclosures are often dismissed as moot when the foreclosure sale is finalized, especially since Hawaii law does not provide a right of redemption following such sales. In Hawaii, the equitable right of redemption ends with the foreclosure order, and no statutory right exists. The court’s decision is affirmed and noted that it is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeals as Moot in Bankruptcy Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the dismissal of an appeal as moot when the foreclosure sale is finalized, referencing the absence of a right of redemption under Hawaii law.
Reasoning: Citing precedent from Onouli-Kona Land Co. v. Estate of Richards, the court notes that appeals from bankruptcy court orders confirming foreclosures are often dismissed as moot when the foreclosure sale is finalized, especially since Hawaii law does not provide a right of redemption following such sales.
Equitable Right of Redemption in Hawaiisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In the context of foreclosure, Hawaii law concludes the equitable right of redemption with the foreclosure order, leaving no statutory right post-sale.
Reasoning: In Hawaii, the equitable right of redemption ends with the foreclosure order, and no statutory right exists.
Non-Citation of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is designated as non-precedential and cannot be cited in future cases according to Ninth Circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court’s decision is affirmed and noted that it is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.