UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2430
In Re: JACOB FRAIDIN,
Debtor.
- - - - - - - - - - -
JACOB FRAIDIN,
Debtor - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL G. RINN,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-2536-WMN; BK-92-5-2338-JS)
Submitted: March 21, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob Fraidin, Appellant Pro Se. Paul-Michael Justin Sweeney,
LINOWES & BLOCHER, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Fraidin appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving a settlement among
two of Fraidin’s creditors and the Trustee in Fraidin’s Chapter 7
bankruptcy case. On February 20, 2003, the bankruptcy court
approved the settlement, which provided for the payment of money
from the estate as well as the transfer of certain real estate. On
appeal, the district court vacated the settlement order and
remanded for further explanation or further proceedings. On April
13, 2004, the bankruptcy court again approved the settlement and
provided a lengthy explanation for its decision. The district
court affirmed this order.
Fraidin failed to obtain a stay of the settlement order
pending appeal, as provided in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005. Absent a
stay of the bankruptcy court’s order, the parties were free to
effectuate the settlement. In accordance with the settlement, the
automatic stay was lifted and Weitzman and Braiterman were
permitted to proceed against certain real properties to satisfy
their non-dischargeable judgment against Fraidin, money from the
bankruptcy estate’s sale of property was paid over to Weitzman and
Braiterman, and a deed was executed and delivered in accordance
with the settlement terms. Additionally, the Trustee has
undertaken further action to administer the bankruptcy estate in
reliance on the settlement.
- 2 -
We find that, given the length of time that has elapsed
since approval of the settlement and the actions of the parties in
consummating that settlement, effective judicial relief is no
longer practically available. See MAC Panel Co. v. Va. Panel
Corp., 283 F.3d 622, 625 (4th Cir. 2002); Cent. States, S.E. & S.W.
Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96 (4th
Cir. 1988). We therefore conclude that Fraidin’s appeal is moot.
See Taylor v. Austrian, 154 F.2d 107, 108 (4th Cir. 1946) (holding
that the failure to seek a stay of a bankruptcy court order can
alone render further appeal moot).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -