Case: 17-11853 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11853
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 6:15-cv-00405-PGB; 6:13-bkc-04030-KSJ
In Re: JULIE BAKER ZALLOUM,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
JULIE BAKER ZALLOUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RIVER OAKS COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 5, 2018)
Case: 17-11853 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Julie Zalloum, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order which
dismissed as moot her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her
objections to the proof of claims filed by River Oaks Community Services
Association, Inc.’s in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The district court
ruled that Ms. Zalloum’s challenges were moot because her Chapter 13 case had
been dismissed by the bankruptcy court.
Ms. Zalloum argues that the district court erred in dismissing her appeal as
moot because (1) an ongoing controversy exists between River Oaks and herself,
and (2) the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction and continues to enter orders
relating to other disputes. She also claims that the bankruptcy court erred when it
overruled her objections to River Oaks’ proofs of claims.
We sit as a second court of review in bankruptcy matters, independently
examining the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court, and
employing the same standards of review as the district court. See in re Optical
Techs., Inc., 425 F.3d 1294, 1299-300 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the
bankruptcy court’s and district court’s legal conclusions, and review the
bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error. See id. at 1300. Mootness is a
2
Case: 17-11853 Date Filed: 03/05/2018 Page: 3 of 3
question of law subject to de novo review. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v.
United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2011).
Article III of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and
controversies. See id. at 1189. Accordingly, federal courts cannot offer advisory
opinions on moot questions or on abstract propositions. See id. And federal courts
cannot declare principles or rules of law outside those implicated by the matter
directly before them. See id. A live controversy must exist at all stages of review.
See id. at 1189-90.
A bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a debtor’s Chapter 13 case moots an
appeal arising from the bankruptcy proceedings because, after dismissal, no
Chapter 13 plan exists. See Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015)
(holding that the dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the
debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings). Applying Salas to this case, the appeal is moot
because Ms. Zalloum’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed and there is no Chapter 13
proceeding to which Ms. Zalloum could object. We cannot grant any meaningful
relief to Mrs. Zalloum in this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3