Gregory Brian Myers v. U.S. Bank N.A.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13408
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
In re: GREGORY BRIAN MYERS
Debtor.
_______________________________________________
GREGORY BRIAN MYERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. BANK N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13408 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13408
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00478-JES,
Bkcy No. 2:21-bk-00123-FMD
____________________
Before N EWSOM, G RANT, and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record and the response to the jurisdic-
tional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of standing.
Gregory Myers filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy un-
der Chapter 13 in January 2021. U.S. Bank NA (“U.S. Bank”) filed
a proof of claim (“Claim 5”), and Myers objected to Claim 5 as un-
timely and because he asserted that he was not liable for the under-
lying debt. U.S. Bank also filed a motion seeking, among other
things, relief from the automatic stay. In orders entered on March
8, 2022, the bankruptcy court overruled Myers’s objection to Claim
5 as moot, concluding that U.S. Bank would take nothing under the
bankruptcy plan, and granted U.S. Bank’s motion for relief from
stay only to the extent that it terminated the automatic stay as to
U.S. Bank’s interest in a Maryland property. Myers moved for re-
consideration of both orders, and the bankruptcy court denied both
motions in orders entered on July 7 and 8, 2022. Myers appealed
the reconsideration orders to the district court. On appeal, he with-
drew his appeal of the order denying his motion for reconsidera-
tion concerning stay relief. The district court affirmed, Myers
USCA11 Case: 23-13408 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-13408 Opinion of the Court 3
moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied his mo-
tion. Myers appealed to this Court.
We dismiss the appeal because Myers lacks both appellate
and person-aggrieved standing. Myers voluntarily withdrew his
appeal of the bankruptcy court order concerning stay relief, so he
was not aggrieved by the district court’s order concluding that he
had done so. See Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353-54 (11th
Cir. 2003) (providing that we only have jurisdiction over appeals
where the appellant has appellate standing and that only a litigant
aggrieved by an order may appeal). Furthermore, Myers is, in sub-
stance, the prevailing party as to the litigation concerning Claim 5
because the bankruptcy court concluded that U.S. Bank would take
nothing under the bankruptcy plan and denied Myers’s objection
to Claim 5 as moot. See Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. ex rel.
Manager, 195 F.3d 1225, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999) (providing that a pre-
vailing party generally lacks standing to appeal because the ap-
pealed order did not injure him). Furthermore, Myers lacks pru-
dential standing under the more demanding but non-jurisdictional
person-aggrieved doctrine, which U.S. Bank raised in response to
our jurisdictional questions. See Thakkar v. Bay Point Cap. Partners,
LP (In re Bay Circle Props.), 955 F.3d 874, 879 (11th Cir. 2020). Myers
has no financial stake in the denial of his objection to Claim 5 as
moot given the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that U.S. Bank
would take nothing under the plan. Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford,
Inc. (In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc.), 764 F.3d 1321, 1325-26 (11th Cir.
2014) (explaining that a person has standing to appeal a bankruptcy
court order only if he has a financial stake in the appealed order and
USCA11 Case: 23-13408 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13408
is directly affected by the order because it diminishes his property,
increases his burdens, or impairs his rights). To the extent that My-
ers asserts that the bankruptcy court should have reached the mer-
its of his objection to resolve the issue in future proceedings, an
order requiring further litigation does not directly harm litigants so
as to satisfy the person-aggrieved doctrine. See id.
USCA11 Case: 23-13408 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --