In Re Harlie L. Teigen Jane Teigen, Debtors, Harlie L. Teigen Jane Teigen Bar 11 Ranch, Ltd. Nathan O. Teigen William Harlie Teigen Matthew Lee Teigen v. Dennis C. Hoeger, Trustee

17 F.3d 396 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. In re Harlie L. TEIGEN; Jane Teigen, Debtors, Harlie L. TEIGEN; Jane Teigen; Bar 11 Ranch, Ltd.; Nathan O. Teigen; William Harlie Teigen; Matthew Lee Teigen, Appellants, v. Dennis C. HOEGER, Trustee, Appellee. No. 92-36674. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Deferred Jan. 7, 1994. Submitted Jan. 14, 1994. Decided Feb. 10, 1994. Order Amending Opinion and Denying Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc June 2, 1994. 1 Before: CANBY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and SHUBB, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Harlie and Jane Teigen, the debtors (Teigens), appeal the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana (bankruptcy court). We must determine the threshold issue of whether to retain jurisdiction because the underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed pending this appeal. We retain jurisdiction and…