Koncicky
Koncicky v. Peterson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Linda Koncicky appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order approving the trustee’s final report and applications for administrative expenses, and from the BAP’s order awarding the trustee appellate attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for an abuse of discretion the bankruptcy court’s approval of administrative expenses, In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 657 (9th Cir.1985), and the BAP’s award of attorneys’ fees, Lyddon v. Geothermal Props., 996 F.2d 212, 213 (9th Cir.1993). We vacate and remand.
The trustee’s attorneys and accountant who received disputed administrative expenses are proper appellees, contrary to Koncieky’s contention. Cf. Class Plaintiffs v. Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268 , 1277 (9th Cir.1992) (concluding that a nonparty directly aggrieved by a judgment has standing to initiate an appeal without intervening).
We note the gross disparity between the amount of debt and the administrative expenses. Koncicky disputes whether particular administrative expenses were reasonable, necessary, and beneficial to the administration of the estate,…