Koncicky

Koncicky v. Peterson

Good Law
341 F. App'x 316
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 2009No. 07-35951California533 words

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,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.