nnn-met-center-10-1-llc-nnn-met-center-10-2-llc-nnn-met-center-10-3-llc ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-011-00029-CV
    NNN Met Center 10-1, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-2, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-3, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-4, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-5, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-6, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-7, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-8, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-9, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-10, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-11, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-13, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-14, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-15, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-16, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-17, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-18, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-19, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-20, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-21, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-22, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-23, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-24, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-25, LLC;
    NNN Met Center 10-26, LLC; NNN Met Center 10-27, LLC; and
    NNN Met Center 10-28, LLC, Appellants
    v.
    BACM 2005-3 Met Center Office, LLC; Mark L. Patterson; Jeffrey J. Zissa;
    R. Terry Miller; E. Joe Berger, III; John A. Bain; Michael C. Elrod; Beverly A. Houston;
    Juanita Strickland; Janie Mucha; LNR Partners, LLC; and
    Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., Appellees
    FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    NO. D-1-GN-10-004498, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This is an appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction to prevent a foreclosure
    of appellants’ interests in an office building. The parties advise that although the property was sold
    at foreclosure on February 1, 2011, one appellant, NNN Met Center 10-25, LLC had filed for
    bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California
    shortly before the sale. Citing events in the bankruptcy proceedings, appellants have filed a
    motion to abate this appeal until November 1, 2011. They attach an order from the bankruptcy court
    reflecting, among other things, that court’s view that an automatic stay was in effect at the time of
    the foreclosure sale1 and that it has extended the automatic stay until November 1 to afford the
    parties an opportunity to resolve the underlying dispute. In light of the automatic stay, we abate this
    appeal and dismiss appellants’ motion as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.
    In addition to opposing abatement, appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as
    moot, citing the February 1 foreclosure sale. In light of the bankruptcy stay, we may not rule on
    appellees’ motion to dismiss. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2; Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil
    Corp., 
    751 S.W.2d 499
    , 501 (Tex. 1988) (state-court action taken during bankruptcy stay is void).
    Any party may file a motion to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the
    bankruptcy court. See Tex R. App. P. 8.3. It is the parties’ responsibility to notify the Court as soon
    as possible if an event occurs that would allow reinstatement. 
    Id. Failure to
    notify this Court of a
    lift of the automatic stay or the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding may result in dismissal of
    the case for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
    __________________________________________
    Bob Pemberton, Justice
    Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose
    Bankruptcy
    Filed: May 27, 2011
    1
    See 11 U.S.C. § 362.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-11-00029-CV

Filed Date: 5/27/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/1/2016