Duane Croniser

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1227 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1227
DUANE DOUGLAS CRONISER,
Debtor – Appellant.
_________________________________
JOHN F. LOGAN,
Trustee,
STEPHANIE J. BUTLER,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00654-FL)
Submitted: September 30, 2022 Decided: October 14, 2022
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
ON BRIEF: Travis Sasser, Cort Walker, SASSER LAW FIRM, Cary, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1227 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Duane Douglas Croniser seeks to appeal the portion of the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order which authorized his sale of property but ordered
the proceeds of the sale to be held in trust. While this appeal was pending, the bankruptcy
court ordered the escrowed funds released to Croniser. Given this development, we dismiss
this appeal as moot.
We are obliged to raise mootness “sua sponte since mootness goes to the heart of
the Article III jurisdiction of the courts.” Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 253, 260
(4th Cir. 2017). A case becomes “moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the
parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Los Angeles Cnty. v. Davis, 440
U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Federal courts lack jurisdiction
to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or
controversies.” Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983). “[A] federal
court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot
affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395,
401 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). To survive a challenge of mootness, a party
“must have suffered some actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y, 464 U.S. at 70. Thus, an appeal must be dismissed as
moot when “an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for
the court to grant any effectual relief what[so]ever to a prevailing party.” Church of
Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1227 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
In this case, Croniser moved to sell a piece of land. The bankruptcy court granted
the motion but ordered the proceeds of the sale to be held in escrow and sua sponte
modified its order confirming Croniser’s Chapter 13 plan. When Croniser appealed the
bankruptcy court’s order, the district court affirmed the order authorizing the sale but
vacated the order modifying the plan. On appeal in this court, the only relief that Croniser
sought was the release of the escrowed funds. While this appeal was pending, the
bankruptcy court released the funds to him. Thus, Croniser has received all of the relief
that he sought in his motion to sell the property—confirmation of the sale and the proceeds
of the sale. If we were to now rule on his challenge to the bankruptcy court’s authority, we
would be issuing an advisory opinion because Croniser would receive no tangible relief
from such a ruling.
“The customary practice when a case is rendered moot on appeal is to vacate the
moot aspects of the lower court’s judgment” and remand with instructions to dismiss the
claim. SAS Inst., Inc. v. World Programming Ltd., 874 F.3d 370, 390 (4th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S.
36, 39 (1950) (where civil case becomes moot before adjudication by appellate court, court
reverses or vacates judgment and remands with directions to dismiss). “In such
circumstances, the equitable remedy of vacatur clears the path for future relitigation of the
issues between the parties.” Catawba Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 843
F.3d 583, 589-90 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. Because Croniser only challenged the
escrowing of the sale proceeds in this court, we vacate the portions of the district court’s
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1227 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing the sale. We remand with
instructions for the district court to dismiss that portion of Croniser’s appeal and to instruct
the bankruptcy court to vacate the portion of its order directing the proceeds of the sale to
be held in escrow. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
4