
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                                                     _________________________          No. 93-1032                               IN RE BRIDGET M. HAYES,                                       Debtor.                                                                                     _________________________                                  BRIDGET M. HAYES,                                 Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                          JOHN L. SULLIVAN AND JAMES NAGLE,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                                                                     _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                                                                     _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                           Feinberg,* Senior Circuit Judge,                                      ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                                                                     _________________________               Daniel J.  Carragher, with whom  Day, Berry & Howard  was on               ____________________             ___________________          brief, for appellant.               Marshall F. Newman,  with whom Newman & Newman,  P.C. was on               __________________             ______________________          brief, for appellee Sullivan.               Mark A. Berthiaume, with whom Daniel H. Conroy and Goldstein               __________________            ________________     _________          & Manello, P. C. were on brief, for appellee Nagle.          ________________                              _________________________                                     May 13, 1993                              _________________________          _______________          *Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.                    Per  Curiam.   Bridget M.  Hayes, a  Chapter 7  debtor,                    Per  Curiam.                    ___________          commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court whereby          she  strove to  annul the  trustee's public-auction  sale  of her          residence.  The debtor named  as defendants John L. Sullivan (the          successful   bidder)  and  James   Nagle  (who  had  subsequently          purchased  the property  from Sullivan).    Following a  non-jury          trial,  the bankruptcy court (Kenner, J.) concluded that the sale          had been advertised "widely and sufficiently"; that no fewer than          six qualified bidders  attended the auction;  and that Hayes  had          not proven that the price realized at the auction sale ($110,000)          was grossly inadequate.  Based on these, and other, findings, the          bankruptcy court dismissed Hayes's complaint.                    On appeal,  the district court  (Keeton, J.)  affirmed.          In a  lengthy, thoughtful,  and comprehensive  opinion, Hayes  v.                                                                  _____          Sullivan ___ F.  Supp. ___ (D. Mass. 1992)  [No. 92-12020-K], the          ________          court  gave three  main reasons  for  its determination  that the          bankruptcy court's judgment  must stand (any one  of which, taken          alone, would have required affirmance of the judgment).                    First,  the  court  held  that,  under the  controlling          statute, 11  U.S.C.   363(b)(1),  the results  of an  authorized,          completed  auction sale  could be  set aside,  in the  absence of          "fraud, mistake, collusion or similar infirmity only on a showing          of  gross inadequacy  of price."   Id. at  ___ [slip op.  at 12].                                             ___          Because  Hayes  met neither  the standard's  fraud prong  nor its          adequacy-of-price prong    Sullivan was  a good-faith  purchaser;          plaintiff  conceded  the  absence of  fraud;  and  the bankruptcy                                          2          judge's finding as to the  adequacy of the price was  not clearly          erroneous     the  district  court  found  that  the  appeal  was          groundless.                    Second,  the court held that Hayes, in her presentation          before the  bankruptcy court,  had urged the  court to  apply the          gross inadequacy standard and had thereby waived any right to ask          the district court to invalidate the sale for some lesser reason.          See  id. at  ___ [slip op.  at 15-16].   In other  words, Hayes's          ___  ___          argument that the  court should examine  the transaction under  a          criterion  more  searching  than gross  inadequacy  had  not been          presented  face up  and  squarely in  the  bankruptcy court  and,          therefore, could not rewardingly be pressed on appeal.                    Third, the  court ruled  that whether  it reviewed  the          outcome  of this authorized  trustee's sale in  bankruptcy either          under  the gross  inadequacy  standard  or  the  totality-of-the-          circumstances standard pressed on appeal by Hayes, the bankruptcy          court's judgment must be affirmed.   See id. at ___ [slip op.  at                                               ___ ___          19-20].    This was  so because, even  if Hayes's newly  emergent          view of  the governing  law was both  correct and  preserved, the          facts,  as supportably  found  by the  bankruptcy judge,  did not          sustain her claim.                    Given the district court's handiwork, we see no need to          write at length.   Indeed, in cases  in which "a trial  court has          produced a first-rate  work product, a reviewing  tribunal should          hesitate to  wax  longiloquent  simply  to  hear  its  own  words          resonate."  In  re San Juan Dupont  Plaza Hotel Fire  Litig., ___                      ________________________________________________                                          3          F.2d  ___, ___ (1st Cir. 1993) [No.  92-2216, slip op. at 4].  So          it  is  here.   Whatever  the  relative  merits of  the  parties'          competing views as  to the standard for setting aside authorized,          completed trustees' sales under section  363(b)(1)   a matter  on          which we express no opinion   it  is perfectly plain that, taking          the  totality-of-the-circumstances approach  urged by  appellant,          and assuming arguendo that Hayes preserved this theory below, the                       ________          facts as found by the bankruptcy judge cannot  begin to carry the          burden of  Hayes's case.   That  ends  the matter.   Because  the          critical findings of  fact are supported by  substantial evidence          in the bankruptcy court record and are not clearly erroneous, the          judgment  below must  be affirmed.   See, e.g., In  re Tully, 818                                               ___  ____  ____________          F.2d  106,  108-110  (1st Cir.  1987)  (explicating  operation of          clearly erroneous rule in bankruptcy cases); Bankr. R. 8013.          The judgment  is affirmed  on the basis  of the  district court's          The judgment  is affirmed  on the basis  of the  district court's          _________________________________________________________________          opinion.  Costs in favor of appellees.          opinion.  Costs in favor of appellees.          _______   ___________________________                                          4
