Rochelle's Daily Wire

The Ninth Circuit has a solution for this problem. Below is a passage from the appellant's brief filed in Saldana, a recently published Ninth Circuit decision. "This appeal has a twist regarding standing which is not uncommon when a debtor appeals a chapter 13 confirmation order. Under chapter 13, only the debtor may propose a plan. § 1321. Normally, the proponent of a confirmed plan would not have standing to appeal an order which on its face seems to grant the relief requested by the debtor. However, a well-settled exception has been recognized by the appellate courts in the Ninth Circuit. As noted above, denial of confirmation of a plan proposed by the debtor, which happened here, is not a final appealable order. In order to achieve finality to appeal the disputed issue, a confirmation order is needed. To obtain that final order, a debtor may then amend the plan to comply with the bankruptcy court’s ruling, which amended plan will then be confirmed. Such amendment, however, is essentially against the legal position asserted by the debtor in the original plan. As a consequence, several cases, including In re Giesbrecht, supra, 429 B.R. at 688; Rodriguez v Bronitsky (In re Rodriguez), 620 B.R. 94, 98 (9th Cir. BAP 2020), and In re Sisk, 962 F. 3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) have all concluded that the debtors are the true parties aggrieved by the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings and therefore have standing to appeal. The debtor here is a party aggrieved and has standing. Fondiller v Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F. 2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)." In this scenario, disbursements under the confirmed plan, albeit one contrary to the debtor's position on appeal, should not make the appeal moot.