Netzer v. Office of Lawyer Regulation

(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer

Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy

2017-03-13 – in re netzer

Author: Matt Lindblom

The Village at Knapp’s Crossing, LLC v. Pioneer Ventures, LLC (In re The Village at Knapp’s Crossing)

(6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P.’s decision dismissing the appeal for mootness. The debtor appealed an order converting its case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 but did not seek or obtain a stay of the conversion order. The bankruptcy court then authorized a sale of the debtor’s primary asset, which was necessary to any Chapter 11 plan. Because there is no mechanism to unwind the sale or bring the property back into the estate, the appeal is now moot. Opinion below.

2016-01-08 – village at knapps crossing v pioneer ventures

Author: Matt Lindblom

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2015)

The Supreme Court holds that an order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan is not a final order that the debtor can immediately appeal. The debtor submitted a Chapter 13 plan that split the mortgage holder’s claim into a secured claim and an unsecured claim. The debtor proposed to pay only a small portion of the unsecured claim and to pay the secured claim in full but long after the plan period. The bankruptcy court declined confirmation, and the debtor appealed to the BAP for the First Circuit. The BAP first ruled that it was not a final order but then nevertheless reviewed the interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The BAP affirmed. The debtor then sought review in the Court of Appeals, which recognized there was a split among the circuits on the issue of whether an order denying confirmation was a final appealable order. It ultimately sided with the majority. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not a final order from the bankruptcy court and the BAP had not certified the appeal. The debtor then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court holds that an order denying confirmation is not a final order subject to appeal, as there is no conclusion to a “proceeding” at that point. The debtor can submit a revised plan and the status quo remains the same in the interim. On the other hand a dismissal following denial of confirmation or confirmation itself does alter the status quo and thus concludes the “proceeding.” Opinion below.

2015-05-04 – bullard v blue hills bank

Author: Matt Lindblom