Thurman v. Moby (In re Thurman)

(S.D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2018)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the order extending the deadline for the trustee to file a complaint to deny a discharge was not a final and appealable order. Opinion below.

Judge: Magnus-Stinson

Debtor: Pro Se

Trustee: Judge Moby; Ellen Lynn Triebold, U.S. Trustees Office

2018-01-24 – in re thurman

Author: Matt Lindblom

Halifax Financial Group L.P. v. Hazel (In re Hazel)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorneys for Creditor: Harrison & Moberly, David J. Theising

Attorneys for Debtor: Tom Scott & Associates, PC, Jess M. Smith, III

2017-02-27-in-re-hazel

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Ferguson

(7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding it does not have jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court entered an order permitting marshaling  of the debtor’s assets to pay two secured creditors. The district court reversed, holding that marshaling was inappropriate because there were no longer two funds available to pay both creditors (one had been distributed to one of the creditors years earlier). There was no order, however, that directed how the remaining assets would actually be distributed. Thus, the Seventh Circuit held that there was no final order and it did not have appellate jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Appellant: Robert Lindstrom

Attorney for Debtor: Carrie Leigh Magerl

Attorneys for United States: Gerard A. Brost, Thomas J. Clark, Peter Sklarew, Patrick J. Urda

Attorney for Trustee: Jeana K. Reinbold

2016-08-23 – in re ferguson

Author: Matt Lindblom

BCL-Sheffield, LLC v. Gemini Int’l, Inc. (In re Tolomeo)

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court’s final order implementing the district court’s order directing turnover of assets to the bankruptcy estate was valid, because it resolved a core proceeding. The appellants contended that it was a non-core proceeding and thus required a district court order to be final. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Appellants: Jordan Law P.C., Terrence M Jordan

Attorneys for Appellees: Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, Jason B. Hirsh, George J. Spathis, Sugar, Friedberg & Felsenthal, Elizabeth Vandesteeg

2016-08-11 – in re tolomeo

Author: Matt Lindblom

Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Alsterda

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal because the order appealed from was not a final order. The bankruptcy court overruled the creditor’s objection to the trustee’s motion to approve a settlement of a fraudulent transfer claim. The creditor had obtained a state court judgment on the same claim after obtaining stay relief (although not expressly for pursuing that claim). The court holds that the order addressed a discrete issue rather than a discrete dispute and thus was not a final and appealable order. The creditor could still receive the bulk of the bankruptcy estate’s assets due to its secured claim, and thus the fact that it would not do so through the fraudulent transfer claim did not constitute resolution of a discrete dispute. Opinion below.

2016-03-04 – schaumburg bank and trust v alsterda

Author: Matt Lindblom

Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Montedonico (In re Blasingame)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 21, 2015)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. denies the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The bankruptcy court entered an order sanctioning the debtor’s attorney but reserving the issue of the amount of the monetary sanctions. The attorney filed a notice of appeal of this first order. The bankruptcy court then entered two orders setting the sanction amount. The attorney then filed a corrected notice of appeal to include these two orders outside the normal 14-day appeal notice period. The appellee argued that the first notice was deficient because the first order was not final and appealable and the second notice was filed too long after the second set of orders. The court holds that the first order was not final, but the corrected notice of appeal was sufficient and timely. The second set of orders did not satisfy Rule 58 (incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 7058) in that they were not set out in a “separate document,” and thus the attorney had an additional 150 days in which to file a notice of appeal of those orders. Opinion below.

2015-01-21 – church joint venture v montedonico

Author: Matt Lindblom