Baer v. Arkison

Ninth Circuit

Baer v. Arkison

350 F. App'x 184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2009

DocketNo. 08-60043

StatusPublished

This text of 350 F. App'x 184 (Baer v. Arkison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baer v. Arkison, 350 F. App'x 184 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jon Richard Baer, a chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing his appeal as untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed the appeal because Baer filed his notice of appeal more than ten days after entry of the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion for relief from judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a) (requiring that a notice of appeal “be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judg[185]*185ment, order, or decree appealed from.”); Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir.1986) (requiring strict compliance with Rule 8002(a)’s 10-day provision). Baer’s arguments about impediments to filing the notice of appeal are unavailing. See Greene, 795 F.2d at 855.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Jon Richard Baer, a chapter 7 debtor, appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing his appeal as untimely under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The BAP properly dismissed the appeal because Baer filed his notice of appeal more than ten days after entry of the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion for relief from judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a) (requiring that a notice of appeal “be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judg[185]*185ment, order, or decree appealed from.”); Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir.1986) (requiring strict compliance with Rule 8002(a)’s 10-day provision). Baer’s arguments about impediments to filing the notice of appeal are unavailing. See Greene, 795 F.2d at 855.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

In Re Jim Lee Wiersma in Re Patricia Darlene Wiersma, Debtors, Jim Lee Wiersma Patricia Darlene Wiersma v. Bank of the West, F/k/a United California Bank, United States Trustee, Trustee-Appellee. In Re Jim Lee Wiersma in Re Patricia Darlene Wiersma, Debtors, Bank of the West, F/k/a United California Bank v. Jim Lee Wiersma Patricia Darlene Wiersma

483 F.3d 933 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 F. App'x 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baer-v-arkison-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack