In Re Daniel

407 B.R. 443, 2009 WL 382434
CourtBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 17, 2009
DocketBAP No. CO-08-068, Bankr. No. 08-13306 MER
StatusPublished

This text of 407 B.R. 443 (In Re Daniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Daniel, 407 B.R. 443, 2009 WL 382434 (bap10 2009).

Opinion

IN RE CLYTIE LYNN DANIEL, Chapter 13, Debtor.
CLYTIE LYNN DANIEL, Appellant.

BAP No. CO-08-068, Bankr. No. 08-13306 MER.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Tenth Circuit.

February 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL, NUGENT, and KARLIN, Bankruptcy Judges.[1]

OPINION[*]

MICHAEL, Bankruptcy Judge

Although the issues raised by appellant cover a vast waterfront, the only question germane to resolution of this appeal is simple and straightforward: whether the bankruptcy court erred when it dismissed appellant's case due to her failure to file payment advices within the time constraints set forth in the United States Bankruptcy Code. We answer this question in the negative, and affirm the order dismissing this case.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Clytie Lynn Daniel ("Daniel" or "Appellant") filed an original petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on March 18, 2008. The case was Daniel's fourth bankruptcy filing in less than two years. Based upon the bankruptcy court's docket sheet, the case appears to have been a "bare bones" filing: the petition was not accompanied by such necessary documents as the schedules, statement of financial affairs, statement of current monthly income and expenses, and copies of Daniel's payment advices for the 60-day period prior to filing of the bankruptcy case. Daniel failed to timely file any of these documents, and the case was dismissed by order of the bankruptcy court entered on April 3, 2008.

On April 14, 2008, Daniel filed a motion to reinstate her bankruptcy case, and sought an extension of time to file all required documents. The bankruptcy court granted that motion, reinstated the bankruptcy case, and extended the time for filing required documents to May 2, 2008. In addition, the bankruptcy court granted Daniel until May 15, 2008, to provide copies of her tax returns to the Chapter 13 trustee.

On May 22, 2008, the bankruptcy court entered the following order:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 23, 2008, the Court issued an Order Reinstating Case and Extending Deadlines (the "Order"), which directed the Debtor to provide copies of her tax returns to the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee on or before May 15, 2008. The Standing Chapter 13 Trustee has filed a Certificate of Non-Compliance indicating the Trustee has not received copies of the Debtor's tax returns. In addition, the Court's review of its record indicates no copies of tax returns were filed with the Court. The document entitled Certificate of Foreign Status of Nonresident Alien for United States Tax Withholding, filed by the Debtor, is unintelligible, and does not comply with the Court's Order.
In addition, the Order directed the Debtor to file all documents required by the Court's March 18, 2008 Notice of Deficiency. The Debtor has failed to comply with the requirement to file evidence of wages, commissions, or other income, or a verified statement that such documents do not exist.
Moreover, the Court's record reflects a history of repetitive, vexatious, and frivolous pleadings filed by the Debtor. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned case is dismissed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(b)(2)(B) and 521(i)(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Debtor may not file another petition for 180 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(g).[2]

On June 16, 2008, Daniel asked the bankruptcy court to reconsider its order of dismissal. On July 15, 2008, the bankruptcy court entered its order denying reconsideration. Said order reads as follows:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Debtor's Motion to Reconsider Order Dated May 22, 2008, and Motion for Emergency Signature (the "Motions"). The Court has reviewed the Motions and the file and finds the relief requested must be denied.
On or about March 18, 2008, a Notice of Deficiency was transmitted to the Debtor advising her that certain documents required under the Bankruptcy Code had not been filed with the voluntary petition in this case. The Notice of Deficiency indicated that failure to file those documents would result in the dismissal of the case. The required documents were not filed on a timely basis, and the case was dismissed on April 3, 2008.
On April 23, 2008, the Court granted the Debtor's request to reinstate the bankruptcy case and indicated, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(i)(1), the Debtor was to file all deficient documents with the Court on or before May 2, 2008, and then, assuming the deficient documents were filed, the Debtor was to provide tax returns to the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee on or before May 15, 2008. The required documents included copies of all income records received by the Debtor within 60 days before the bankruptcy case was filed, or a verified statement that no such documents exist. Neither income records nor a verified statement were filed.
Ms. Daniel's Motion to Reconsider Order alleges certain tax returns were provided to the Chapter 13 Trustee in response to the Court's direction. The Chapter 13 Trustee reports the provided tax returns were filed two weeks following the date set by the Court and two weeks following the date of the Chapter 13 Trustee's Certificate of Non-Compliance.
However, the Court need not make a determination on the timeliness of tax return issue. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(i)(1), the Debtor's failure to file income records caused her case to be automatically dismissed on the 46th day after her petition, or May 3, 2008. Such a dismissal is not discretionary with the Court and not subject to reconsideration, and makes the Court's May 22, 2008 dismissal order redundant. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to reconsider its May 22, 2008 order, and no jurisdiction to address the Debtor's Motion for Emergency Signature.[3]

This appeal followed.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to hear timely-filed appeals from "final judgments, orders, and decrees" of bankruptcy courts within the Tenth Circuit, unless a party elects to have the district court hear the appeal.[4] Appellant did not elect to have this appeal heard by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, thus consenting to appellate review by this Court.

A decision is considered final "if it `ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'"[5] In this case, the orders of May 22, 2008, and July 15, 2008, operated to dismiss Daniel's bankruptcy case. They are final for purposes of review.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo. De novo review requires an independent determination of the issues, giving no special weight to the bankruptcy court's decision.[6] We review the bankruptcy court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.

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

Related

Catlin v. United States
324 U.S. 229 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Salve Regina College v. Russell
499 U.S. 225 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance
517 U.S. 706 (Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 B.R. 443, 2009 WL 382434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-bap10-2009.