Moix-McNutt v. Coop (In Re Moix-McNutt)

Eighth Circuit

Moix-McNutt v. Coop (In Re Moix-McNutt)

212 B.R. 953, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1594, 1997 WL 610382

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1997

DocketBAP 97-6064EA

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 212 B.R. 953 (Moix-McNutt v. Coop (In Re Moix-McNutt)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moix-McNutt v. Coop (In Re Moix-McNutt), 212 B.R. 953, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1594, 1997 WL 610382 (bap8 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

DREHER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor in this case, Ramona Moix-McNutt (“Debtor”), appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas sustaining ob *954 jections to confirmation of the Debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan and allowing Debtor twenty days in which to file a motion to convert the case to one under Chapter 11. The order further provided that, if the Debt- or failed to convert the case to one under Chapter 11 within such time, the case would be converted to Chapter 7 without further notice or hearing. One of the appellees, Mercantile Bank, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s order is not a final judgment, order or decree within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994).

We hold that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order in this case was not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan without dismissing the case is not a final order for purposes of appeal. See Groves v. LaBarge (In re Groves), 39 F.3d 212, 214 (8th Cir.1994); Lewis v. Farmers Home Admin., 992 F.2d 767, 772 (8th Cir.1993). In this Circuit, a three-part test is utilized to determine whether a bankruptcy decision is final. We consider:

(1) the extent to which the order leaves the Bankruptcy Court nothing to do but to execute the order; (2) the extent to which delay in obtaining review would prevent the aggrieved party from obtaining effective relief; and (3) the extent to which a later reversal on that issue would require recommencement of the entire proceedings.

Lewis, 992 F.2d at 772. In this case, the bankruptcy court has tasks remaining to be performed which are not purely mechanical or ministerial, the Debtor may obtain effective relief by appealing the bankruptcy court’s order after dismissal or final confirmation, and a later reversal of a denial of confirmation will not compel extensive relitigation of the entire proceedings.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

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

DREHER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor in this case, Ramona Moix-McNutt (“Debtor”), appeals from an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas sustaining ob *954 jections to confirmation of the Debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan and allowing Debtor twenty days in which to file a motion to convert the case to one under Chapter 11. The order further provided that, if the Debt- or failed to convert the case to one under Chapter 11 within such time, the case would be converted to Chapter 7 without further notice or hearing. One of the appellees, Mercantile Bank, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the bankruptcy court’s order is not a final judgment, order or decree within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1994).

We hold that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order in this case was not a final order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan without dismissing the case is not a final order for purposes of appeal. See Groves v. LaBarge (In re Groves), 39 F.3d 212, 214 (8th Cir.1994); Lewis v. Farmers Home Admin., 992 F.2d 767, 772 (8th Cir.1993). In this Circuit, a three-part test is utilized to determine whether a bankruptcy decision is final. We consider:

(1) the extent to which the order leaves the Bankruptcy Court nothing to do but to execute the order; (2) the extent to which delay in obtaining review would prevent the aggrieved party from obtaining effective relief; and (3) the extent to which a later reversal on that issue would require recommencement of the entire proceedings.

Lewis, 992 F.2d at 772. In this case, the bankruptcy court has tasks remaining to be performed which are not purely mechanical or ministerial, the Debtor may obtain effective relief by appealing the bankruptcy court’s order after dismissal or final confirmation, and a later reversal of a denial of confirmation will not compel extensive relitigation of the entire proceedings.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 B.R. 953, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1594, 1997 WL 610382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moix-mcnutt-v-coop-in-re-moix-mcnutt-bap8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack