Precon, Inc. v. JRS Realty Trust (In re Precon, Inc.)

First Circuit

Precon, Inc. v. JRS Realty Trust (In re Precon, Inc.)

26 B.R. 655, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6927

CourtBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1983

DocketBankruptcy No. 82-9060

StatusPublished

This text of 26 B.R. 655 (Precon, Inc. v. JRS Realty Trust (In re Precon, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Precon, Inc. v. JRS Realty Trust (In re Precon, Inc.), 26 B.R. 655, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6927 (bap1 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellee, Precon, Inc., has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant timely filed its notice of appeal with the United States District Court rather than the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appel[656]*656late Panel. Appellee filed a motion with the district court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Upon being advised that Appellant proposed to file Notice of Appeal in the bankruptcy court for the appellate panel and that counsel agreed that no hearing was necessary on the motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed the appeal after the 10-day appeal period had expired. Appellant amended the Notice of Appeal and requested an extension of time to file the appeal from the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court granted the extension of time to file the appeal. Appel-lee has not appealed the bankruptcy court’s extension of time but instead argues that the original appeal was not timely filed because the correct designation was made after the 10-day appeal period had run.

The Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is denied. The Notice of Appeal was timely filed with the district court and effectively informed the appellee that an appeal was being taken which, after all, is one of the major purposes of the notice of appeal. Markham v. Holt, 369 F.2d 940, 942 (5th Cir.1966). The Supreme Court has noted that during the transition period it appears that appeals could properly be filed with the district court even though an appellate panel is in place. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2864 n. 7, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982).

While not directly on point, certain rules indicate a liberal approach to this type of problem. Bankruptcy Rule 509(c) recognizes that even where papers are misfiled in the district court instead of the bankruptcy court, the papers will be considered properly filed as of the date filed with the district court. First Circuit Appellate Rule 4(a)(1) in Appendix A of the First Circuit Rules Governing Appeals (March 1, 1980), similarly provides for redirecting appeals misfiled with the Court of Appeals rather than the District Court. The cases cited by the mov-ant are not on point since they deal with notices of appeal that were not timely filed initially.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellee, Precon, Inc., has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant timely filed its notice of appeal with the United States District Court rather than the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appel[656]*656late Panel. Appellee filed a motion with the district court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Upon being advised that Appellant proposed to file Notice of Appeal in the bankruptcy court for the appellate panel and that counsel agreed that no hearing was necessary on the motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed the appeal after the 10-day appeal period had expired. Appellant amended the Notice of Appeal and requested an extension of time to file the appeal from the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court granted the extension of time to file the appeal. Appel-lee has not appealed the bankruptcy court’s extension of time but instead argues that the original appeal was not timely filed because the correct designation was made after the 10-day appeal period had run.

The Motion to Dismiss the Appeal is denied. The Notice of Appeal was timely filed with the district court and effectively informed the appellee that an appeal was being taken which, after all, is one of the major purposes of the notice of appeal. Markham v. Holt, 369 F.2d 940, 942 (5th Cir.1966). The Supreme Court has noted that during the transition period it appears that appeals could properly be filed with the district court even though an appellate panel is in place. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2864 n. 7, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982).

While not directly on point, certain rules indicate a liberal approach to this type of problem. Bankruptcy Rule 509(c) recognizes that even where papers are misfiled in the district court instead of the bankruptcy court, the papers will be considered properly filed as of the date filed with the district court. First Circuit Appellate Rule 4(a)(1) in Appendix A of the First Circuit Rules Governing Appeals (March 1, 1980), similarly provides for redirecting appeals misfiled with the Court of Appeals rather than the District Court. The cases cited by the mov-ant are not on point since they deal with notices of appeal that were not timely filed initially.

Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 B.R. 655, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/precon-inc-v-jrs-realty-trust-in-re-precon-inc-bap1-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack