Ramona Moix-McNutt v. David Coop
This text of Ramona Moix-McNutt v. David Coop (Ramona Moix-McNutt v. David Coop) 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.
Opinion
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6064EA
In re: * * RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, * * Appeal from the United Debtor. * States Bankruptcy Court * for the Eastern District RAMONA MOIX-MCNUTT, * of Arkansas * Appellant, * -v.- * * DAVID D. COOP, DORIS SIMPSON, * MERCANTILE BANK, FORD MOTOR * CREDIT COMPANY * * Appellees. *
Submitted: September 15, 1997
Filed: October 6, 1997
Before KRESSEL, KOGER, and DREHER, Bankruptcy Judges.
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 objections 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 Debtor 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,
2 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.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ramona Moix-McNutt v. David Coop, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramona-moix-mcnutt-v-david-coop-bap8-1997.