USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 1 of 8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13430 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
In re: BARBARA JOYCE REAVES SMITH, Debtor. ___________________________________ VINCE FARIDANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
BARBARA JOYCE REAVES SMITH, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 7:24-cv-00086-WLS, Bkcy No. 7:23-ap-7013-JTL ____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
Vince Faridani, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment against him in his adversary proceeding. After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s resolution of Fa- ridani’s appeal. I. BACKGROUND In 2018, Barbara Smith signed a promissory note payable to Faridani in the amount of $30,000. Smith defaulted on repayment, and, following an entry of default judgment in favor of Faridani in July 2022, a Georgia court ordered Smith to pay the full cost of the note with interest and costs. A year later Smith petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In response, Faridani instituted adversary proceedings by filing an ob- jection, through counsel, to the discharge of the debt Smith owed to him. Shortly thereafter, the bankruptcy court ordered a dis- charge of Smith’s debt, including that owed to Faridani. See 11 U.S.C. § 727. Faridani amended his objection and contended that his debt was nondischargeable because Smith intentionally misled him about how she intended to use his loan. See id. § 523(a)(2)(A). He therefore requested that the bankruptcy court deny Smith’s dis- charge until his payment was received. In July 2024, the bankruptcy court held a bench trial in Fa- ridani’s adversarial proceeding and announced its factual findings and conclusions of law during a telephonic conference the follow- ing month. And on August 14, 2024, the day after the telephonic USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 3 of 8
25-13430 Opinion of the Court 3
conference, the bankruptcy court entered the following one sen- tence judgment: “For the reasons stated from the bench in accord- ance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Rule 7052, the Court finds in favor of [Smith].” Faridani, now pro se, appealed the bankruptcy court’s judg- ment to the district court. After Faridani filed his notice of appeal, the clerk of the bankruptcy court sent him a letter detailing what was required for an appeal, including that he file, within 14 days, a designation of items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of issues he wished to present. The letter further ex- plained that Faridani should contact the clerk’s office if he needed a transcript, noted that there was a fee associated with such a re- quest, and explained that the requesting party must file the tran- script with the court upon receiving it. Faridani’s “designated record list” listed several documents, including a “trial transcript.” Faridani also wrote a letter to the bankruptcy clerk in October 2024 requesting the July 2024 bench trial transcript and inquiring as to the fees associated with his re- quest. However, in the district court, Faridani filed only a partial bankruptcy record, which did not include any transcripts. He there- after filed his brief arguing the following: (1) Smith misrepresented herself, the evidence, and what the loan would be used for and en- gaged in a pattern of financial misconduct; (2) the bankruptcy court misapplied legal standards and improperly excluded evidence; (3) he had proven fraud in the inducement, that verbal agreements USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
supported by credible witness testimony were enforceable, and that granting discharge to Smith would reward fraudulent behav- ior as well as erode integrity in the bankruptcy system; and (4) Smith’s deposition testimony was marked by contradictions, mis- representations, and a lack of financial accountability, which col- lectively showed intentional deception. Following full briefing, the district court affirmed the bank- ruptcy court’s judgment in favor of Smith. It found the record in- sufficient for meaningful review because it only had available the bankruptcy court’s one-sentence judgment. The court explained that its review of the bankruptcy court’s decision was “significantly hampered by [Faridani’s] decision to ignore” the relevant proce- dural rules and failure to submit the necessary transcripts of the bench trial and telephonic conference, which was alone grounds for affirmance. The court elaborated that the resolution of the is- sues Faridani raised on appeal, many of which were not presented before the bankruptcy court, were “highly dependent on specific facts . . . not in the [r]ecord,” and it stated that it would not make any new factual findings at that juncture. It further observed that, without the necessary record, Faridani could not effectively argue that the bankruptcy court acted erroneously. Faridani now appeals to our Court the district court’s affir- mance of the bankruptcy court’s judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Generally, as the second court of review of a bankruptcy court’s judgment, we independently examine the factual and legal USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 5 of 8
25-13430 Opinion of the Court 5
determinations of the bankruptcy court and employ the same standards of review as the district court. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Gon- zalez (In re Gonzalez), 832 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2016). How- ever, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s resolu- tion of a bankruptcy appeal on procedural grounds. See Pyramid Mo- bile Homes, Inc. v. Speake (In re Pyramid Mobile Homes, Inc.), 531 F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1976). III. DISCUSSION When appealing a bankruptcy court’s order to the district court, an appellant is required to file with the bankruptcy clerk a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(A). The record on appeal must include, as relevant, transcripts of oral rulings. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(4). “If the appellant intends to argue on appeal that a finding or conclu- sion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all relevant testimony and a copy of all relevant exhibits.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5) (emphasis added). In this case, the bankruptcy clerk explicitly explained to Fa- ridani that he needed to follow certain procedures in filing an ap- peal to the district court—including requesting and filing the rele- vant transcripts. However, as Faridani acknowledges, the tran- scripts of the bankruptcy court’s bench trial and telephonic confer- ence were not available to the district court at the time it rendered final judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 1 of 8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13430 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
In re: BARBARA JOYCE REAVES SMITH, Debtor. ___________________________________ VINCE FARIDANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
BARBARA JOYCE REAVES SMITH, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 7:24-cv-00086-WLS, Bkcy No. 7:23-ap-7013-JTL ____________________
Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
Vince Faridani, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment against him in his adversary proceeding. After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s resolution of Fa- ridani’s appeal. I. BACKGROUND In 2018, Barbara Smith signed a promissory note payable to Faridani in the amount of $30,000. Smith defaulted on repayment, and, following an entry of default judgment in favor of Faridani in July 2022, a Georgia court ordered Smith to pay the full cost of the note with interest and costs. A year later Smith petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In response, Faridani instituted adversary proceedings by filing an ob- jection, through counsel, to the discharge of the debt Smith owed to him. Shortly thereafter, the bankruptcy court ordered a dis- charge of Smith’s debt, including that owed to Faridani. See 11 U.S.C. § 727. Faridani amended his objection and contended that his debt was nondischargeable because Smith intentionally misled him about how she intended to use his loan. See id. § 523(a)(2)(A). He therefore requested that the bankruptcy court deny Smith’s dis- charge until his payment was received. In July 2024, the bankruptcy court held a bench trial in Fa- ridani’s adversarial proceeding and announced its factual findings and conclusions of law during a telephonic conference the follow- ing month. And on August 14, 2024, the day after the telephonic USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 3 of 8
25-13430 Opinion of the Court 3
conference, the bankruptcy court entered the following one sen- tence judgment: “For the reasons stated from the bench in accord- ance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Rule 7052, the Court finds in favor of [Smith].” Faridani, now pro se, appealed the bankruptcy court’s judg- ment to the district court. After Faridani filed his notice of appeal, the clerk of the bankruptcy court sent him a letter detailing what was required for an appeal, including that he file, within 14 days, a designation of items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of issues he wished to present. The letter further ex- plained that Faridani should contact the clerk’s office if he needed a transcript, noted that there was a fee associated with such a re- quest, and explained that the requesting party must file the tran- script with the court upon receiving it. Faridani’s “designated record list” listed several documents, including a “trial transcript.” Faridani also wrote a letter to the bankruptcy clerk in October 2024 requesting the July 2024 bench trial transcript and inquiring as to the fees associated with his re- quest. However, in the district court, Faridani filed only a partial bankruptcy record, which did not include any transcripts. He there- after filed his brief arguing the following: (1) Smith misrepresented herself, the evidence, and what the loan would be used for and en- gaged in a pattern of financial misconduct; (2) the bankruptcy court misapplied legal standards and improperly excluded evidence; (3) he had proven fraud in the inducement, that verbal agreements USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
supported by credible witness testimony were enforceable, and that granting discharge to Smith would reward fraudulent behav- ior as well as erode integrity in the bankruptcy system; and (4) Smith’s deposition testimony was marked by contradictions, mis- representations, and a lack of financial accountability, which col- lectively showed intentional deception. Following full briefing, the district court affirmed the bank- ruptcy court’s judgment in favor of Smith. It found the record in- sufficient for meaningful review because it only had available the bankruptcy court’s one-sentence judgment. The court explained that its review of the bankruptcy court’s decision was “significantly hampered by [Faridani’s] decision to ignore” the relevant proce- dural rules and failure to submit the necessary transcripts of the bench trial and telephonic conference, which was alone grounds for affirmance. The court elaborated that the resolution of the is- sues Faridani raised on appeal, many of which were not presented before the bankruptcy court, were “highly dependent on specific facts . . . not in the [r]ecord,” and it stated that it would not make any new factual findings at that juncture. It further observed that, without the necessary record, Faridani could not effectively argue that the bankruptcy court acted erroneously. Faridani now appeals to our Court the district court’s affir- mance of the bankruptcy court’s judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Generally, as the second court of review of a bankruptcy court’s judgment, we independently examine the factual and legal USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 5 of 8
25-13430 Opinion of the Court 5
determinations of the bankruptcy court and employ the same standards of review as the district court. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Gon- zalez (In re Gonzalez), 832 F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2016). How- ever, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s resolu- tion of a bankruptcy appeal on procedural grounds. See Pyramid Mo- bile Homes, Inc. v. Speake (In re Pyramid Mobile Homes, Inc.), 531 F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1976). III. DISCUSSION When appealing a bankruptcy court’s order to the district court, an appellant is required to file with the bankruptcy clerk a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(A). The record on appeal must include, as relevant, transcripts of oral rulings. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(4). “If the appellant intends to argue on appeal that a finding or conclu- sion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all relevant testimony and a copy of all relevant exhibits.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5) (emphasis added). In this case, the bankruptcy clerk explicitly explained to Fa- ridani that he needed to follow certain procedures in filing an ap- peal to the district court—including requesting and filing the rele- vant transcripts. However, as Faridani acknowledges, the tran- scripts of the bankruptcy court’s bench trial and telephonic confer- ence were not available to the district court at the time it rendered final judgment. While Faridani requested a transcript of the bench trial with the bankruptcy clerk, it does not appear that he followed USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
up on this request or informed the district court that he was await- ing the transcript to complete the record for appeal. And even if this request had been fulfilled, the district court still likely would have been unable to effectively review Faridani’s appeal, as he did not request a transcript of the telephonic conference at which the bankruptcy court articulated its findings to support its judgment in favor of Smith. Pro se litigants are held to a less stringent standard than law- yers, Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014), but are nevertheless still required to comply with applicable proce- dural rules, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Those applicable rules make clear that the appellant has the burden to ensure that the record on appeal is adequate for a court’s review of the issues they wish to litigate on appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(4), (b)(1)(A), (b)(5); Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); see also Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that pro se appellants are still required to “provide trial transcripts in the ap- pellate record to enable this [C]ourt to review challenges to suffi- ciency of the evidence”). And without providing the transcripts of both the bank- ruptcy court’s bench trial and telephonic conference, Faridani could not argue on appeal to the district court that its findings or conclusions were “unsupported by . . . or contrary to the evi- dence.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(5). We therefore cannot say that, based on the record before it, the district court abused its discretion in affirming the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment in favor of USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 7 of 8
25-13430 Opinion of the Court 7
Smith. See In re Pyramid Mobile Homes, Inc., 531 F.2d at 744–46 (af- firming the district court’s dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal where appellant failed to pay for a bankruptcy court transcript even after the district court granted appellant additional time to do so). We recognize that after Faridani filed the instant appeal, he secured the necessary transcripts and supplied them to the district court. He has also filed those transcripts with our Court and sug- gests that we can now complete a de novo review of his appellate arguments. But in conducting our review, “we consider only evi- dence that was part of the record before the district court.” Selman v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1332 (11th Cir. 2006). We also will not “consider issues or arguments raised for the first time” to our Court, “even when pro se litigants are involved.” Clements v. Florida, 59 F.4th 1204, 1208 (11th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). In his brief to our Court, Faridani articulates specific grounds upon which the bankruptcy court purportedly erred. But the dis- trict court did not reach or consider these issues, and we will not evaluate them in the first instance. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“If we were to regularly address questions—particularly fact-bound issues—that district courts never had the chance to examine, we would not only waste our resources, but also deviate from the essential nature, purpose, and competence of an appellate court.”); see also In re Pyramid Mo- bile Homes, Inc., 531 F.2d at 745–46 (affirming dismissal even where necessary transcript was filed in the circuit court). USCA11 Case: 25-13430 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 07/01/2026 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 25-13430
IV. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the district court’s resolution of Faridani’s ap- peal of the bankruptcy court’s entry of judgment in favor of Smith.