W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Croft (In Re Croft)

E.D. Missouri

W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Croft (In Re Croft)

174 B.R. 524, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1862, 1994 WL 675603

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri

DecidedOctober 24, 1994

Docket12-43376

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 B.R. 524 (W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Croft (In Re Croft)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W-V Enterprises, Inc. v. Croft (In Re Croft), 174 B.R. 524, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1862, 1994 WL 675603 (Mo. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

JAMES J. BARTA, Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter being considered here is the DefendanVDebtor’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. This Order is entered after consideration of the record as a whole.

On October 7, 1994, the Court entered an Order that, in part, granted a money judgment against the Defendant/Debtor. Pursuant to Rule 8002(a), the last day to file a notice of appeal was October 17, 1994.

The Attorney for the DefendanVDebtor did not receive a copy of the Order because of a change of his mailing address. The DefendanVDebtor did not contact his attorney concerning the Order until one day after the expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal. This Motion and the Notice of Appeal were filed three days after the expiration of the ten-day period to file a notice of appeal. If the DefendanVDebtor’s request for an extension of time is denied, there is a danger that he will be prejudiced in that he may otherwise be unable to request a review of the trial proceedings. The delay requested here is not lengthy, and no undue prejudice will result to any other parties. The Court’s review of the record has not suggested any damaging or improper impact on any judicial proceedings if the motion is granted. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the Movant has not acted in good faith. Therefore, the Court finds and concludes that the DefendanVDebtor’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal with respect to the Order entered on October 7, 1994 was based upon excusable neglect. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associated Limited Partnership, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1498, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of the DefendanVDebtor for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal with respect to the Order entered on October 7, 1994 is granted, 1994 WL 570889; and that such time is extended to October 20, 1994; and that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Defen-danVDebtor on such date is deemed to have been timely filed.

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

ORDER

JAMES J. BARTA, Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter being considered here is the DefendanVDebtor’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. This Order is entered after consideration of the record as a whole.

On October 7, 1994, the Court entered an Order that, in part, granted a money judgment against the Defendant/Debtor. Pursuant to Rule 8002(a), the last day to file a notice of appeal was October 17, 1994.

The Attorney for the DefendanVDebtor did not receive a copy of the Order because of a change of his mailing address. The DefendanVDebtor did not contact his attorney concerning the Order until one day after the expiration of the time to file a notice of appeal. This Motion and the Notice of Appeal were filed three days after the expiration of the ten-day period to file a notice of appeal. If the DefendanVDebtor’s request for an extension of time is denied, there is a danger that he will be prejudiced in that he may otherwise be unable to request a review of the trial proceedings. The delay requested here is not lengthy, and no undue prejudice will result to any other parties. The Court’s review of the record has not suggested any damaging or improper impact on any judicial proceedings if the motion is granted. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the Movant has not acted in good faith. Therefore, the Court finds and concludes that the DefendanVDebtor’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal with respect to the Order entered on October 7, 1994 was based upon excusable neglect. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associated Limited Partnership, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1498, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of the DefendanVDebtor for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal with respect to the Order entered on October 7, 1994 is granted, 1994 WL 570889; and that such time is extended to October 20, 1994; and that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Defen-danVDebtor on such date is deemed to have been timely filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 B.R. 524, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1862, 1994 WL 675603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-v-enterprises-inc-v-croft-in-re-croft-moeb-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack