Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01049/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

PS1-008 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-1049

___________

In re: LINDA A. HAWKINS; GREGORY L. HAWKINS,

Debtors

ELVA D. ALLEN; MABEL H. CONAWAY,*

 Appellants

*(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Fed. R. App. P.)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D. Del. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-00526)

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 4, 2014

Before: RENDELL, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 11, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-1049 Document: 003111874353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
2

Elva Allen and Mabel Conaway, proceeding pro se, appeal an order of the United 

States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing a bankruptcy appeal for lack 

of standing. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

In 2005, Linda Hawkins and Gregory Hawkins filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy 

petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Michael 

Joseph was the Chapter 13 Trustee. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the debtors’ plan 

in April 2006. Shortly thereafter, Allen informed Joseph that Linda Hawkins had owned 

an interest in real property, that the property was sold, and that she had not disclosed her 

property interest in the bankruptcy proceedings. 

Joseph investigated Allen’s allegations and determined that Linda Hawkins had 

transferred her interest in the property and had received $44,043.07. He reported his 

findings to the Office of the United States Trustee. In October 2006, Joseph filed a 

motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case based on the non-disclosure of the property 

interest. The debtors opposed the motion and it was resolved by a stipulation. The 

debtors agreed, among other things, that the limitations period for the time to object to a 

discharge would be extended until Joseph filed his final report. The debtors performed 

their obligations under the plan and were granted a discharge in 2010. Joseph filed his 

final report and, on November 2, 2010, the bankruptcy case was closed.

Over two years later, in January 2013, Allen filed a motion to reopen the 

bankruptcy case on behalf of herself, James Conaway, Ernest Conaway, and Mabel 

Conaway. She stated that she and the Conaways were creditors who were intentionally 

Case: 14-1049 Document: 003111874353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
3

omitted from the bankruptcy schedules. Allen asserted that the debt was nondischargeable based upon the debtors’ fraud in concealing the sale of real property.

1

 

The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing and denied the motion because it was 

untimely under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(e), which allows a motion to reopen based on fraud to 

be filed within one year of a discharge. The District Court dismissed Allen’s subsequent

appeal for lack of standing. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review findings of fact 

in bankruptcy matters under the clearly erroneous standard and exercise plenary review 

over questions of law. In re Dykes, 10 F.3d 184, 185-86 (3d Cir. 1993).

As recognized by the District Court, standing to appeal an order in a bankruptcy 

case is limited to “persons aggrieved” by the order. In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 

391 F.3d 190, 214 (3d Cir. 2004); Dykes, 10 F.3d at 187. “Persons aggrieved” are those 

“whose rights or interests are ‘directly and adversely affected pecuniarily’ by an order or 

decree of the bankruptcy court.” Combustion Engineering, 391 F.3d at 214 (citations 

omitted). The bankruptcy court’s order must diminish a person’s property, increase his

burdens, or impair his rights. Id. This determination is a question of fact. Id. 

The District Court explained that the order at issue denied a motion to reopen, 

which sought to vacate the debtors’ discharge so that a non-dischargeability complaint 

 

1The Conaways sued Linda Hawkins and other parties in the Court of Chancery of 

Delaware and claimed that they were the rightful owners of the property that was sold. In 

2011, the state court ruled that the Conaways have no rights to the property.

Case: 14-1049 Document: 003111874353 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
4

could be filed. This order did not direct an administration of the estate, but recognized 

that the estate had been fully administered and that the motion to reopen was untimely. 

The District Court concluded, and we agree, that the Bankruptcy Court’s order does not 

have a direct, pecuniary effect upon Allen and the Conaways. The District Court also 

noted that Allen had admitted that she has no ownership interest in the property, and that 

neither she nor the Conaways had filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case even 

though they were aware of the proceedings. As a result, the District Court concluded that 

neither Allen nor the Conaways had a pecuniary interest in proceeds from the sale of the 

property. The record fully supports these findings and the District Court’s dismissal of 

the appeal for lack of standing. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.2

 

2To the extent that Allen, who is not a lawyer, purports to appeal on behalf of the 

Conaways, rather than on her own behalf, she may not represent them in federal court. 

See Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding 

parent who was not a lawyer could not litigate claims on behalf of his children in federal 

court).

Case: 14-1049 Document: 003111874353 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/11/2015