Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06045/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06045-0/pdf.json

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

---

, .,_ 

FILED 

United States Co~rt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 13 1990 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

In re: LEE EDWARD WILSON, ) 

) 

Debtor. ) 

) --------------------------------) ) 

SHERRY LOU WILSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

LEE EDWARD WILSON, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

No. 90-6045 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-851-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Lee Edward Wilson, a debtor in bankruptcy, demanded a jury 

trial to resolve a dispute over alimony payments which his ex-wife 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6045 Document: 010110040831 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 1 
claimed he owed her. Upon the bankruptcy court's denial of his 

jury demand, Mr. Wilson and his attorney left the courtroom. The 

court then entered judgment for Mr. Wilson's ex-wife, determining 

that any alimony payments owed her were nondischargeable. The 

court did not determine, however, the amount, if any, to which Mr. 

Wilson's ex-wife was entitled. 

The district court dismissed Mr. Wilson's appeal of the 

denial of his jury demand. It reasoned that there was nothing for 

it to review "[b]ecause the bankruptcy court did not determine any 

of the issues on which [Mr. Wilson] asserts [he] had a right to a 

jury trial." Mr. Wilson now requests us to review the bankruptcy 

court's denial of his jury demand. We decline to do so because we 

lack jurisdiction over his appeal. 

"A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment." 

Basso v. Utah Power and Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 

1974). If the parties do not question our jurisdiction, then we 

must sua sponte address the issue. Tuck v. United Serv. Auto. 

Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, __ U.S. 

__ , 109 S. Ct. 1534 (1989). Our jurisdiction over interlocutory 

appeals is limited to appeals from those orders specified in 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 and to those which fall within the collateral order 

doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

546 (1949). 

The denial of a jury demand is a nonappealable, interlocutory 

order. Morgantown v. Royal Ins. Co., 337 U.S. 254, 258 (1949); 

Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. 

denied, 454 U.S. 

§ 1292, nor does 

1152 (1982). It is not specified in 28 U.S.C. 

it fall within the narrow confines of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6045 Document: 010110040831 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 2 
; .. ~ 

collateral order doctrine. Howard v. Parisian, Inc., 807 F.2d 

1560, 1566 (11th Cir. 1987). Since Mr. Wilson seeks review only 

of the bankruptcy court's denial of his demand for a jury trial, 

we lack jurisdiction to consider his appeal. 

DISMISSED. 

This appeal is 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6045 Document: 010110040831 Date Filed: 08/13/1990 Page: 3