Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02186/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02186-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

In re: DURABILITY, INC., 

Debtor, 

JAMES R. ADELMAN, 

Trustee, 

FILED J',..,t."t·~ Sr·· · c , -·· ~ ales '"lr•.r 4A, · ·- - "' •· ,)1 ppeats t ,.-:.~ ~·f·: r: :~.-,: ~ 

JAN '~ - 1980 

~OBERT L HOECKER 

t]r->rk ._. '\.. . ~ 

v. No. 88-2186 

FOURTH NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST 

COMPANY, N.A., of Tulsa, OK, 

Appellee, 

FRED I. PALMER, SR., 

Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 87-C-627-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Steven M. Harris of Doyle & Harris, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Appellant. 

Thomas E. English, C. Bruce Jones, and Carol Wood of English, 

Jones & Faulkner, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee. 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRO~BY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 88-2186 Document: 01019297252 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Fred I. Palmer, Sr. (Palmer), president and creditor of 

debtor, Durability, Inc., appeals from a district court order 

affirming an order of the bankruptcy court holding Palmer's 

$500,000 claim against debtor subordinate to a $1,618,331.80 claim 

asserted by Fourth National Bank and Trust Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma 

(FNB). Palmer and FNB are the named defendants in this adversary 

proceeding brought by the trustee to determine the validity, 

priority, and extent of defendants' liens, as well as to avoid 

certain allegedly fraudulent transfers. We do not, at this time, 

reach the merits of the issues raised by Palmer, because we hold 

that our jurisdiction over this premature appeal has n·ot yet been 

established. See Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 

844 (lOth Cir. 1988)(recognizing federal court's duty to determine 

matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes 

apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking), cert. denied, 

U.S. 109 S. Ct. 1534, 103 L.Ed.2d 839 (1989); see,~· 

In re Watson, 884 F.2d 879, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1989)(same principle 

applied where bankruptcy appellate jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 158(d) is questioned). 

In the bankruptcy 

§ 158(d) "limit the 

context, the 

jurisdiction of 

provisions of 28 u.s.c. 

the courts of appeals to 

reviewing final orders fr-om the district court." In re Commercial 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-2186 Document: 01019297252 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 2 
Contractors, Inc., 771 F.2d 1373, 1374 (lOth Cir. 1985). 

Generally, an order is final if it ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the 

judgment. McKinney v. Gannett Co., 694 F.2d 1240, 1246 (lOth Cir. 

1982), quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 u.s. 229, 233, 65 

S. Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). Under Bankr. R. 7054(a), 

which incorporates the established approach to civil judgment 

finality reflected in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a)-(c), see,~, In re 

Wood & Locker, Inc., 868 F.2d 139, 142-43 (5th Cir. 1989); In re 

White Beauty View, Inc., 841 F.2d 524, 526-27 (3d Cir. 1988), an 

order that adjudicates fewer than all asserted claims or the 

rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not 

terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties. The 

courts have recognized, however, that the appropriate "judicial 

unit" for application of these finality requirements in bankruptcy 

is not the overall case, but rather the particular adversary 

proceeding or discrete controversy pursued within the broader 

framework cast by the petition. See, ~, In re Moody, 825 F.2d 

81, 85 (5th Cir. 1987); In re White Beauty View, Inc., 841 F.2d at 

526; In reCharter Co., 778 F.2d 617, 621 (llth Cir. 1985); see 

also Tringali v. Hathaway Mach. Co., 796 F.2d 553, 558 (lst Cir. 

1986). Thus, our jurisdictional inquiry here focuses on the 

dispositional status of the matters comprising the trustee's 

adversary complaint. 

The bankruptcy court's order did not resolve all of the 

matters pursued by the trustee or otherwise terminate this 

adversary proceeding on the merits. 

3 

It merely granted FNB's 

Appellate Case: 88-2186 Document: 01019297252 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 3 
motion for partial summary judgment regarding the priority of 

FNB's claim in relation to Palmer's. While § 158(a) expressly 

permits the district court to entertain an appeal from such a 

nonfinal order, § 158(d) does not likewise grant the court of 

appeals jurisdiction to review, in turn, the district court's 

interlocutory appellate decision. See In re Cottrell, 876 F.2d 

540, 541 (6th Cir. 1989); In re Delta Servs. Indus., 782 F.2d 

1267, 126&-69 (5th Cir. 1986); In re Stable Mews Assocs., 778 F.2d 

121, 122 (2d Cir. 1985). There are, of course, circumstances in 

which an interlocutory appellate decision by the district court 

may ''cure" a finality problem by effecting its own final 

disposition of the underlying adversary proceeding, as, for 

example, where a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss 

is reversed by the district court. See In re Cottrell, 876 F.2d 

at 541; In re Phillips, 844 F.2d 230, 234-35 (5th Cir. 1988); see, 

~' Boise City Farmers Co-op. v. Palmer, 780 F.2d 860, 862-63, 

864-65 (lOth Cir. 1985). But the case before us does not present 

such a situation. Therefore, we cannot at this time exercise 

jurisdiction over Palmer's appeal. 

We do not, however, consider immediate summary dismissal of 

this appeal necessary or appropriate. Outside the bankruptcy 

setting, this court has held that otherwise ineffective 

interlocutory appeals may be saved if, subsequent to the filing of 

the premature notice of appeal, the district court either finally 

disposes of the remainder of the case or follows the Rule 54(b) 

procedure for entry 

theretofore appealed. 

of final judgment on the particular matters 

See Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2186 Document: 01019297252 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 4 
641, 645 (lOth Cir. 1988). Thus, where, as here, this court 

recognizes a premature appeal problem prior to final adjudication 

of the underlying action in the trial court, the appellant is 

notified and given a date certain by which to secure and present 

to this court one of the two alternative dispositions mentioned 

above, or face summary dismissal of the appeal. Id. at 645-46. 

Since Bankr. R. 7054(a) affords the bankruptcy court, as trial 

court in core proceedings, the same procedural mechanism 

ordinarily available to the district court, as trial court in most 

civil matters, under Rule 54 (b), see .In re Wood & Locker, Inc., 

868 F.2d at 142-43; In re White Beauty View, Inc., 841 F.2d at 

526-27, we see no reason not to adopt the Lewis decision as 

controlling in the present setting as well. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant Palmer thirty days from the 

date of this order in which to secure from the bankruptcy court 

and present to this court either the determination and direction 

called for by Rule 54(b) or an order or judgment explicitly 

reflecting the adjudication of all remaining claims in this 

adversary proceeding. Failure to do so will result in summary 

dismissal of this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2186 Document: 01019297252 Date Filed: 01/04/1990 Page: 5