Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01934/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01934-0/pdf.json

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

---

" 

f ILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uniled Sta11e1 Qlurt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 s 1988 

SUNWEST BANK OF LAS CRUCES, N.A., ) 

) 

Creditor-Appellee, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

RAWSON, INC., doing business as ) 

Las Cruces Door; DRUM'S CABINETS, INC., ) 

) 

Creditors, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PAUL HENRY HORSTMANN, ) 

) 

Debtor-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

BERTHA BEATRICE HORSTMANN, ) 

) 

Debtor. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

llOBEllT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1934 

(D.C. No. 86-1432JC) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

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. 

Appellate Case: 87-1934 Document: 010110027515 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

When the bankruptcy court denied creditor Sunwest's proof of 

claim in debtors Paul Henry and Bertha B. Horstmann's Chapter 11 

reorganization proceeding due to an untimely filing, Sunwest 

appealed to the district court. During the pendency of the 

district court appeal, the bankruptcy proceeding was converted 

from a Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. On 

May 7, 1987, the district court dismissed the appeal as moot, 

determining the conversion resulted in additional time to file 

proofs of claim. 

On May 26, 1987, Mr. Horstmann filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) 

and 59 motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time to file an 

appeal. He argued that he had not received notice of the May 7 

order until May 20, at a bankruptcy hearing on his attorney's 

motion to withdraw. Mr. Horstmann also argued the district court 

judge should have recused. 

On June 15, 1987, the district court recognized the motion 

was untimely, yet granted an extension of time to file an appeal 

due to Mr. Horstmann's lack of notice, with the time to appeal to 

commence running June 15. The district court refused to 

reconsider its decision that the case was moot and declined to 

recuse. Mr. Horstmann filed a notice of appeal on June 25, 1987. 

Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. The Rule 52(b) and 59 motion was untimely 

as served beyond the ten-day requirement set forth in the rules. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1934 Document: 010110027515 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
' 

This ten-day period is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by 

the district court. Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1, 1 (10th Cir. 

1982). Also, the district court's extension of time to file a 

notice of appeal exceeded the time permitted for an extension by 

Rule 4(a)(5). According to strict construction of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We may assume jurisdiction, however, when there are "unique 

circumstances" rendering it unfair to dismiss the appeal. This 

case presents "unique circumstances" such that dismissing the 

appeal as untimely would not be in the best interests of justice. 

See Stauber, 810 F.2d at 2. The Horstmanns reasonably relied on 

the district court's granting of an extension of time to file a 

notice of appeal. Such reliance justifies considering this appeal 

on the merits. See Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization 

Serv., 375 U.S. 384 (1964); Stauber, 810 F.2d at l; Insurance Co. 

of N. Arn. v. Bay, 784 F.2d 869, 872 (8th Cir. 1986); Aviation 

Enters., Inc. v. Orr, 716 F.2d 1403, 1406 n.25 (D.C. Cir. 1983); 

Gribble v. Harris, G2 5 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir. 1980). We 

conclude we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal on its 

merits. 

On appeal, Mr. Horstmann argues (1) the district court erred 

by dismissing the appeal as moot; (2) there is no authority 

permitting creditors an additional amount of time to file claims 

when a Chapter 11 reorganization is converted to a Chapter 7 

liquidation; (3) the district court judge abused his discretion by 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1934 Document: 010110027515 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3 
,t• 

failing to recuse; and (4) creditors and their attorneys have 

failed to follow the bankruptcy rules. 

After examining the briefs and record on appeal, we conclude 

that the first three arguments were correctly decided by the 

district court. Mr. Horstmann's fourth argument was newly raised 

on appeal. We will not consider arguments raised for the first 

time on appeal. See Baker v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 

650, 663 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Mr. Horstmann's request for oral argument is DENIED. Mr. 

Horstmann's request for sanctions is DENIED. Sunwest's request 

for attorney's fees and costs is DENIED. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1934 Document: 010110027515 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 4