Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03095/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03095-0/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 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

In Re: JOHN ERCY WILKINSON, ) 

) 

Debtor. ) 

) 

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

BURGER KING CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, ) 

) 

JA~ 151991 

ROBERT L. HOECKrClerk 

v. ) Nos. 89-3095, 89-3118 

) 

JOHN ERCY WILKINSON, ) 

) 

Appellee/Cross Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of Kansas 

D.C. No. 88-2458 

Justice B. King of Fisher, Patterson, Saylor & Smith, Topeka 

Kansas; and Scott Alan Orth of Hall, Poller and O'Brien, Miami, 

Florida, for Appellant/Cross Appellee. 

John E. Wilkinson, pro se, Topeka, Kansas, for Appellee/Cross 

Appellant. 

Before MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, District 

Judge.* 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

*Honorable Aldon J. Anderson, Senior United States District Judge 

for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3095 Document: 010110016231 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 1 
I 

\. 

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) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This matter arises from bankruptcy proceedings instituted in 

1985 by John Ercy Wilkinson. 1 In this latest phase, after the 

bankruptcy court converted Mr. Wilkinson's petition under Chapter 

11 to a Chapter 7 case, Burger King filed a complaint to determine 

the dischargeability of its debt under 11 u.s.c. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 

523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6). 2 On March 23, 1988, Mr. Wilkinson moved 

to dismiss Burger King's amended complaint, and the bankruptcy 

court set the matter for -a hearing on May 2, 1988. On April 28, 

1988, relying on a local rule, Mr. Wilkinson submitted an ex parte 

order sustaining his motion to dismiss on the ground that Burger 

King had failed to file a written response to the initial motion 

to dismiss within twenty days as required by the local rules. 

Consequently, the bankruptcy court signed the order, and Burger 

King's complaint was dismissed as a sanction for its failure to 

abide by the local rule. 3 

1

At that time, separate petitions for relief under Chapter 11 were 

filed by Mr. Wilkinson, Marianne Wilkinson, and Burger King of 

Kansas, Inc.; however, only Mr. Wilkinson is involved in this 

appeal. 

2The bankruptcy court noted the complaint was filed 

day set for filing complaints under§ 523. 

on the last 

3In signing the order, the bankruptcy court cited the many errors 

and abuses "that date back through the main bankruptcy case ... 

The parties have been waging a bitter battle over a BK [Burger 

King] franchise dating back to 1985 . Each side has abused 

(Continued to next page.) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3095 Document: 010110016231 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 2 
Burger King then timely appealed to the district court. 

After an adverse ruling, Burger King attempted to file a motion in 

the district court to alter or amend the judgment and for 

recons·ideration ostensibly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, 

Burger King later learned that Local Rule 710(a)(8) 4 eliminated 

motions for rehearing in bankruptcy proceedings "unless the 

district judge shall grant leave to file a motion for rehearing." 

Burger King then filed a motion for an order granting leave to 

file a motion for rehearing. Covering yet another base, Burger 

King filed its Notice of Appeal to this court. Two weeks later, 

the district court denied Burger King's motion for leave to file a 

motion for rehearing under Local Rule 710(a)(8) and struck from 

the record the earlier motion to alter or amend. 

The result of the district court's application of the local 

rule frustrates our jurisdiction. Moreover, the local rule 

constitutes an impermissible alteration of the rules of appellate 

procedure. 

Under 28 u.s.c. § 2075, the Supreme Court is given "the power 

to prescribe" bankruptcy rules of practice and procedure which 

"shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right." 28 

u.s.c. § 2075. While Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015 permits some 

(Continued from prior page.) 

this Court's local rules time after time and has sorely tested 

this judge's patience." 

4Effective January 1, 1989, the local rules were revised. Local 

Rule 810(a)(8), in effect when Burger King sought rehearing, was 

redesignated Local Rule 710(a)(8) although the provisions remain 

identical. However, we shall refer to the rule as Local Rule 

710(a)(8) in this opinion to avoid confusion. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3095 Document: 010110016231 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 3 
discretion in setting time limits for filing a motion for 

rehearing, 5 Local Rule 710(a)(8) substantively alters the right 

itself, giving the district court discretion to decide whether a 

motion is permitted at all. Clearly, the local rule is 

inconsistent with the bankruptcy 1 d · . l'd 6 

rues an is inva i. 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9029; see Morrissey v. Arnold, 717 F.2d 100, 

104-05 (3d Cir. 1983) (local rule permitting magistrate to hear 

bankruptcy appeal violates 28 u.s.c. § 1334(c) and is invalid). 

The district court's imposition of the invalid local rule 

proscribing the motion for rehearing effectively frustrates our 

jurisdiction. By virtue of the provisions of Fed. R. App. P. 

6(b)(2)(i) and 4(a)(4), notices to alter or amend judgment stay 

the time for appeal to this· court. Thus, whether Burger King had 

proceeded under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

8015, the time for appeal has not yet run in the district court. 

Moreover, Rule 4(a)(4), made applicable in bankruptcy proceedings 

by Fed. R. App. P. 6(b)(l)(i), provides that a notice of appeal 

filed before disposition of a Rule 59(e) or Rule 8015 motion 

"shall have no effect." 

5 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015 states: 

Unless the district court or the bankruptcy 

appellate panel by local rule or by court order 

otherwise provides, a motion for rehearing may be filed 

within 10 days after entry of the judgment of the 

district court or the bankruptcy appellate panel. If a 

timely motion for rehearing is filed, the time for 

appeal to the court of appeals for all parties shall run 

from the entry of the order denying rehearing or the 

entry of a subsequent judgment. 

6

A similar local rule eliminating motions for rehearing 

questioned in In re Atencio, 913 F.2d 814 (10th Cir. 1990). 

-4-

was 

Appellate Case: 89-3095 Document: 010110016231 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 4 
Consequently, the notice of appeal filed by Burger King is 

invalid, and this appeal is premature. We are without 

jurisdiction under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). In re Shah, 859 F.2d 

1463 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). 

Th 1 ' d' ' d 7 e appea is ismisse. We remand the case for the 

district court to rule on the merits of Burger King's motion under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

DISMISSED. 

7

Given this disposition, Mr. Wilkinson's appeal under Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(3) is also dismissed. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-3095 Document: 010110016231 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 5