Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08027/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08027-0/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: EUGENE VICTOR SIMONS and ) 

JEWELL w. SIMONS, also known as Julie, ) 

) 

Debtors . ) 

) 

) 

EUGENE VICTOR SIMONS; JEWELL w. SIMONS, ) 

also known as Julie, } 

} 

Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) No . 

) 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

FILE 0 

Uflited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUL 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

89-8027 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

(D.C. No. C88-0l96-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Stephen R. Winship, Donald R. Winsh ip & Associates, P.C., Casper, 

Wyoming, for Appellants. 

Jeanne R. Lee , Fede ral Deposit Insurance Corporation, Denver, 

Colorado, for Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 89-8027 Document: 01019550211 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 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. 

Debtors appeal from an order of the district court affirming 

the bankruptcy court's denial of confirmation of their proposed 

Chapter 13 reorganization plan. We do not reach the arguments 

advanced by the parties on the merits, however, because we hold we 

lack jurisdiction over this appeal~ See generally In re 

Durability, Inc., 893 F.2d 264, 265 (lOth Cir. l990){bankruptcy 

decision recognizing and following general principle that 

appellate court must determine matter of its own. jurisdiction 

whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking). 

In a bankruptcy case, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § l58(d} 

"limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to reviewing 

final orders from the district court.'' Id. at 265 (quoting In re 

Commercial Contractors, Inc., 771 F.2d 1373, 1374 (10th Cir. 

1985)); see also In re Magic Circle Energy Corp., 889 F.2d 950, 

953 (lOth Cir. l989)(Tenth Circuit has interpreted "final order" 

requirement of section l58(d) in traditional finality terms). 

Since the district court order appealed herein simply affirmed the 

bankruptcy court's decision, we have jurisdiction only if the 

latter may be deemed final for purposes of section l58(d). See In 

re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996, 1000 (11th Cir. 

1982); see, ~, In re Cash Currency Exch., Inc., 762 F.2d 542, 

545-46 (7th Cir. 1985); see also In re Durability, 893 F.2d at 266 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-8027 Document: 01019550211 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
(while nonfinal bankruptcy court order may properly be subject of 

interlocutory appeal to district court pursuant to section l58(a) , 

where district court's subsequent appellate ruling does not alter 

nonfinal character of disposition, court of appeals lacks 

jurisdiction to review matter under section 158 (d)). 

A number of courts have indicated that where the bankruptcy 

court denies or withholds confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 

plan without also dismissing the underlying petition or 

proceeding, its decision is not final for purposes of appeal. 

See, , Maiorino v. Branford Sav. Bank/ 691 F.2d 89, 90-91 (2d 

Cir. 1982); In re Madill, 65 Bankr. 729, 731 (D. Mont. 1986); In 

re Hardy, 30 Bankr. 109, lll (Bkrtcy S.D . Ohio 1983f; cf. In re 

Chinichian, 784 F . 2d 1440 , 1442, 1444 (9th Cir. 1986)(order only 

partially confirming Chapter 1 3 plan nonfinal and, therefore, 

appeal t h erefrom did not divest bankruptcy court of jurisdiction 

to revoke same). But see In re Blanke me y er , 861 F.2d 192, 193 

(8th Cir. 1988)(district court order affirming bankruptcy court's 

rejection of Chapter ll plan characterized as a "final judgment,'' 

without f urther discussion of jurisdictional issue); In re Hardy, 

755 F.2d 75, 76 (6th Cir. 1985)(appeal from rejection of Chapter 

13 plan heard by court of appeals with no acknowledgment of 

jurisdictional problem recognized in related opinion issued by 

bankruptcy court in same case, In re Hardy, 30 Bankr. 109) . This 

approach is entirely consistent with 

regarding finality well-settled in this 

two general principles 

circuit , i.e ., (1) an 

order is not final unless it ends the litigation on the merits, 

leaving nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment, see 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8027 Document: 01019550211 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3 
In re Magic Circle Energy Corp ., 889 F . 2d at 953, and (2) a 

district cou rt order is not final if it contemplates significant 

furt her proceedings in the bankruptcy court, see In re Commercial 

Contra ctors, Inc ., 771 F.2d at 1375 . As the Maiorino cour t 

recognized, sq long as the bankruptcy proceeding itself has not 

been t erminated, the debtor, unsuccessful with one reorganization 

plan , may always propose another plan for the bankruptcy court to 

review for con fi rmation, id. at 91 , a prospect wh ich negates any 

determination of finali ty under both principles cited above. See 

also In re Delta Serv. Indus . , 782 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (5th Cir. 

1986)(citing Maiorino as exampl e of general principle tha t 

"bankruptcy court orders that constitute only a preliminary step 

in some phase of the bank ruptcy proceeding and that do not 

direc tly affect the disposition of the esta te's asse ts [areJ 

interlocutory and not appealable " ); In re Leibinger- Roberts, Inc ., 

92 Bankr. 570, 572-73 (E.D . N.Y. 1988)(same) . 

Accordingly , we hold that the lower courts' den ial of 

confirmation of debtors' proposed reorganization plan is not fina l 

for purposes of appeal under section 158{d). Nor is such a 

disposition appealable under the collateral order exception to the 

final judgment rule, established in Cohen v. Beneficial Industr ial 

Loan CorE·• 337 U. S . 541, 546, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 1225 ~ 913 L . Ed. 

1528 (1949). ''To qual ify for this limited exception , the order 

appealed 

question • 

from 

• • I 

must conclusively 

resolve an important 

determine t he 

issue completely 

disputed 

separate 

from the merits of the action , and be effective l y unreviewable on 

appeal from a final judgment.'' In re Magic Circle Energy Corp ., 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-8027 Document: 01019550211 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 4 
889 F.2d at 954 {citing Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 u.s. 

403, 468, 98 S. Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 {1978)). Moreover, 

''[b]ecause a party seeking to appeal on this basis must show that 

all three requirements of the doctrine are satisfied, we need not 

address each if one is not met.H In re Magic Circle Energy Corp., 

889 F.2d at 954. Here, the matter under review is not 11 completely 

separate" from the substance of the action, but clearly integral 

to it. See generally 11 U.S.C. §§ 1321-1330. Furthermore, the 

rejection of debtors' proposed plan may yet be considered on 

appeal from a final judgment either confirming an alternative 

plan, see, ~, Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 828 

F.2d 1310, 1311-12 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Greseth, 78 Bankr. 936, 

938-39 (D. Minn. 1987): cf. KCC-Leawood Corp. Mann I v. The 

Travelers Ins. Co., NO. 89-0335-CV-W-l, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

10336 at 2, 7-8 {W.O. Mo. Aug. 29, 1989), or dismissing the 

underlying petition or proceeding, see,~, Hazel v. I.R.S., 95 

Bankr. 481, 482 (E.D. Mich. 1988); In re McKinney, 84 Bankr. 751, 

7 5 2 ( D • Ka n • l 9 8 8 ) • 

This appeal is DISMISSED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-8027 Document: 01019550211 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 5