Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00034/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn Paul Christiansen
Not Party
Lisa Christine Christiansen
Appellee
Infinity Plus, LLC
Appellee
Loreley Jean Pelino
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

IN RE LORELEY JEAN PELINO,

 Debtor.

_________________________________

LORELEY JEAN PELINO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LISA CHRISTINE CHRISTIANSEN and 

INFINITY PLUS, LLC,

 Defendants - Appellees,

GLENN PAUL CHRISTIANSEN,

 Defendant.

BAP No. WO-15-034

Bankr. No. 12-14398

Adv. No. 13-01050

Chapter 13

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AS 

INTERLOCUTORY

October 14, 2015

_________________________________

Appellant Loreley Jean Pelino appeals from the Memorandum Opinion and Order

(“Opinion”) [Bankr. ECF No. 136] and Judgment [Bankr. ECF No. 137] entered by the 

bankruptcy court on August 28, 2015. The Opinion dismisses the claims brought by 

Appellant in an adversary proceeding against Appellees Lisa Christine Christiansen and 

Infinity Plus, LLC. Because we find the Opinion is not a final determination as to all of 

Appellant’s claims or all defendants in the adversary proceeding, the Court dismisses this 

appeal. 

BAP Appeal No. 15-34 Docket No. 13 Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Appellant filed a Chapter 13 petition on August 31, 2012. On June 1, 2013, 

Appellant filed an adversary proceeding against Appellees Lisa Christine Christiansen, 

Infinity Plus, LLC, and Defendant Glenn Paul Christiansen alleging four causes of action. 

First, Appellant claimed pre-petition transfers of her residence and personal property to 

Appellees and Defendant were fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a). Next, 

Appellant sought a determination of the rightful owner of the real and personal property

and entry of a declaratory judgment. Third, Appellant sought an order requiring turnover 

of the real and personal property to the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542. 

Finally, Appellant sought sanctions for violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 362 for Appellees’ continued possession of property of the estate after the 

petition date. 

This Court has jurisdiction to hear timely filed appeals from “final judgments, 

orders, and decrees” of bankruptcy courts within the Tenth Circuit, unless one of the 

parties elects to have the district court hear the appeal.1 “Generally, an order is final if it 

ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute 

judgment.”2

The Notice of Appeal lists only Lisa Christine Christiansen and Infinity Plus, LLC 

as appellees and does not include Defendant Glenn Paul Christiansen in the appeal. In 

 1 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002, 8005; 10th Cir.

BAP L.R. 8005-1.

2 Adelman v. Fourth Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., N.A. (In re Durability, Inc.), 893 F.25 

264, 265 (10th Cir. 1990).

BAP Appeal No. 15-34 Docket No. 13 Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

the Opinion, the bankruptcy court intentionally limited its findings to the Appellees. The 

bankruptcy court stated:

Defendant Glen [sic] Christiansen was served with process but has never 

entered an appearance in the case. [Appellant] has not yet moved for 

default against him, and the Court is not at this time entering judgment 

against him nor dismissing him from the case. The Court reserves ruling on 

the disposition of any claims against him.3

The accompanying Judgment is also entered only against Appellees and does not include

Defendant Glenn Paul Christiansen. Accordingly, based on the bankruptcy court’s 

express reservation of the disposition of the claims against Defendant Glenn Paul 

Christiansen, the Opinion and Judgment are not final.

Furthermore, the Opinion makes specific findings and conclusions as to claims 

one, three, and four but does not make findings or conclusions as to claim two for 

determination of the rightful owner of the property and declaratory judgment. The 

Judgment is entered in accordance with the findings and conclusions contained in the 

Opinion and, therefore, it is not a declaratory judgment against Appellees Lisa Christine 

Christiansen and Infinity Plus, LLC.

4

 Accordingly, because neither the Opinion nor the 

 3 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 n.1, Pelino v. Christiansen (In re Pelino), 

(Bankr. W. Okla. Aug. 28, 2015) (No. 13-01050) Bankr. ECF No. 136.

4 Appellee states that appellant abandoned claim two at trial. Response to PlaintiffAppellant’s Motion to Schedule Trial, 2, BAP ECF No. 8. Upon review of the record, it is 

not clear whether Appellant affirmatively abandoned claim two. Appellant appears to 

dispute abandonment as she has filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to set the matter 

for trial. Regardless of the outcome of the dispute on the alleged abandonment of claim 

two in the bankruptcy court, because the Opinion failed to dispose of the claims as to 

Glenn Paul Christiansen, it remains interlocutory. 

BAP Appeal No. 15-34 Docket No. 13 Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

Judgment appear to adjudicate claim two or end the litigation on the merits, the Opinion 

and Judgment are not final.5

For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This Appeal is DISMISSED.

2. All deadlines previously set in this Appeal are VACATED.

For the Panel

Blaine F. Bates

Clerk of Court

 5 In Plaintiff-Appellant’s Response to Order to Show Cause, Appellant states she 

will “seek a final judgment from the trial court as to all claims and all parties.” Pl.-

Appellant’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, 2, BAP ECF No. 5. Accordingly, this Court 

must conclude Appellant does not seek leave to appeal the interlocutory Opinion or 

Judgment.

BAP Appeal No. 15-34 Docket No. 13 Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 4 of 4