Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00029/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lola Brown
Appellee
Duane H. Gillman
Appellee
Susie Grace Whiting
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

IN RE THERON WHITING (deceased) 

and SUSIE GRACE WHITING,

 Debtors.

__________________________________

SUSIE GRACE WHITING

 Appellant,

v.

DUANE H. GILLMAN, former Chapter 11 

Trustee, and LOLA BROWN,

 Appellees.

BAP No. UT-15-029

Bankr. No. 03-27493

Chapter 11

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AS 

INTERLOCUTORY

September 21, 2015

_________________________________

Before NUGENT, JACOBVITZ, and HALL, Bankruptcy Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant Susie Grace Whiting appeals from a bankruptcy court order reopening

her Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to determine the estate’s interest in certain real property,

authorizing the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, and deferring payment of the filing 

fee. Because we conclude the order is not a final order, the Court dismisses this appeal.

I. Background

Appellant and Theron Whiting, Appellant’s deceased spouse, filed a pro se 

petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on April 29, 2003

[Bankr. ECF No. 1]. On January 13, 2004, the bankruptcy court ordered the appointment 

of a Chapter 11 trustee [Bankr. ECF No. 120] after conducting an evidentiary hearing on 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 1 of 6
a creditor’s motion to convert the case to Chapter 7 or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. 

Appellant did not file a timely appeal of the order appointing a Chapter 11 trustee. The 

bankruptcy court confirmed a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization on May 25, 2004 

[Bankr. ECF No. 258] and closed the case on April 12, 2006 after entry of the Final 

Decree [Bankr. ECF No. 858]. On June 23, 2015, the Chapter 11 trustee filed the Motion 

for Order to Reopen Case, For Order to Appoint Chapter 11 Trustee, and Defer Filing 

Fee (“Motion to Reopen”) [Bankr. ECF No. 862]. On July 31, 2015, the bankruptcy 

court entered an order reopening the case for the limited purpose of determining the 

estate’s interest in certain real property, authorizing the appointment of a Chapter 11 

trustee, and deferring payment of the filing fee. (“Reopening Order”) [Bankr. ECF No. 

871]. 

On August 10, 2015, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal [Bankr. ECF No. 874] of 

the Reopening Order. 

II. Jurisdictional Basis

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 the 

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

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 2 of 6
judgment.”2 Furthermore, “[i]n the bankruptcy context we apply the general rule to ‘the 

particular adversary proceeding or discrete controversy pursued within the broader 

framework cast by the petition.’”3

Applying these principles to the instant appeal, we determine that the decretal

provisions of the Reopening Order are, individually and collectively, interlocutory.

a. Reopening the Case is Interlocutory 

When reviewing an order reopening a bankruptcy case for finality, relevant 

precedent requires inquiry into the facts surrounding the reopening.4 In light of this 

requirement, the Court will look to the findings made by the bankruptcy court to 

determine whether the Reopening Order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves 

nothing for the bankruptcy court to do but execute judgment. 

The Reopening Order states “it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is 

GRANTED and the case is hereby REOPENED; and it is further; ORDERED that the 

case is reopened for the specific purpose of determining the estate’s interest in the real 

property identified in the Motion and the proper disposition of such property . . . .5

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

264, 265 (10th Cir. 1990).

3 In re Faragalla, 422 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Adelman v. 

Fourth Nat’l Bank, 893 F.2d at 266).

4 Compare In re Woods, 215 B.R. 623, 624-25 (10th Cir. BAP 1998) (indicating

review of an order to reopen a case to effectuate the sale of property after the case 

inadvertently closed was interlocutory); with Watson v. Parker, 264 B.R. 685, (10th Cir. 

BAP 2001) (finding an order that reopened a bankruptcy case and found no basis for a 

creditor to argue a claim was not discharged is a final order). 

5 Order Granting Motion for Reopening Case, For Order to Appoint Chapter 11 

Trustee, and to Defer Filing Fee at 2-3 in Appellant’s App. at 5.

3

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 3 of 6
The bankruptcy court plainly states the purpose of reopening the case is to 

determine the estate’s interest in real property while stating that such a 

determination was not being made through the Reopening Order. Accordingly, 

the Reopening Order does not end the litigation on the merits or resolve all issues 

and leave nothing for the bankruptcy court to do but execute judgment. Therefore, 

the decretal portion of the Reopening Order that reopens the case is interlocutory. 

b. Authorizing the Appointment of a Trustee is Interlocutory 

Appellant also argues that the instruction to the United States Trustee to appoint a 

Chapter 11 trustee is a final order. While an appeal of an order appointing a Chapter 11 

trustee is generally considered a final, appealable order “because appellate review of a 

decision appointing a trustee cannot be meaningfully postponed until the end of the entire 

Chapter 11 proceeding,” cases supporting this proposition are limited to situations where 

the appointment is made on the merits and leaves no room for further adjudication.6

 

The Reopening Order does not fall within this category, however, as it merely 

directed and authorized the United States Trustee (“UST”) to appoint a Chapter 11 

Trustee. The UST’s appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is subject to approval of the 

6 Orbit Petroleum, Inc. v. Unsecured Creditors Comm. (In re Orbit Petroleum, 

Inc.), 421 B.R. 602, Nos. NM-08-098, 08-10408-m11, 2009 WL 2233104 at *2 (10th Cir.

BAP 2009) (finding appeal from order appointing Chapter 11 trustee and order denying 

motion to vacate the order appointing Chapter 11 trustee is an appeal of a final order); In 

re Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 69 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding district 

court’s appointment of trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) was a final order 

because otherwise appeal would be unavailable until after plan confirmation).

4

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 4 of 6
Court and not operative until so approved.7 After entry of the order from which

Appellant has taken an appeal, Appellant still had the opportunity to object to the 

appointment of the Chapter 11 trustee the UST selected. Therefore, the decretal portion 

of the Reopening Order that provides for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee is 

interlocutory. 

c. Deferring Payment of the Filing Fee is Interlocutory

The bankruptcy court “may defer payment of the fee by a trustee pending 

discovery of additional assets. If payment is deferred, the fee should be waived if no 

additional assets are discovered.”8

 The bankruptcy court determined the case should be 

reopened to determine the estate’s interest in the real property purportedly administered

previously in the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court cannot decide whether payment 

of the filing fee should be waived until it determines whether the real property is an asset 

of the estate. Therefore, the decretal portion of the Reopening Order that defers payment 

of the filing fee is also interlocutory.

d. Exceptional Circumstances Do Not Exist to Grant Leave to Appeal the 

Interlocutory Order

This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders and 

judgments with leave of court.9

 Leave should be granted only in exceptional cases where 

the appealed order or judgment involves a controlling question of law for which there is

7 See 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2007.1(c); 7 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 

1104.02[6] (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds.,16th ed.).

8 28 U.S.C. § 1930.

9 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).

5

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 5 of 6
substantial ground for difference of opinion, and where the immediate resolution of the 

issue will materially advance termination of the litigation.10

The Reopening Order does not involve a controlling and disputed question of law 

and immediate resolution of the issues presented in the order will not materially advance 

the determination of the estate’s interest in the real property. The ultimate issue in this 

appeal is a question of fact that must first be finally resolved by the lower court. 

Therefore, leave to appeal the interlocutory order is not justified.

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

10 In re Fox, 241 B.R. 224, 232 (10th Cir. BAP 1999).

6

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-29 Docket No. 22 Filed: 09/21/2015 Page: 6 of 6