Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00018/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Natasha Saypol
Appellee
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Appellee
Winship & Winship, P.C.
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

IN RE KAREN W. FORD,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

WINSHIP & WINSHIP, P.C.,

 Appellant,

 v.

NATASHA SAYPOL and WELLS 

FARGO BANK, N.A.,

 Appellees.

BAP No. WY-15-018

Bankr. No. 12-20094

Chapter 7

DISMISSAL ORDER

July 6, 2015

_________________________________

Before THURMAN, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and KARLIN, Bankruptcy Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant Winship & Winship, P.C. appeals from four bankruptcy court orders 

concerning Appellant’s various fee requests as Chapter 11 counsel to Debtor Karen W. 

Ford. Because we conclude that the fee orders are interlocutory, the Court dismisses this 

appeal. 

1. Background

Debtor filed her Chapter 11 petition on February 10, 2012 [Bankr. ECF No. 1] and 

retained Appellant as counsel pursuant to bankruptcy court order entered on March 9, 

2012 [Bankr. ECF No. 21]. On November 19, 2012, Appellant filed its first fee 

application [Bankr. ECF No. 98] for the period February 10, 2012 through November 15, 

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 1 of 6
2

2012. The fee application cover sheet indicated that the application was an “Interim” 

application. The bankruptcy court approved most of those fees by order entered on 

February 13, 2013 [Bankr. ECF No. 223]. 

Appellant filed its second fee application on April 25, 2013 [Bankr. ECF No. 266] 

for the period November 8, 2012 through April 18, 2013.1 The fee application cover 

sheet again indicated that the application was an “Interim” application. The bankruptcy 

court approved in part and denied in part those fees by orders entered on September 3, 

2013 [Bankr. ECF No. 380] and October 21, 2013 [Bankr. ECF No. 385]. Appellant then 

appealed those orders to this Court, which dismissed the appeal because Appellant’s 

second “Interim” fee application was not a final fee application, and thus the related 

orders were not final.

2 The Court noted that Appellant could challenge the orders at issue 

once a final fee order was entered by the bankruptcy court. 

On August 4, 2014, Appellant filed in the bankruptcy court another fee application 

[Bankr. ECF No. 442]. The fee application cover sheet was marked “Final,” but the 

application requested approval of fees only for the period April 23, 2013 through July 9, 

2013. On October 8, 2014, the bankruptcy court entered an order [Bankr. ECF No. 454] 

approving the application in part and awarding most—but not all—of the requested fees. 

 1 The bankruptcy court noticed the overlap between the first and second “Interim” 

fee application periods and ordered Appellant to clear up the confusion. Compliance 

Order on [Second] Application for Approval of Attorney Fees, Case No. 12-20094 

(Bankr. D. Wyo. July 19, 2013), ECF No. 352.

2 See Dismissal Order, BAP Appeal No. CO-13-79 (10th Cir. BAP Nov. 26, 

2013), ECF No. 17. 

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 2 of 6
3

On October 13, 2014, Appellant filed with the bankruptcy court a motion to alter or 

amend that fee order [Bankr. ECF No. 456]. The bankruptcy court denied that request by 

order entered on December 8, 2014 [Bankr. ECF No. 478].

Appellant filed on December 18, 2014 another fee application [Bankr. ECF No. 

480], requesting fees for defending Appellant’s prior fee application and its motion to 

alter or amend. The cover sheet said it was a “Supplemental” application. The 

bankruptcy court denied this supplemental application by order entered on May 15, 2015 

[Bankr. ECF No. 516].

On May 29, 2015, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal [Bankr. ECF No. 518] with 

respect to (a) the bankruptcy court’s September 3, 2013 order [Bankr. ECF No. 380], and 

(b) the bankruptcy court’s May 15, 2015 order denying the supplemental application 

[Bankr. ECF No. 516].

On June 9, 2015, Appellant filed an Amended Notice of Appeal [Bankr. ECF No. 

521] with respect to the same orders covered by the original Notice of Appeal, plus the 

bankruptcy court’s October 8, 2014 order [Bankr. ECF No. 454] and its December 8, 

2014 order [Bankr. ECF No. 478].

2. The fee orders are not final3

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

 3 If the fee orders were final, the Court would have serious doubts about the 

timeliness of Appellant’s appeal with respect to three of the four orders. 

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 3 of 6
4

parties elects to have the district court hear the appeal.4 Orders determining interim fee 

applications are not final for purposes of appeal.5 When determining whether a fee 

application is a final fee application, the Court should consider whether the application 

requested the allowance of all the Chapter 11 fees in the case, whether it was labeled a 

final fee application, whether it requested the fees under Section 330 (for final fee 

applications, as opposed to 331, for interim applications), whether the bankruptcy court 

reviewed the necessity or benefit to the estate of all services rendered in the case, or the 

reasonableness of the total compensation requested in all pending and prior fee requests, 

as is required by Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code, and whether the fee order 

expressly states that it is a final order.6

Several factors indicate that the third fee application was not a final fee 

application. Although the third fee application was marked “Final,” it requested approval 

of fees for only a fraction of the entire period of employment. The third application 

referenced Section 330 (for final fee applications), but so did the first and second fee 

 4 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.

5 In re Cook, 223 B.R. 782, 792 (10th Cir. BAP 1998) (“An order approving 

employment, allowing interim fees, or denying disqualification of a professional is not a 

final, appealable order.”). 

6 In re Paige, 438 B.R. 355 (Table), 2010 WL 3699747, at *8 (10th Cir. BAP 

Sept. 15, 2010).

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 4 of 6
5

applications.

7

 Paragraph 3 of each of the fee applications notes that “no application has 

been filed in the last 120 days”—this 120-day language is found in Section 331, the 

interim compensation section. There is no indication in any of the fee orders that the 

bankruptcy court reviewed the benefit to the estate of all services Appellant rendered 

during the Chapter 11, or the reasonableness of the total compensation requested for the 

entire Chapter 11 case. Finally, the third fee order does not state that it is a final order.

As noted in the prior appeal, this Court can and will review an appealed final fee 

order once the bankruptcy court enters one, but Appellant must first file a true final fee 

application. The orders before us are not final for purposes of appeal. 

3. Exceptional circumstances do not exist to grant leave to appeal the

interlocutory fee orders 

This Court also has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders and

judgments with leave of court.8 Leave should be granted only in exceptional cases where 

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

substantial ground for difference of opinion, and where the immediate resolution of the 

issue will materially advance termination of the litigation.9 

 7 Fee applicants may apply for interim fee awards pursuant Section 331; however, 

Section 330 contains the standards for approving any fee application, and accordingly, 

those two sections must be read together for interim fee requests.

8 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). 

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

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 5 of 6
6

The fee orders do not involve a controlling and disputed question of law,10 and 

immediate resolution of the issues will not materially advance this litigation. Instead, this 

Court should not review the fee disputes until Appellant files a true final fee application 

so that the bankruptcy court can determine the reasonableness of Appellant’s fees and 

expenses for the entire Chapter 11 case.

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 More than one of the fee orders addressed Appellant’s requests for fees for 

defending its fee requests. The Supreme Court’s recent fees-for-defending-fees case will 

control any request by Appellant for final allowance and payment of those fees and 

expenses. See Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015).

BAP Appeal No. 15-18 Docket No. 26 Filed: 07/06/2015 Page: 6 of 6