Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00008/USCOURTS-ca10-16-00008-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Always Enterprises, Inc.
Appellee
Chuck Odifu Egbune
Appellant
Douglas B. Kiel
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

CHUCK ODIFU EGBUNE,

 Debtor,

__________________________________

CHUCK ODIFU EGBUNE,

 Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS B. KIEL, Chapter 13 Trustee 

and ALWAYS ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a 

A-1 BAIL BONDS,

 Appellees.

BAP No. CO-16-008

Bankr. No. 11-38127

Chapter 13

ORDER DISMISSING

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

—————————————————

Before NUGENT, JACOBVITZ, and MOSIER, Bankruptcy Judges.

_________________________________

On April 7, 2016, this Court entered the “Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not 

be Dismissed as Interlocutory” (the “Order to Show Cause”), requiring Appellant Chuck Odifu 

Egbune to file with the Court a memorandum of law setting forth Appellant’s position whether 

this appeal is from a final order or whether leave to appeal an interlocutory order should be 

granted. Before the Court is “[Appellant’s] Memorandum in Response to Order to Show Cause”

(the “Response”) [BAP ECF No. 8] and Appellee Always Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a A-1 Bail 

Bonds’ “Reply to Response to Order to Show Cause why Appeal Should not be Dismissed as 

Interlocutory” [BAP ECF No. 19].

Appellant appeals a portion of the bankruptcy court’s “Minutes of Proceeding/Minute 

Order” addressing Appellant’s “Motion for Emergency Order Stopping A-1 Bond’s Foreclosure 

BAP Appeal No. 16-8 Docket No. 22 Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 of 4
Proceeding Pursuant to Section 105(a), Section 362 and for Sanctions Against A-1 for Violating 

the Order Confirming the Chapter 13 Plan and Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code and a 

Request for Expedited Ruling of Same” (the “Injunction Motion”) entered on March 3, 2016 (the 

“Minute Order”) [Bankr. ECF No. 218]. The relevant portion of the Minute Order provides: 

The “Debtor’s Motion for an Emergency Order Stopping A-1 Bond’s Foreclosure 

Proceeding Pursuant to Section 105(a), Section 362 and for Sanctions against A-1 

for Violating the Order Confirming the Chapter 13 Plan and Section 524 of the 

Bankruptcy Code and a Request for Expedited Ruling of Same” (Docket No. 213) 

is DENIED to the extent that the Debtor seeks a ruling that Always violated the 

automatic stay (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)) by filing a foreclosure action the day after 

entry of the Order of Discharge (Docket No. 170). . . . The Court will defer ruling 

on all other issues raised in the Motion for Emergency Order until after Always 

Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a A-1 Bonds has had an opportunity to file a response and a 

Certificate of Contested Matter, if any, is filed.1

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

decrees . . . entered in cases and proceedings” of bankruptcy courts within the Tenth Circuit, 

unless one of the parties elects to have the district court hear the appeal.2

 “Generally, an order is 

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

judgment.”3 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.’”4

In the Response, Appellant asserts that the Minute Order is a final order in that it is akin 

to orders granting relief from the automatic stay, which are generally considered final and 

1 Minute Order at 2. [Bankr. ECF No. 218]. 

2 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.

3 Adelman v. Fourth Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., N.A. (In re Durability, Inc.), 893 F.2d 264, 

265 (10th Cir. 1990).

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

Bank, 893 F.2d at 266).

2

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-8 Docket No. 22 Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2 of 4
appealable.5

 Appellant further asserts that the Minute Order denied his request for an injunction 

preventing Appellee from continuing foreclosure proceedings against Appellant’s residence. 

However, the Minute Order does not grant relief from the automatic stay, but merely 

confirms that the automatic stay was not in effect at the time that Appellee commenced its 

foreclosure action. Therefore, to the extent Appellant sought sanctions for violation of the 

automatic stay, sanctions were not warranted. Furthermore, the Minute Order states in plain 

language that the “Court will defer ruling on all other issues raised” in Appellant’s motion until 

such time as Appellee has had an opportunity to respond and a Certificate of Contested Matter is 

filed.

6

 Review of the bankruptcy court docket indicates that Appellee filed an objection to the 

Injunction Motion, but that the bankruptcy court has not heard or entered a ruling on the 

Injunction Motion and objection thereto to date.7 Therefore, Appellant’s assertion that the 

bankruptcy court denied his request for an injunction is incorrect. Accordingly, the portions of 

the Minute Order addressing the Injunction Motion are not final and this Court lacks jurisdiction 

to hear the appeal. 

In the Response, Appellant also asserts that “Section 1292” authorizes this Court to hear 

the appeal.8 While not explicitly stated, the Court must presume Appellant refers to 28 U.S.C. § 

1292(a), which provides the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from 

“[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or 

dissolving injunctions . . . .”9 However, this Court has previously held that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) 

5 Rajala v. Gardner, 709 F.3d 1031, 1034 (10th Cir. 2013) (“The grant or denial of relief 

from an automatic stay is generally an appealable final order.”) (citing Franklin Sav. Ass’n v. 

Office of Thrift Supervision, 31 F.3d 1020, 1022 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1994)). 

6 Minute Order at 2. [Bankr. ECF No. 218]. 

7 See Objection to Debtor’s Motion for Emergency Order Stopping A-1 Bond’s 

Foreclosure Proceeding Pursuant to Section 105(a), Section 362 and for Sanctions Against A-1 

for Violating the Order Confirming the Chapter 13 Plan and Section 524 of the Bankruptcy Code 

and a Request for Expedited Ruling of Same filed March 15, 2016 [Bankr. ECF No. 227].

8 Response at 3. [BAP ECF No. 8]. 

9 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 

3

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-8 Docket No. 22 Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 3 of 4
“does not apply to appeals from a bankruptcy court to a bankruptcy appellate panel or a district 

court, which are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 158.”10

Finally, Appellant asserts that this Court may invoke jurisdiction by granting leave to

hear an appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). “Leave to hear 

appeals from interlocutory orders should be granted with discrimination and reserved for cases of 

exceptional circumstances.”11 Such “interlocutory orders must involve a controlling question of 

law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and the immediate 

resolution of the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”12 The 

issue in this appeal does not satisfy this standard. 

Accordingly, leave to appeal an interlocutory order is denied.

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

1. BAP Appeal CO-16-008 is DISMISSED.

2. All deadlines previously set in BAP Appeal CO-16-008 appeal are VACATED.

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter an order setting briefing deadlines in BAP Appeal CO16-006.

For the Panel:

Blaine F. Bates 

Clerk of Court 

10 Alliant Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Larson (In re Larson), 466 B.R. 147, 149 n. 4 (10th Cir. 

BAP 2012). 

11 Personette v. Kennedy (In re Midgard Corp.), 204 B.R. 764, 770 (10th Cir. BAP 1997).

12 Id. 

4

 

BAP Appeal No. 16-8 Docket No. 22 Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 4 of 4