Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-00070/USCOURTS-ca10-09-00070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Willard DuVall
Appellant
Renee Lynn DuVall
Appellant
Elizabeth C. Michalski
Appellee
Stanley M. Michalski
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE JAMES WILLARD DUVALL,

also known as Jim DuVall, also known

as James W. DuVall, and RENEE

LYNN DUVALL, also known as Renee

Lynn Terry, also known as Renee Lynn

Terry DuVall,

Debtors.

BAP No. CO-09-070

STANLEY M. MICHALSKI and

ELIZABETH C. MICHALSKI,

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

Bankr. No. 08-20388

Adv. No. 08-01527

 Chapter 7

v. ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

JAMES WILLARD DUVALL and

RENEE LYNN DUVALL,

Defendants – Appellants.

January 28, 2010

Before CORNISH, Chief Judge, MICHAEL, and NUGENT, Bankruptcy Judges.

The matters before the Court are: 1) Response to Courts 2 Orders to Show

Cause by Plaintiffs filed by Appellants James Willard DuVall and Renee Lynn

DuVall (“Appellants”) on December 31, 2009; 2) Motion for Official

Investigation Request filed by Appellants on December 31, 2009; 3) Response

and Objection to Appellees’ Motion for Leave to File Response Instanter to

Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Responses to Notice of Deficiency and

Orders to Show Cause, and accompanying Affidavit, filed by Appellants on

BAP Appeal No. 09-70 Docket No. 26 Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 1 of 3
1 This Court takes judicial notice that, with the exception of the Response to

Court’s 2 Orders to Show Cause, Appellants filed copies of the Motions,

captioned for the bankruptcy court, in the bankruptcy court on the same dates.

2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is made applicable to bankruptcy

proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.

-2-

December 31, 2009; and 4) Motion to End and Dismiss filed by Appellants on

January 19, 2010 (the “Motions”).1

Appellants filed this appeal on November 17, 2009, seeking to appeal the

bankruptcy court’s order dated November 2, 2009, which denied Appellants’

“Motion of Response and Objection to Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and Defendants Attorney Appointment Request.” The bankruptcy court

treated the motion as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b),2

 whereby Appellants sought relief from the October 9, 2009, order which

granted partial summary judgment against Appellants.

On November 18, 2009, this Court entered an Order to Show Cause why

this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, and an Order to Show Cause why

this appeal should not be dismissed as interlocutory. Appellants sought and were

granted an extension of time to respond to these Orders, and then filed the

Motions presently before the Court.

This Court has reviewed the Motions and determined that this appeal must

be dismissed as interlocutory. In its October 9, 2009, order, the bankruptcy court 

granted summary judgment against Appellants on Appellees’ claims under 11

U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2) and 523(a)(6), but denied summary judgment against

Appellants to the extent that the record before the court did not allow it to

determine damages. The bankruptcy court specifically stated that the amount of

nondischargeable damages remained an issue to be established at trial.

This Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders, final collateral

orders, and, with leave of court, interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158;

BAP Appeal No. 09-70 Docket No. 26 Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 2 of 3
-3-

Personette v. Kennedy (In re Midgard Corp.), 204 B.R. 764, 768 (10th Cir. BAP

1997). An order is considered final if it “‘ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” Quackenbush v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324

U.S. 229, 233 (1945)).

Orders that determine liability but reserve the assessment of damages for

trial are not final orders. See McKinney v. Gannet Co., Inc., 694 F.2d 1240, 1246

(10th Cir. 1982). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal

or rule on any of the filed Motions. ACCORDINGLY, it is HEREBY ORDERED

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

 For the Panel:

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 09-70 Docket No. 26 Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 3 of 3