Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-00024/USCOURTS-ca10-07-00024-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John A. Tarbell
Appellee
Scott Tarbell
Appellant

Document Text:

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. BAP

L.R. 8018-6(a).

FILED

U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

of the Tenth Circuit

June 27, 2007

Barbara A. Schermerhorn

Clerk NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE JOHN A. TARBELL, also

known as John Alvin Tarbell, also

known as John King, also known as

John Romero,

Debtor.

BAP No. CO-07-024

SCOTT TARBELL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

Bankr. No. 05-47619-ABC

Adv. No. 06-01256-ABC

 Chapter 7

v. ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

JOHN A. TARBELL,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the District of Colorado

Before BOHANON, McNIFF, and THURMAN, Bankruptcy Judges.

THURMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

The parties did not request oral argument, and after examining the briefs

and appellate record, the Court has determined unanimously that oral argument

would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8012. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The single issue in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court abused its

discretion by denying the motion of plaintiff Scott Tarbell (“Appellant”) for relief

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 1 of 7
1 The bankruptcy court docket reflects no other activity in the proceeding

during the ten months between entry of the scheduling order in May and the filing

of the defendant’s disclosures on October 27.

2 Defendant originally filed the same motion on November 3, 2006, in both

this (AP # 06-1256) and a related adversary proceeding (AP # 06-1258). 

However, because the docket number listed on both motions was 06-1258, the

motion in the present case was re-docketed as filed on November 7.

-2-

from the court’s prior order dismissing his adversary proceeding for failure to

prosecute. Because we conclude that it did not, the bankruptcy court order

denying Appellant’s motion is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2006, Appellant filed an adversary proceeding in debtor’s

Chapter 7 bankruptcy case against the debtor (“defendant”), pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(2)(A), alleging that his claim against the debtor should not be

discharged. On May 26, 2006, the bankruptcy court entered a scheduling order

directing the parties to, among other things, make disclosures of witnesses and

exhibits, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), “on or before

thirty (30) days before trial.” By the same order, trial was set for November 28,

2006. As such, pursuant to the terms of the scheduling order, the last day for

filing such disclosures was Friday, October 27, 2006. Although defendant timely

filed his disclosures on that date, Appellant did not.1

 On November 7, 2006,

based on the failure to file disclosures, the defendant moved to dismiss the

adversary proceeding, claiming failure to prosecute.2

Appellant did not file a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

However, on November 8, 2006, twelve days late and 5 days after defendant’s

motion to dismiss had been mailed to him, Appellant’s counsel faxed the required

disclosures to defendant’s counsel. Appellant’s counsel also claims to have

mailed a copy of the disclosures, on the same date, to the bankruptcy court. This

mailing was never received, however, presumably because counsel had mailed it

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 2 of 7
3 This rule is made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.

4 January 15, 2007, was a court holiday.

-3-

in an envelope with no return address and insufficient postage. On November 13,

2006, the bankruptcy court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On

November 27, 2006, Appellant filed a “Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of

Appeal Under Rule 8002,” which was denied on December 7, 2006. On

December 18, 2006, Appellant moved for relief from the dismissal order,

claiming “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).3

 On December 18, 2006, Appellant

filed another motion for extension of time to appeal. The motion for relief and

the second motion for extension were both denied by the bankruptcy court on

January 5, 2007, and Appellant timely moved for an extension of time within

which to appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(c)(2), on

January 16, 2007.4

 Pursuant to the order granting the extension, Appellant timely

filed his notice of appeal on February 5, 2007.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to hear timely-filed appeals from final

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

the parties elects to have the district court hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1),

(b)(1), and (c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002. Because the notice of appeal was

timely filed from a final order denying relief from a judgment of dismissal, and

because neither party to this appeal has elected to have the appeal heard by the

district court, this Court has appellate jurisdiction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Decisions on Rule 60(b) motions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion

standard as set forth in Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994), and

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 3 of 7
-4-

Rule 60(b) relief is intended only to be granted in exceptional circumstances. 

Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576-77 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Moreover, trial courts have substantial discretion in ruling on such motions. 

Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990). Under the

abuse of discretion standard, “a trial court’s decision will not be disturbed unless

the appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a

clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the

circumstances.” Moothart, 21 F.3d at 1504 (quoting McEwen v. City of Norman,

926 F.2d 1539, 1553-54 (10th Cir. 1991)).

DISCUSSION

Rule 60(b)(1) provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the

court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment,

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect[.]” The basis given for Appellant’s motion was

that his counsel had become ill over the weekend of October 28-29, 2006 and, as

a result, did not return to his office until November 7. Upon his return to the

office, counsel for Appellant discovered both the defendant’s disclosures

document and the motion to dismiss. He immediately began preparing

Appellant’s disclosures, which were faxed to the defendant’s counsel the next

day. At the same time, counsel mailed a copy of the disclosures to the bankruptcy

court. However, the disclosure document was not received by the court,

apparently because counsel had mailed the document in a plain white envelope

with no return address, to which he mistakenly applied insufficient postage. 

Counsel contends that, but for his illness, he would have received the defendant’s

disclosures on October 30, would then have realized that he had forgotten to file

Appellant’s disclosures on the date they were due, and would immediately have

drafted and mailed them. In that event, he asserts, the result would have been

only “a three day insubstantial delay.”

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 4 of 7
-5-

The party moving for Rule 60(b) relief has the burden to prove excusable

neglect. Pelican Prod. Corp., 893 F.2d at 1146. Moreover, “[c]arelessness by a

litigant or his counsel does not afford a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Id.;

see also United States v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1162-64 (10th Cir. 2004) (excuse

given for late filing is the most important factor to consider, and counsel’s

mistake in applying the rules is generally not a sufficient excuse); Lang v. Lang

(In re Lang), 414 F.3d 1191, 1194 n.3 (10th Cir. 2005) (argument that court

improperly emphasized inadequate excuse for delay was “meritless”). Given the

bankruptcy court’s “substantial discretion” in determining the merits of such a

motion, this Court’s task is limited to reviewing the record “to see if the trial

judge clearly ignored excusable conduct or failed to recognize some other

compelling reason for relief to be granted.” Pelican Prod. Corp., 893 F.2d at

1146.

In this case, the record reveals that Appellant’s disclosures were not timely

filed, due to neglect by counsel. Then, due to what is described as “a terrible

cough and cold,” counsel did not go to his office for over a week. Upon arriving

back at his office, and aware that a motion to dismiss had been filed, counsel

prepared a disclosure document and faxed it to the defendant’s counsel. 

However, the disclosures were not filed in the bankruptcy court due to counsel’s

mishandling of the mail. Thereafter, counsel apparently made no attempts to

either follow up or otherwise rectify the situation until 19 days later, when he

moved for relief from the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the adversary

proceeding. Significantly, the record fails to show any of the following:

1. Why counsel did not monitor his mail and/or his cases, or have

anyone else do so, while he was ill;

2. Why counsel did not make more of an effort to ensure that the

disclosure document had been filed;

3. Why counsel failed to file any response to the motion to

dismiss;

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 5 of 7
5 The extent of Appellant’s “argument” of these issues in the bankruptcy

court is the statement that “the Court’s Order of Dismissal was entered only five

business days after the motion [to dismiss] was received in Plaintiff’s counsel’s

office and only four days after Plaintiffs [sic] Counsel first saw it.” Motion for

the Court to Relieve the Plaintiff from its Order of September 3, 2006 Dismissing

his Complaint Against the Defendant Pursuant to the Provisions of FRCP 60

Based on Excusable Neglect at ¶ 10, in Appellant Scott Tarbell’s Appendix at 23. 

This statement is simply insufficient to constitute preservation of Appellant’s

claims in this appeal.

-6-

4. Why counsel’s contact with defendant’s counsel and/or the

court about either the disclosures or the motion to dismiss was

limited to faxing the untimely disclosure document; and

5. Why it took 14 days after the case was dismissed for counsel

to file a Rule 60(b) motion.

Thus, what the record reflects is simple neglect, rather than “excusable neglect.” 

The bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Appellant failed to meet his burden to

prove that counsel’s neglect was excusable does not constitute an abuse of

discretion.

In addition to excusable neglect, Appellant also argues that: (1) he was not

given sufficient time to respond to the motion to dismiss prior to entry of the

dismissal order; (2) defendant’s counsel failed to confer with Appellant’s counsel

prior to filing his motion to dismiss, in violation of local rules; and (3) that the

bankruptcy court erred by not setting a briefing schedule with respect to the

motion. However, none of these issues was raised in Appellant’s motion for

relief from the dismissal,5

 and this Court will not generally consider issues that

are raised for the first time on appeal. See In re Vaughan, 311 B.R. 573, 584

(10th Cir. BAP 2004). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to

consider these arguments.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Appellant has failed to

show that the denial of his motion for Rule 60(b) relief was an abuse of

discretion. The bankruptcy court’s January 5, 2007 “Order Denying Rule 60

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 6 of 7
-7-

Motion and Order Denying Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice

of Appeal” is therefore affirmed.

BAP Appeal No. 07-24 Docket No. 29 Filed: 06/27/2007 Page: 7 of 7