Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00007/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary A. Barney
Appellee
Robert M. Lane
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

IN RE ROBERT M. LANE, also known as 

Bob Lane,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

ROBERT M. LANE, 

 Appellant,

 v.

GARY A. BARNEY, Chapter 7 Trustee,

 Appellee.

BAP No. WY-15-007

Bankr. No. 11-20398

Chapter 7

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

February 25, 2015

_________________________________

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

_________________________________

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Appellee Gary A. 

Barney, the Chapter 7 trustee for the bankruptcy estate of the debtor and Appellant

Robert M. Lane. The Court has considered the motion, the Opposition filed by Lane, and 

the Reply filed by the trustee. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted and this 

appeal is dismissed.

1. Background

After entering a first sanctions judgment against Lane that was not appealed, the 

bankruptcy court entered an opinion (BK docket no. 1235) and judgment (BK docket no. 

1236) (a) granting the trustee’s second motion for contempt sanctions; (b) finding Lane in 

BAP Appeal No. 15-7 Docket No. 24 Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

contempt for violations of prior court orders authorizing the sale of estate property; (c) 

continuing previous filing restrictions against Lane to prevent baseless filings; (d) 

declaring a lis pendens filed by Lane in real property records to be null and void; and (e) 

requiring the trustee to file a bill of costs under Federal Civil Rule 54 within twenty-one 

days “for a determination of monetary sanction.”

The bankruptcy court denied Lane’s motion for reconsideration, and Lane 

appealed the contempt judgment. The trustee filed his bill of costs, but the bankruptcy 

court has not yet entered a monetary sanction against Lane. The trustee filed the subject 

motion to dismiss Lane’s appeal, arguing that the contempt judgment is not a final 

judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) because the bankruptcy court has 

not entered a monetary sanction against Lane, and that exceptional circumstances do not 

exist to grant leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). 

We agree.

2. The contempt judgment is not a final judgment

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 The Tenth Circuit has concluded 

that an appeal from an award of sanctions or attorney’s fees may not be taken until the 

amount has been determined because an order granting a motion for fees is not 

sufficiently definite to be capable of enforcement and thus is not considered a final order. 

 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.

BAP Appeal No. 15-7 Docket No. 24 Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

The court also wanted to avoid piecemeal appeals: one questioning liability for fees and 

one questioning the amount of fees. Phelps v. Washburn Univ. of Topeka, 807 F.2d 153, 

154 (10th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment entered dismissing civil rights action; 

subsequent order awarding—but not quantifying—fees for defendants was interlocutory). 

See also Roth v. Green, 123 Fed.Appx. 871 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (no 

jurisdiction over appeal from order granting defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions in 

civil rights suit because district court had not entered order determining sanctions amount 

awarded to certain defendants).2

The second contempt judgment against Lane is not a final judgment because it is 

not sufficiently definite for enforcement absent a quantification of fees. In addition, 

dismissal will avoid piecemeal appeals: one by Lane questioning liability for fees and 

one questioning the amount of fees. Lane’s rights will be preserved because he can file a 

notice of appeal after a final judgment is entered quantifying the fee award, and that 

appeal can address both liability for fees and quantification of fees.

 2 Prior appeals to this Court involving final contempt orders with unresolved fee 

awards are factually distinguishable. Armstrong v. Rushton (In re Armstrong), 304 B.R. 

432, 434–35 (10th Cir. BAP 2004) (contempt order was final despite unresolved fee 

amount where monetary sanction—separate and apart from fees—gave the order required 

finality); Standard Indus., Inc. v. Aquila Inc. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), 431 B.R. 307, 

2009 WL 4894278 at *2 n.11, *3 (10th Cir. BAP 2009) (unpublished) (contempt order 

was final despite unresolved fee amount where order stated it was a final order and stated 

there was no just reason for delay, as permitted by Federal Civil Rule 54(b)), aff’d, 625 

F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2010).

BAP Appeal No. 15-7 Docket No. 24 Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

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

interlocutory contempt judgment

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

judgments with leave of court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). 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. 

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

The appealed contempt judgment does not involve a controlling and disputed 

question of law, and immediate resolution of the issue will not materially advance this 

litigation; instead, piecemeal appeals (one involving liability for fees and one involving 

quantification of fees) will complicate what is essentially one dispute. 

For the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to 

Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

For the Panel

Blaine F. Bates

Clerk of Court

BAP Appeal No. 15-7 Docket No. 24 Filed: 02/25/2015 Page: 4 of 4