UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: GREG MATTHEW ROLLISON, Debtor.

----------------- ---------------- ------------- KELVIN KNAUB; HOLLY KNAUB, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. GREG MATTHEW ROLLISON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 13-1503 (BAP No. 13-028-CO) (BAP)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HOLMES , ANDERSON , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
Kelvin and Holly Knaub appeal from a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) reversing the bankruptcy c ourt’s damages order and remanding for

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mate rially assist the de termination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 9, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - further proceedings. Concerned that this court lacked jurisdiction, we asked the parties to file briefs on whether the BAP’s decision was final and appealable. The Knaubs have done so; the a ppellee, debtor Greg Matthe w Rollison, has filed a notice of nonparticipation. Havi ng reviewed the matter, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. The bankruptcy court conducted a bifurc ated trial in an adversary proceeding that the Knaubs filed against Mr. Rollison. In the merits phase, the court determined that Mr. Rollison’s debt to the Knaubs wa s nondischargeable because it was based on false representations he ma de in 2007 regarding his ab ility to build a replacement home for one he had built for them in 2003, which had serious defects. The court then ruled against Mr. Rollison regarding th e legal standard by which to measure the Knaubs’ damages, concluding that the “benef it of the bargain” rule applied, not the “out of pocket” rule. Thereaf ter, the parties sti pulated that under the “benefit of the bargain” rule, the amount of damages was $162,000—the difference between the defective house’s value at the time of pur chase and the amount the Knaubs actually paid for it. The bankruptcy court en tered a damages order in that amount. Mr. Rollison appealed the damages or der to the BAP. The BAP concluded that the proper measure of damages was the “out of pocket” met hod, which concerns damages arising after—and proximately ca used by—Mr. Rollison’s promise in 2007 to build them a new house. By way of example, the BA P posited that the Knaubs might be able to recover damages for losses based on their belief and expectation that- 3 - Mr. Rollison would build the new house as promised, such as architect fees, soil tests, or materials purchased for upgrades. Observing th at the bankruptcy court had taken no evidence on the amount of such damages, the BAP remanded for further consideration. The Knaubs then brought this appeal. The Knaubs claim we have jurisdicti on under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), which in relevant part provides that circuit courts have jurisdiction over “all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees ” entered by the BAP. A d ecision is not final if it “remands the case to the bankruptcy judge for significant further proceedings.” State Bank of Spring Hill v. A nderson (In re Bu cyrus Grain Co.) , 905 F.2d 1362, 1365 (10th Cir. 1990) (interna l quotation marks omitted). “A remand for significant further proceedings includes one requiring de novo hearings, add itional findings of fact concerning the dispositive issue in the case, or a dete rmination of the amount of a claim.” Jones v. Jones (In re Jones) , 9 F.3d 878, 879 n.2 ( 10th Cir. 1993). But a decision is considered final “i f the purpose of the remand is to effectuate a ministerial task,” to “conduct additional proceedings in volving little judicial discretion,” or “[i]f the remanded matter is unlikely to spawn an other appeal or affect the issue on appeal” from the remand order. Balcor Pension Investors v. Wiston XXIV Ltd. P’ship (In re Wiston XXIV Ltd. P’ship) , 988 F.2d 1012, 1013 (10th Cir. 1993). The Knaubs argue that the BAP’s rema nd is for the bankruptcy to conduct a ministerial task that requires little j udicial discretion, as was the case in Rubner & Kutner, P.C. v. U.S. Trustee (In re Lederman Enterprises, Inc.) , 997 F.2d 1321- 4 - (10th Cir. 1993), and Williamson v. Jones (In re Montgomery) , 224 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2000). We disagree. In re Lederman involved a remand for the bankruptcy court to recompute a party’s fe es without a twenty percent reduction, 997 F.2d at 1323, and the remand in In re Montgomery required the bankruptcy court to make a “pro rata allocation of [Earned Income Credits] to pre- and post-petition segments of the year in question,” 224 F. 3d at 1194 n.1. The task before the bankruptcy court in this case is to determine an amount of damages for which it has taken no evidence. It does not involve a simp le mathematical calc ulation, as was the case in In re Lederman and In re Montgomery . Instead, it a ppears that the bankruptcy court will need to conduct a de novo proceeding and make additional findings of fact in order to determine the amount of the Knaubs’ damages. The Knaubs have provided nothing from which we can conclude that th e result of that process “is unlikely to sp awn another appeal.” In re Wiston XXIV Ltd. P’ship , 988 F.2d at 1013. In their meri ts brief, they claim that it “will become clear in the argument portion of [the] brief [that] the am ount of the ‘out-of-pocket’ damages is the same as the amount of th e ‘benefit of the bargain da mages.’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. But we see nothing in the ar gument substantiating this contention. For these reasons, we conclude that the BAP’s decision is not final. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction, and this appeal is dismissed. Entered for the Court Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge