1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases

on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30344

Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: LEONARD O. PARKER, JR.,

Debtor.

LEONARD O. PARKER,

Appellant,

VERSUS

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

( 94-CV-2503 R )

October 26, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant Leonard O. Park er, Jr. sought confirmation of his

proposed Chapter 13 plan in bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court

denied confirmation, finding that the plan impermissibly modified2

Appellee Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s secured claim in

violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). Appellant appeals the

d istrict court’s affirmation of the bankruptcy court’s decision.

We dismiss for lack of jurisdicti on. The bankruptcy court’s

judgment is not final. Therefore, we, and the district court, lack

jurisdiction.

FACTS

Appellant and his wife purchased a residence. To finance the

purchase, the Parkers obt ained a personal loan from Federal Home

Loan Mortgage Corporation.

Years later Mr. Parker sought relief from the bankruptcy court

under Chapter 13. Federal Home filed a proof of claim for

$90,58 4.64, which included the principal due on the mortgage on

Parker’s property, past due payments, foreclosure costs advances,

property tax advances, late charges, a nd attorney’s fees.

Appellant’s plan proposed to reduce Federal Home’s secured claim to

t he fair market value of the property (approximately $70,000),

decrease the interest rate, reduce the monthly payments, extinguish

Mrs. Parker’s liability on the Note and Mortgage, and transfer Mrs.

Parker’s interest in the Property to Mr. Parker.

Federal Home and the Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the plan,

claiming that it impermissibly mo dified the secured claim in

violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). The bankruptcy court denied

confirmation and the district court affirmed holding that pursuant

to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), Appellant could n ot modify Federal

Home’s claim2 The bankruptcy and district courts addressed Appellant's

arguments that Federal Homes' mortgage may be modified under 11

U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) because his property serves the dual purpose of

residence and office space and because his personal liability was

discharged in the Chapter 7 proceeding, leaving only an in rem obligation.

3 DISCUSSION

Parker raised in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and

raised before us, three arguments in favor of modifying Federal

Home’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). Although the bankruptcy

and district courts addressed the merits of two of Appellant’s

claims, 2 one potentially dispositive issue remains.

Appellant argue s that the advances made by Federal Home to

pay property taxes and foreclos ure costs constitute additional

security interests that remove Federal Home’s claim from the scope

of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b )(2). Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits

modification of “a claim secured only by a security interest in

real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” Appellant

contends that the advancements are not secured by the debtor’s

residence, thereby divesting Federal Home of its section 1322(b)(2)

protection.

Because neither the bankruptcy court nor district court

considered this issue, and the case was not dismissed by the

bankruptcy court, their judgments are not final and we do not have

appellate juris diction. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) governs bankruptcy

appeals from the district court to th e court of appeals. We can

review on ly final judgments entered by district courts reviewing

bankruptcy orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a),3 Although 28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides interpretive guidance,

courts view finality more flexibly under section 158(d) than under

section 1291. I n re Delta Servs. Indus.

, 782 F.2d at 1269. Under

section 1291, a judgment that does not dispose of all issues in a

case is not final. B rown v. New Orleans Clerks and Checkers Union

Local No. 1497 , 590 F.2d 161, 163-64 (5th Cir. 1979).

4 district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals only from final

orders of bankruptcy judges. We therefore have jurisdiction only

if the underlying bankruptc y court order was final. S ee In re

Delta Servs. Indus ., 782 F.2d 1267, 1268 (5th Cir. 1986).

“In order to be final in character, an order by a bankruptcy

court must resolve a discreet unit in the lar ger case.” 3 I n the

Matter of Greene County Hospital

, 835 F.2d 589, 595 (5th Cir.

1988). In addition, a final order must “conclusively determine

substantive rights of parties.” I n re Delta Servs. Indus

., 782

F.2d at 1270. Because the bankruptcy court did not fully resolve

whether Appellant’s plan may be modified pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

1322(b)(2), its order was not final. Therefore, we, and the

district court, lack jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s appeal is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. We remand this case to the district court

with instructions to vacate its order and to remand to the

bankruptcy court for further proceedings.