The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of * Nebraska, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2955

_____________ In re: Kenneth L. Kasden, * * Debtor, *

____________________ * * Thomas F. Miller, Trustee, * Appeal from the United States * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Appellant, *

* [PUBLISHED] v. * * Kenneth L. Kasden, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: April 14, 1998

Filed: April 22, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and STROM, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Thomas F. Miller, the trustee of Kenneth L. Kasden’s bankruptcy estate, appeals from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) remanding the case to the-2-

bankru ptcy court for further findings to support a default judgment against Kasden

. Because the BAP’s order

was not final, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent facts are as follows. Kasden’s bankruptcy estate included a parcel of real property (the Property). Mill er found various items of personal property on the Property, but his written demand that Kasden claim thes e items went unheeded. Miller then sold the Property to a third party, and the terms of the sale required Miller to clear the items out. Miller wrote Kasden a second time, informing him the property had been removed and stored. Miller continued:
If you contend that any of these items belong to you, please provide me with a listing of all things that you claim, no later than December 3 0 [1996]. I f you can prove ownership you will be able to retrieve thos e items by paying my costs o f moving, storage, and cleanup. If you do not respond or cannot prove ownership I will dispose of these items for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate. This got Kasden’s attention. In a letter dated January 6, 1997, Kasden accused Miller of an “act of usurpation of my pre-petition and post-petition personal property,” an d concluded: “[Y]our request that I [prove] ownership of my own property is so totally absurd, it is not worthy of a response.” Soon after, Miller filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court, asking the court to determine that the bankruptcy estate now owns the removed personal property, o r alternat ively to require Kasden to pay the costs of removing and storing the property. The complaint claimed Kasden had re fused to identify which items of property, if any, belonged to h im. Attached to the complaint was a copy of Kasden’s January 6 letter. Kasden wa s properly served, but he defaulted. On Miller’s motion, the bankruptc y court e ntered default judgment against Kasden, declaring the bankruptcy estate th e owner of the disputed property. Kasden appealed to the BAP.-3-

The BAP held Miller’s complaint insufficient to support the default judgmen t because the complaint failed to “allege any facts tending to establish that ownershi p rested with the trustee.” The BAP observed that th e complaint left open the possibility that someone besides Kasden owned some or all of the property: the complaint said Kasden had failed to identify which items were his, if any , and it sought reimbursement for remo val and storage costs “[i]f the court determines that the estate has no interest in the personal property.” “We do not hold that default judgment is inappropriate in this case,” the BAP wrote, “but [we] do hold that the d efault judgment must be entered upon facts clearly pleaded or otherwise established tending to prove the trustee i s entitled to the relief granted.” The BAP reman ded the case to the bankruptcy court for further findings.
Kasden’s vehement asser

tion of ownership in his January 6 letter, which Miller attached to the complaint, may have satisfied the bankruptcy court on the i ssue the BAP finds unresolved. As a general matter, “‘[a]n appellate court may affirm a decisio n based on inc omplete findings if there can be no genuine dispute about how the tria l court actually resolved the facts missing from its express findings.’” Charles v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 932 F.2d 1265 , 1269 (8th Cir. 1991) (quoting Ferguson v. Hill , 846 F.2d 20, 21 (5th C ir. 1988) (per curiam)). Here, however, the bankruptcy court’s finding s echoed M iller’s complaint, and the BAP concluded the complaint was legall y insufficient to support the default judgment. See Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright , 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). Before we can review that conclusion on it s merits, we must first examine our power to do so.
In bankrup tcy cases, this court can hear appeals only from final decisions , judgments , orders, and decrees entered by district courts or bankruptcy appellat e panels. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (1994); Lewis v. United States Fa rmers Home Admin. , 992 F.2d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1993). To be f inal and thus appealable under § 158(d), an order entered in the m

idst of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding must finally resolve a discrete segment of that proceeding. See Drewes v. St. Paul Bank for Coops. (In re-4-

Woods F armers Coop. Elevator Co.) , 983 F.2d 125, 127 (8th Cir. 1993). An orde r remanding to the bankruptcy court for further factual findings will seldom be final for purposes of appeal to th is court. See Vekco, Inc. v. Federal Land Bank (In re Vekco, Inc.) , 792 F.2d 744, 745 (8th Cir. 1986). Because the BAP ’s remand order in this case did not f inally resolve anything, we conclude the order is not final. Althoug h establi shing on remand who owns the disputed property should be a straightforwar d matter, it will involve more than a purely mechanical or ministerial task. See id

. Further, any delay in securing review of the BAP’s decision will not prevent Mille r from obtaining effective relief, and this is plainly not a case where a later reversa l would mea

n having to begin the entire bankruptcy proceeding over again. See Stuart v. Koch (In re Koch) , 109 F.3d 1285, 1287 (8th Cir. 1997) (listing factors to b e considered in determining whether order in bankruptcy case is final). Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss Kasden’s appeal. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.