[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11483

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

IN RE: JULIE BAKER ZALLOUM, 

Debtor.

___________________________________________________

JULIE BAKER ZALLOUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RIVER OAKS COMMUNITY SERVICES 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

RIVER OAKS III HOMEOWNERS' 

ASSOCIATION INC., 

LAURA A. PREVESK, 

US BANK NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION, 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 20-11483

as Trustee, 

WEAN & MALCHOW P.A.,

Consolidated, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00798-WWB

____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a bankruptcy appeal about notices of appeal and filing 

fees, and whether the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed debtor 

Julie Baker Zalloum’s appeals of several bankruptcy orders for failure to file separate notices of appeal or pay the associated filing fees. 

After careful review, we vacate and remand.

I.

Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as follows. After filing a 

voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, Zalloum initiated an adversary proceeding against claimants (and a related person and entities) of certain real property. In February 2019, the bankruptcy 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 2 of 10
20-11483 Opinion of the Court 3

court entered a partial final judgment in the adversary proceeding 

disposing of all issues between Zalloum and most, but not all, defendants. Zalloum filed a notice of appeal of the partial judgment 

along with the filing fee. 

Several months later, in July 2019, the bankruptcy court issued a single memorandum opinion, entered on both the adversary-proceeding and main bankruptcy dockets, which resolved the 

remaining claims in the adversary proceeding, disposed of Zalloum’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding as a whole, and barred 

her from filing future bankruptcy petitions for her abuse of the 

bankruptcy process. Consistent with and citing to the memorandum opinion, the bankruptcy court then entered (a) a final judgment in favor of the remaining creditorin the adversary proceeding

and (b) three orders in the main bankruptcy case which allowed 

that creditor’s claim, granted it relief from the automatic stay, and 

dismissed the bankruptcy petition and imposed a filing injunction 

against Zalloum. 

In response, Zalloum timely filed an “amended” notice of 

appeal, which designated for district-court review the partial and 

final adversary judgments, the memorandum opinion on both the 

adversary-proceeding and main bankruptcy dockets, and the three 

related orders in the main bankruptcy case. Zalloum didn’t pay

any additional filing fee.

In an order dated July 19, 2019, the bankruptcy court informed Zalloum that she “must file a separate notice of appeal for 

each order or judgment sought to be reviewed” and each notice 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 20-11483

must be “accompanied by the prescribed fee,” which was $298.

The bankruptcy court struck the amended notice of appeal as to 

the partial adversary judgment because she had already appealed 

that order. And while the court found that the amended notice was 

proper to appeal the memorandum opinion and final judgment in 

the adversary proceeding (the “adversary-proceeding appeal”), so 

long as she paid an additional filing fee, it ordered her to file separate “proper notice[s] of appeal,” with separate filing fees, for the 

memorandum opinion and three orders derived from it in the main 

bankruptcy case (the “main bankruptcy appeal”). 

When Zalloum failed to submit any additional notices of appeal or filing fees by the deadline of August 1, 2019, the bankruptcy 

court dismissed the appeals in an order dated August 18, 2019. The 

court rejected Zalloum’s contention that the adversary proceeding 

was not final when she filed the original notice of appeal, explaining 

that finality rules work differently in the bankruptcy context and 

that separate notices of appeals and filing fees were required for 

each order sought to be reviewed. The district court affirmed the 

bankruptcy court on appeal. Zalloum now appeals to this Court.

II.

As the second court of review in bankruptcy cases, we exercise independent review of the factual and legal determinations of 

the bankruptcy court, employing the same standards of review as 

the district court. In re Fisher Island Invs., Inc., 778 F.3d 1172, 1189 

(11th Cir. 2015). “Where the district court affirms the bankruptcy 

court’s order, we review the bankruptcy court’s decision.” Id. We 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 4 of 10
20-11483 Opinion of the Court 5

review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de 

novo. Id. We review jurisdictional issues de novo.1 United States 

v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). Where discretionary 

judgments are involved, we will find an abuse of discretion if the 

court makes an error of law, relies on clearly erroneous facts, or 

commits a clear error of judgment. Fed. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 

713 F.3d 54, 61 (11th Cir. 2013).

In their orders, courts should give “sufficient explanations of 

their rulings so as to provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review.” Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 

1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007). We will vacate and remand where neither the court’s “decision nor the record provide sufficient explanation to enable meaningful appellate review.” Friends of the Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 678 F.3d 1199, 1201 (11th Cir. 

2012). 

III.

1 We asked the parties a question about our jurisdiction. In light of the parties’ 

responses, we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction to review as a final order

the bankruptcy court’s August 18 order, which dismissed and thereby fully 

disposed of Zalloum’s appeals of rulings resolving the adversary proceeding, 

dismissing the entire bankruptcy proceeding, and imposing a filing injunction. 

See In re Donovan, 532 F.3d 1134, 1136 (11th Cir. 2008). We also have jurisdiction to review the non-final July 19 order which produced that ruling. See 

Kong v. Allied Prof’l Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The appeal 

from a final judgment draws in question all prior non-final orders and rulings 

that produced the judgment.” (cleaned up)).

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 20-11483

Zalloum maintains that the bankruptcy court erred because 

the partial final judgment in the adversary proceeding was not final 

and there is no rule prohibiting filing a notice of appeal of multiple 

orders in the same case with one filing fee. For the reasons explained below, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. 

First, as to the dismissal of Zalloum’s adversary-proceeding 

appeal, the bankruptcy court made an error of law in treating the 

partial final judgment as final and independently appealable. Although finality is ordinarily given a “flexible” interpretation in the 

bankruptcy context, an adversary proceeding is treated largely as 

an ordinary civil case for purposes of finality. In re Boca Arena, 

Inc., 184 F.3d 1285, 1286 (11th Cir. 1999). So “a bankruptcy order 

that disposes of fewer than all claims or parties in an adversary proceeding is not immediately appealable unless the bankruptcy judge 

certifies the order for immediate review pursuant to Bankruptcy 

Rule 7054, which incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).” Id. 

Because the partial judgment didn’t resolve all claims and 

parties in the adversary proceeding, and wasn’t certified under Rule 

54(b), it wasn’t a final order.2 As a result, a single appeal from the 

final judgment in the adversary proceeding, with a single filing fee,

2 While district courts may grant leave to appeal “interlocutory orders and decrees” in bankruptcy cases, 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), we don’t believe the bankruptcy court took the view that the partial judgment was interlocutory when 

Zalloum filed the original notice of appeal. Nor did the district court grant 

leave to appeal under § 158(a)(3); instead, it stated that it exercised jurisdiction 

under § 158(a)(1).

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 6 of 10
20-11483 Opinion of the Court 7

would have brought up for review all prior non-final orders, including the partial judgment. See Kong v. Allied Prof’l Ins. Co., 750 

F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he appeal from a final judgment draws in question all prior non-final orders and rulings that 

produced the judgment.”). Of course, Zalloum didn’t wait to file a 

single appeal from the final judgment, and that distinction may 

make a difference. But it’s not necessarily the case, as the bankruptcy court stated, that two filing fees were required to appeal the 

partial judgment and the final judgment in the adversary proceeding, even if they concerned distinct issues and defendants. See In 

re Boca Arena, Inc., 184 F.3d 1286–87. 

Since the decision to dismiss an appeal for failure to pay a 

filing fee is a discretionary one, it’s appropriate to remand for the 

bankruptcy court to exercise its discretion free of that error.3 See 

Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (stating that a court 

“by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law”); 

Collins v. Seaboard Coastline R. Co., 681 F.2d 1333, 1335 (11th Cir. 

1982) (“The proper role of appellate review permits a remand for 

further proceedings when a discretionary decision has been made 

3 Under a general order issued by the district court, the “presiding bankruptcy 

judge may enter a conditional order of dismissal of the appeal,” subject to district-court review, if the appellant does not pay the filing fee or obtain leave to 

proceed without paying. See General Order Establishing Protocol for Processing Bankruptcy Appeals Without Payment of Filing Fees, No. 96-119-

MISC-T (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 1996), available at 

https://pacer.flmb.uscourts.gov/administrativeorders/search.asp (last visited Oct. 13, 2021). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 20-11483

on false premises.”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (“An appellant’s 

failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of 

appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only 

for the district court or BAP to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.”). We therefore vacate the bankruptcy court’s ruling dismissing the adversary-proceeding appeal, 

along with the district court’s order affirming it, and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Second, as to Zalloum’s main bankruptcy appeal, we can’t 

tell what authority the bankruptcy court exercised when it dismissed the appeal for failure to file proper notices of appeal. The 

court cited authority delegated to it by the district court to dismiss 

a “notice of appeal that is untimely on its face.”4 But Zalloum’s 

amended notice of appeal was both timely and jurisdictionally sufficient. Whatever its other defects, the notice clearly expressed Zalloum’s intent to seek district-court review of the memorandum 

opinion and three related orders, identifying them by name, description, and docket number on the main bankruptcy docket. See 

J.J. Rissell, Allentown, PA Trust v. Marchelos, 976 F.3d 1233, 1235 

(11th Cir. 2020) (“A defective notice of appeal may be adequate 

when the party’s intent to appeal is objectively clear from all of the 

circumstances.” (cleaned up)). While Rule 8003(a)(2) provides that 

4 See General Order Establishing Protocol for Processing Untimely Bankruptcy Appeals, No. 96-118-MISC-T (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 1996), available at

https://pacer.flmb.uscourts.gov/administrativeorders/search.asp (last visited Oct. 13, 2021). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 8 of 10
20-11483 Opinion of the Court 9

“dismissing the appeal” may be appropriate when an appellant fails 

to take steps “other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal,” it 

authorizes the “district court or [bankruptcy appellate panel] to 

act,” not the bankruptcy court. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (emphasis added). 

Finally, we cannot meaningfully review the bankruptcy 

court’s reasoning for requiring Zalloum to maintain four separate 

appeals from a memorandum opinion containing several legally 

and factually intertwined rulings and the reduction of those rulings 

to three separate orders. It seems illogical and inefficient (not to 

mention expensive) to demand that of an appellant, particularly

one who is pro se, in this scenario. Aside from out-of-circuit district-court cases that are factually distinguishable, the bankruptcy 

court didn’t cite any authority for its position.5 Nor did the bankruptcy court explain how this scenario was meaningfully different 

than the entry of an opinion and separate judgment, which are 

5 In contrast to the cases cited by the bankruptcy court, Zalloum didn’t attempt 

to challenge an order not designated in a timely notice of appeal. See In re 

Rozark Farms, Inc., 139 B.R. 463, 464–65 (E.D. Miss. 1992) (dismissing an appeal where, in the court’s view, the notice of appeal was filed before entry of 

the final order on appeal); In re Frontier Airlines, Inc., 108 B.R. 277 (D. Colo. 

1989) (refusing to permit a party to join another party’s appeal of a bankruptcy 

order from which it hadn’t filed a notice of appeal); MT Tech. Enterprises, 

LLC v. Nolte, no. 3:15-cv-669, 2016 WL 234846 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2016) (dismissing an appeal from an order entered in both an adversary proceeding and 

the main bankruptcy case where the appellant did not designate the order in 

the main case for review).

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 20-11483

routinely treated by courts (the bankruptcy court included) as a single “unit” for appeal. 

That’s not to say Zalloum is correct that no additional filing 

fee was required. See In re Morris, 950 F.2d 1531, 1534 (11th Cir. 

1992) (“[A]n adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court and the 

companion bankruptcy case are two distinct proceedings.”). Yet 

the question of what, if any, filing fees were required for the main 

bankruptcy appeal is better resolved on remand, particularly in 

light of our remand on the adversary-proceeding appeal, which at 

least facially involved the same memorandum opinion as the main 

bankruptcy appeal. Moreover, the bankruptcy and district courts 

retain significant discretion to handle these matters free of the mistakes of law we identified above. See Collins, 681 F.2d at 1335; Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2).

For these reasons, we vacate the bankruptcy court’s orders 

dated July 19, 2019, and August 18, 2019, and the district court’s 

order affirming them, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11483 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 10 of 10