By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of this decision is l imited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8013-1(

b) . See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8010-1( c)

.
File Na me: 15b0001n.06

BANK RUP TCY AP P ELL ATE PA NEL OF THE SIXT H CIRCUIT

I n re: F REMONT HOSPI TAL I TY GROUP, L L C,

Debtor.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) Nos. 14-8053/8054

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court for the N orthern D istrict of Ohio Case No. 13- 31005

Submit ted: May

11, 2015

Dec ided and F iled: J une 22, 2015

Be fore : HARRI SON, HUMPHREY, and PRESTON, Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l J udg es.

____________________ COUNSEL

ON B RI EF: Dona ld R. Harris, DON AL D HARRI S L AW FI RM, Sandusky , Ohio, for Appellants. Patricia B . Fug ée, Roe tzel & Andre ss, L PA, Toledo, Ohio, for A ppellee.

____________________ OP INION

____________________ MARIA N F

. HARRISON , Ba nkruptcy Appellate Panel J udg e. Do n ald R. Har ris (“H arr is” ), fo rm er counsel for the debtor, filed this appea l on behalf of the debtor and Annie
Kolath (“K olath”), an insider-c reditor, from the bankruptc y court’s o rder deny ing Kolath’s
motion for relief from the automatic stay and an order titled “O rd er R ega rding Motions for Summary J udg ment.” For the rea sons stated below, the P an el af fi rms the bankruptc y court’s ruling s and dismisses both appeals.I. BACKG ROUND

This case started out as a voluntary Chapter 11 case

. A Chapter 11 Trustee was appointed on Aug ust 21, 2013, and the ca s e wa s then conver ted to Chapter 7 on November 5,
2013. Af

t er t h e C hapter 11 Trustee was appointed but befor e the case was conver ted to Chap t er 7 , Ha rris filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The bankruptc y court g rante d the
motion to withdraw as counsel on May 15, 2 0 1 4

. On M ay 23, 2014, the debtor, throug h Har ris,
fi l ed a n o t i ce of appea l from the bankruptc y court’s order gr anting Har ris’ m otion to withdraw as
counsel and from an order g rantin g t h e Chapter 7 Trustee ’s motion to sell proper ty

. The appea l
from the order g ran t i n g t h e motion to withdraw as counsel was dismiss ed for lack of

prosec ution, and the appea l from the sale order was dismiss ed for mootness beca use the sale h ad
alre ady been c onsummated.

Har ris filed the curr ent appea ls on behalf of the d ebtor and Kolath. As stated, the 1
notices of appea l are from an order deny ing Kolath’s motion fo r relief from the automatic stay and the Orde r Reg arding Motions for Summary J udg ment. The l ater dealt with cross motions
for summary judgme nt filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee and Kolath with respe ct to Kolath’s
motion for relief from the automatic stay and the Chapter 7 Trustee ’s motion objecting to Kolath’s proof of claim. The bankruptc y court g rant ed t h e Trustee ’s motion for summary judgme nt and denied K olath’s motion for summary judgme nt. 2

H a r r i s o f

f e r s n o e x p l a n a t i o n o f h i s c o n t i n u e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e d e b t o r a f t e r h i s m o t i o n t o 1

w i t h d r a w w a s g r a n t e d

. M o r e o v e r , t h e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t H a r r i s r e p r e s e n t s o r h a s e v e r r e p r e s e n t e d K o l a t h

. I n f a c t , t h e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t ’ s d o c k e t r e f l e c t s t h a t K o l a t h i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a t t o r n e y M i c h a e l B r a g g

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e P a n e l i s n o t c o n f i d e n t t h a t H a r r i s i s a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o c e e d o n b e h a l f o f a n y p a r t y t o t h i s
a p p e a l , a n d i n t h e e v e n t o f f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , t h i s P a n e l m a y r e q u i r e p r o o f o f t h e s a m e

.

K o l a t h 's p r o o f o f c l a i m w a s a l s o t h e s u b j e c t o f a n a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g , i n w h i c h t h e b a n k r u p t c y 2

c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e C h a p t e r 7 T r u s t e e 's m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , d i s a l l o w i n g K o l a t h 's c l a i m i n i t s e n t i r e t y
a n d a v o i d i n g t h e n o t e a n d m o r t g a g e

. T h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e a d v e r s a r y w a s n o t a p p e a l e d , a n d t h e r e f o r e , i t i s
e n t i t l e d t o p r e c l u s i v e e f f e c t

. S e e P r a t t v

. V

e n t a s , I n c

. , 3 6 5 F

. 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 2 1 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ( W h e n a p l a i n t i f

f d o e s n o t a p p e a l a b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t d e c i s i o n , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e b a n k r u p t c y c o u r t i s f i n a l

. )

.

2The brief, filed by Har ris on behalf of the debtor, does not add re s s t h o s e order s 3

appea led, but rathe r, ra ises two unrela ted issues:
1. Did the Ba

nkruptcy Court err in moving forwa rd with the bankruptc y proce eding s involving a corpor ate party afte r decla rin g from the bench that such party ’s counse l was unable to proce ed due to lac k of a c lear principal?

2. Did the Ba

nkruptcy Cour t er r when it g rante d the motion to conver t the proce eding s from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 bankruptc y in light o f t h e unusual circ umstances be fore the cour t in this case

. 4

The items desig nated by Har ris to be included in t h e re co rd on appea l are only rela ted to the issues stated in the appe llant brief.

The Chapter 7 Trus t ee re quests that the appea ls be dismiss ed and the bankruptc y court ruling s be af

firmed, c orre ctly

raising a plethora

of proc edura l shortcomings.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Ba nkruptcy Appellate Panel of the Six th Circuit has jurisdiction to d ec ide these

appea ls. The United State s District Court for the Norther n District of Ohio has authorized

appea ls to the Panel, and n o p arty has timely elec ted to have this appea l hear d by the district

court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)( 6), (c) (1). A final order of the b an k ru p t cy court may be appea led as of rig ht pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1)

. Fo r purposes of appea l, a final order “ends the litigation on the merits and leave s nothing for the court to do but execute the j u d gm en t

. ”
Midland Asphalt C o r

p

. v. United States , 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S. Ct. 1494, 1497 (1989) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “An o rd er deny ing a motion for relief from the
automatic stay is final,” In re Rice , 462 B.R. 651, 6 5 3 (B

. A.P

. 6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted),

as is an order dis all owing a claim. MacD onald v. Gunther ( In re Gunther ), 431 B.R. 307, 2009

The Pane l notes that Kolath is not lis ted as a n appellant in the br ief. 3

Har ris, on behalf of the debtor, appea led the conver si o n o rd er to the District Court. The 4 appea l was dismiss ed on J anuar y 29, 2014, based on the debtor’s failure to desig nate items from the

rec o rd , fa i l u re to submit a statement of issues, failure to file a brief, and failure to respond to a motion to di smiss t he appe al.

3WL 3104033, at *1 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. S ept. 30, 2009) (unpublished table decision) (citations

omitted).

Orde rs deny ing motions for relief from stay are revie wed for an abuse of discretion. Spierer v. Fede rated Dep't Stores, Inc. ( In re Fede rated Dep't Stores, Inc. ), 328 F.3 d 8 2 9 , 836 (6th Cir. 2003). Orde rs di sallowing a claim ar e reviewe d de novo when challeng ed as an error of law, In re Gunther , at *1 , and revie wed for clea r err or when the basis for appea l is an err or of
fac t. Spence r Cent. Dev elopers, L L C v. S terling Rubber Prods. Co. ( In re Sterling Rubber Prods. Co.), No. 04-8090, 2006 WL 348143, at *1 (6th Cir. Fe b. 15, 2006 ) (u n p u b l i shed) (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSS ION
I n t h e p re s ent case s, the desig nations of items to be included in the rec ords on appea l ar e unrela ted to the orders t h at wer e appea led pursuant to the notices of appea l. Fe dera l Rule of
Ba nkruptcy Procedur e 8006 require s that the rec ord on appea l include, in rele vant part, “the 5 judgme nt, order , or decr ee appea led from, and any opinion, finding s of fac t, and conclusions of
l aw

. ” T he responsibility of prese nting sufficie nt portions of the bankruptc y court rec ord fall s o n the appellant to aff

irmatively prove the err ors claimed. R.D.F. Dev s., Inc. v. Sysco Corp. (

In re R.D.F. Dev

s., Inc. ), 239 B.R. 336, 339-40 (B .A.P. 6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). The

rec ord in these appea ls does not include the order s appea led from , an y re l ated pleading s, or
t ra n s cr i p t s of rele vant hear ings. When an appellant fails to meet the burden of providing an adequate rec ord on appea l, it is impossibl e for an appellate court to deter mine that the bankruptc y court' s finding s wer e wrong

. Abrams v. Sea Palms Assocs. L t d

. ( In re Abrams )

, 229
B.R. 784, 789 (B .A.P. 9t h Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (af firming bankruptc y court' s finding s of
fac t in light of inadequa te rec ord on appea l). There fore , the presumption that the bankruptc y
court acte d proper ly and upon lawful g rounds in exercising judicial discretion m u s t preva il. See
In re R.D .F. Dev

s., Inc. , 239 B.R. at 340 ( citation omitted).

A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e B a n k r u p t c y R u l e s e f f e c t i v e D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 4 , r e n u m b e r e d F e d e r a l R u l e o f 5 B a n k r u p t c y P r o c e d u r e 8 0 0 6 a s R u l e 8 0 0 9

. B e c a u s e t h i s c a s e c o m m e n c e d p r i o r t o t h a t d a t e , t h e P a n e l c i t e s t o t h e R u l e i n e x i s t e n c e p r i o r t o t h e a m e n d m e n t s

. 4Moreove r, the appellant brief does not contest th e b an k rupt cy court’s ruling s being

appealed. I n fac t, the appellant brief does not include any arg uments or ref ere nces to the reco rd
that ar e re l ated to the order s being appea led. Pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Ba nkruptcy
Procedur e 8 010(a) (1), an appellant brief must include a statement of the issues prese nted with 6
the applicable standard of revie w, as well as the appellant’ s contentions and rea son s for them,
with citation to authorities and to t h o s e parts of the rec ord on which the appellant relies. Fa ilure

to comply with Fe d. R. Ba nkr. P

. 8 0 10 is a basis for dismiss al. See Joelson v. Brown ( In re Brown Family Farms, Inc. ), 872 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir. 1989) (af firming a district court' s dismiss al of an ap p ea l wher e the appellant did not adequately addre ss an important issue in its
brief a nd so failed to fully

comply with Rule 8010).

Neither t he rec ord on appea l nor the appellant brief illust rate a basis on which to reve rse

or vaca te the order s appea led, there fore , the Panel aff irms the bankruptc y court’s order s and
dismiss es the a

ppeals. 7

E f f e c t i v e D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 4 , F e d e r a l R u l e o f B a n k r u p t c y P r o c e d u r e 8 0 1 0 w a s r e n u m b e r e d a s 6
R u l e 8 0 1 4

.

T h e P a n e l l e a v e s i t t o t h e C h a p t e r 7 T r u s t e e t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o p u r s u e s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t H a r r i s 7

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s a p p e a l

. S e e F e d

. R

. B a n k r

. P

. 8 0 2 0

. 5