United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________ 

No. 19-6042

___________________________ 

In re: Theresa Marshall

 Debtor

------------------------------ 

Theresa Marshall

 Debtor - Appellant

v.

Mark T. McCarty

 Trustee - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________ 

Submitted: March 13, 2020

 Filed: April 16, 2020

____________ 

Before SALADINO, Chief Judge, NAIL and DOW, Bankruptcy Judges. 

____________

Dow, Bankruptcy Judge
In her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, Theresa Marshall (“Debtor”) filed an 

Objection to Trustee’s Final Report (“Objection”). The Bankruptcy Court held a 

hearing on December 4, 2019, at which it overruled Debtor’s Objection because 

Debtor failed to appear. Debtor appeals. For the reasons that follow, we find we 

lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal without addressing the merits.

BACKGROUND

Debtor filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on May 3, 

2018. On September 4, 2019, the case was dismissed. 

The Chapter 13 Trustee, Mark T. McCarty (the “Trustee”), issued a Chapter 

13 Standing Trustee’s Final Report and Account (“Final Report”) on October 28, 

2019. The Trustee’s Final Report included summaries of Receipts, Expenses of 

Administration, Scheduled Creditors, Summary of Disbursements to Creditors and 

Total Disbursements. 

Debtor filed her Objection to Trustee’s Final Report with the bankruptcy court 

and a hearing date was set for December 4, 2019. Debtor failed to appear at that 

hearing and the bankruptcy court overruled Debtor’s Objection for failure to 

prosecute. The Order overruling Debtor’s Objection to the Trustee’s Final Report 

was entered on December 4, 2019, and Debtor filed this appeal on December 9, 

2019.

DISCUSSION

Debtor’s Notice of Appeal filed in this matter states that she is appealing the 

Final Report filed on October 28, 2019 and the December 4, 2019 Order overruling 

her objection to the Trustee’s Final Report. The October 28, 2019 Final Report is 

not a final order and thus, this Court has no jurisdiction over such an appeal. The 

Court has already ruled to that effect in its dismissal order entered on April 8, 2019

in Debtor’s appeal in Case No. 19-6024, and for those same reasons, the appeal of 

the October 28, 2019 Final Report will be dismissed. Debtor’s appeal of the 

bankruptcy court’s Order entered on December 4, 2019, that overruled her objection 

to the Trustee’s Final Report based on her failure to appear, remains for this Court’s 

review. 
In Debtor’s Brief filed in this appeal, she raises issues of whether she violated 

the terms of a strict compliance order and should have been dismissed from a 2016 

bankruptcy case and whether she failed to complete credit counseling and should 

have been dismissed from this 2018 bankruptcy case. However, Debtor did not raise 

these issues in her objection on appeal at the bankruptcy court level, nor did she raise 

them in her Notice of Appeal. “[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are 

ordinarily not considered by an appellate court as a basis for reversal.” In re 

Hansmeier, 558 B.R. 299, 301 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2016) (citing Wendover Fin. Servs. 

v. Hervey (In re Hervey), 252 B.R. 763, 767 (8th Cir. BAP 2000)). An exception 

may be made in “exceptional cases where the obvious result would be a plain 

miscarriage of justice or inconsistent with substantial justice.” Kelley v. Crunk, 713 

F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (emphasis added). We do not believe this 

to be such an exceptional case. 

Debtor also raises allegations regarding the Trustee’s Report that the 

exempted value of property was listed as $18,225; that creditor ECMC’s claim was 

not heard nor litigated in the 2018 case; that ECMC’s claim should be barred by res 

judicata; that certain amounts were listed for ECMC in the Final Report; that ECMC 

was not a creditor and that any transfer of Debtor’s student loans was illegal. As to 

the exempt value and the amounts listed for ECMC in the Final Report, Debtor has 

not provided any indication as to how such information contained in the Report was 

incorrect nor why it is relevant. As to the issue regarding ECMC’s claim not being 

heard or litigated or barred by res judicata, Debtor has not explained why such a 

hearing was necessary. Debtor also provides no information or detail as to her 

allegation that a transfer of her student loans was illegal

This Court has an independent duty to examine our jurisdiction. Belew v. 

Rucker (In re Belew), 608 B.R. 206, 208 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2019). If the appellant does 

not have standing, we do not have jurisdiction. Id.

To have standing to appeal an order, an appellant must 

demonstrate he or she is a person aggrieved by the order. 

Under the “person aggrieved” doctrine, only appellants 

who are directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by an 

order have standing to appeal that order. Put another way, 

only appellants who have a financial stake in an order have 

standing to appeal that order.

Id. 
“‘Person aggrieved’ is, of course, a term of art: almost by definition, all 

appellants may claim in some way to be ‘aggrieved,’ else they would not bother to 

prosecute their appeals.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 45 F.3d 737, 741 (3d 

Cir.1995). “The doctrine limits standing to persons with a financial stake in the 

bankruptcy court's order, meaning they were directly and adversely affected 

pecuniarily by the order.” In re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2014). An 

appellant is a party aggrieved “if the bankruptcy court order diminishes the person's

property, increases the person's burdens, or impairs the person's rights.” Opportunity 

Fin., LLC v. Kelley, 822 F.3d 451, 458 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Marlar, 267 F.3d 

749, 753 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2001)). 

In this case, Debtor questioned the accuracy of some of the information in 

Trustee’s Final Report such as creditor information and the amounts listed as exempt 

property and for ECMC. However, Debtor did not challenge in her Objection, nor 

on appeal, the amount the Trustee reported had been returned to her following 

dismissal of her case. Debtor has failed to demonstrate how the bankruptcy court’s 

Order overruling her Objection may have diminished her property, increased her 

burdens or impaired her rights as to make her an aggrieved party with standing. Nor 

has she demonstrated that the bankruptcy court’s Order directly and adversely 

affected her pecuniarily.

CONCLUSION

Debtor has not shown she is a person aggrieved by the bankruptcy court’s 

Order overruling her objection to the Trustee’s Final Report and thus, does not have 

standing to appeal the bankruptcy court’s Order. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction 

and the appeal is DISMISSED.

______________________________