By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of t his de c isi on is l im ite d to thec as e an d p ar tie s p ur su an t to 6th C i r
. B A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).
F ile Nam e: 07b0009n.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re: GL ENNA ROB I L I O,

Debtor.

______________________________________ GL ENNA ROB I L I O,

Ap pe lla nt,

v. GEORGE W. STEVENSON, CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE,

Appellee

.

______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nos. 06-8102/06-8103

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court fo r t he Wes te rn

Di str ic t of

Te nn e sse e , We ste rn

Di vis ion , at Me mph is. No. 06-21370. Submit ted: May

1, 2007
Dec ided and F iled: J uly

13, 2007
B e fo re : G REG G, SCO TT , a nd WHI PPL E, B a nk

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
O N B RI E F: Geor g e Stevenson, Chontele A. Mc I n t y re, Me mphis, Tennessee , Har ris P. Quinn, WI L L I AMS & PROCH AS KA, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee , for Appe llee. Glenna F. Robilio, Memphis, Tennesse e, pro se .- 2-- 3- ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ M A RY A

NN WH I PP L E , B a n kr

u p tc y A p p e ll a te Pa

n e l Ju d g e . A p p e ll a n t/ D e b to r Glenna R o b i l i o (“ Ap p el l an t ”) , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , appea ls the bankruptcy court’s O ctober

25, 2006, order dismiss ing he r Chapter

13 case for f

ailure to comply

with the terms of he r conf irmed plan (B AP Ca se No . 0 6- 81 02 ). She a lso a pp e a ls the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s No ve mbe r 30, 20 06 , ord e r g ra nti ngin part a nd denying in pa

rt Appellant’s Motion to I mpose Automatic Stay , which the ba nkruptcy court construed as a mot ion for stay pending Appellant’s appeal of its October 25, 2006, or der dismissing her C h a p te r 1 3 c a s e ( B A P C a s e N o . 0 6

- 8 1 0 3 )

. F o r th e f o ll o w in g r e a s o n s , th e b a n kr u p tc y c o u rt’s order dismiss ing he r Chapter

13 ca s e i s AF FI RMED, and the a ppeal of the bankr

uptcy court’s November

30, 2006, order

is DI SMI SSED as moot.

I. ISS UE ON AP P EAL
Appellant’s a

ppeal in ca s e n umber 06-8102 attempts to present sever al issues, not all of which are proper ly the subject of this a ppeal. The only issue proper ly befor e the Pane l is whether the bankr uptcy court dismissed Appellant’s Chapter 13 case without g iving her not ice of the hea ring and an oppor

tunity to testify and pre sent evidenc e on her behalf

.

II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW

Th e B a nk ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l ( “ B AP” ) o f t he Sixth C ir cui t has jur isd ic tio n to he a r t his appea l. The United States Distri ct C o urt for the Western District of Te nnessee has authorized appea ls to the BAP, and ne ither par ty has timely

elec ted to have this appe al h ea rd by the district

c ourt . 2 8 U .S. C. §§ 158(b)( 6), (c )(1) . A “f inal order” of a ba

nkruptcy court may

be appe aled by rig ht under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1). For purposes of appeal, an or der is fina l if it “ends the litigation on the merits and lea

ves nothing for the c ourt t o d o but execute the judg ment.” Mi dla nd As ph alt Corp. v. United States , 489 U.S. 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 , 109 S. Ct . 1494, 1497 (1989) ( citations omitt ed). A n- 4-

o r d e r d is mi s s in g a d e b to r ’ s Ch a p te r 1 3 c a s e is a f

in a l o r d e r. In re R ay na rd , 354 B.R. 834, 836 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2006).

The dismissal of a bankruptc y case is r eviewe d for abuse of discre tion. In re Badaly an , 236 B.R. 633, 635 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ). An abuse of discre tion occurs whe n the bankr uptcy court “re lies upon clea

rly err oneous finding s of fa ct or whe n it improperl y ap p l i es t h e law or uses an

err oneous leg al standar d.” Id. A f ind ingof fa c t is c le a rl y

e rr on e ou s “ wh e n alt ho ugh ther e is evidenc e to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidenc e is left wit h the def inite and firm conviction that a m i s take ha s been c ommitt ed.” Id. Conclusions of law ar e re viewed de novo. Under a de novo sta

ndard of revie w, the re viewing court de cides a n i s s u e i n d ep en dently

of, and without defer ence to, the trial court’ s determination. Id.

III . F AC TS
Appellant filed a

Chapter 13 pe titi o n o n Fe bruar y 28, 2006. Also on that date, Appe llant filed a Chapte r 13 plan in which she proposed to make plan pay ments of $440 per

wee k. Appellant

was re prese nted by

counsel at the time she filed her petition, and there is no entry on the bankr

uptcy court doc ket indicating that t h e court g rante d, or that counse l reque sted, withdrawa l from such repr esentation at any

time during the pende ncy of her case in the bankruptc y

court.

On Marc h 3, 2006, an order was enter ed direc ting Appellant to pay $440 wee kly

beg inning on her ne x t pay day

. On Marc h 29, 2006, secur ed cr editor Ne tbank filed a n objection to confirmation of Appe llant’s Chapter 13 plan. The first meeting of cre ditors w as held on Marc h 31, 2006, and on April 3, 2006, Appellant wa s order ed to inc rea se her pla n pay ments to $2,223 per month. There afte r, on May 24, 2006, an orde r conf

irming A ppellant’s Chapter 1 3 p l an was e ntere d. The Chapter 13 pla n, a s c on fi rm e d, pr ov ide d th a t a mor tg a g e arr e a ra g e of

$4 3, 23 2. 91 ow e d to Ne tba nk be pa id t h ro u gh t h e p l an at a r at e o f $ 7 2 0 p er m o n t h

. T h e p l an fu rt h er p ro v i d e d t h a t o n go i n g m o rt gage pay ments of $1,202.03 be pa id t h ro u gh the plan to Netba nk and that the United States Tr easur y
rec eive $160 pe r month throug h the pl an. The confirmation order require d Appellant to make total pay ments of $2,223 monthly to meet the re quirements of he r Chapter 13 plan.I n h e r b ri e f, Ap pe lla nt s ta te s that “ [e]v e n tho ug h the De bto r w a s a t th e he a ri ng , ( to D ism iss 1 her Chapte r 13 ca se)[,] t he De btor wasn’ t allowed to testify .” (A ppellant’s B r. at 1.) This case was re manded to the ba nkruptcy court for the limited purp o se of r uling on 2 whet h er t h e d i s m issal order w as ente red in e rror and should be va cate d. I n its memorandum and ruling reg ardingthe Panel’s remand order, the bankruptcy court e x plained that the dismissal order wa s n ot e nte re d in

e rr or , a nd tha t it e nte re d th e or de r “ fo r t

he de bto r’ s mate ri a l ec on omi c de fa ult wi th respe ct t o t h e terms of the c onfirmed plan a s contemplated unde r 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)( 6). . . .” (Appe llee’s App. at 85-86.)

- 5- An adm i n i s t rative order a llowing c laims was enter ed on Jul y 1, 2006, and wa s serve d on Appellant and her attorney on J uly 5, 2006 (“O rder Allowing Claims”). The order li sted claims the Chapter 13 Tr

uste e as s erted should be deeme d allowed, including a priority claim of the Interna l Revenue Service in the amount of $6,599.38, a g ener al unsec ured c laim of the I nterna l Revenue Service in the amount of $463.62, and a mortg ag e ar

rea rag e cla im of Netb an k i n t h e am ount of $43,232.91. The orde r provided that the listed claims “shall be de emed a llowed for the purpose of distribution unl ess objection is made by the debtor or ot her party in interest within 30 day s from the date of this order.

. . .” (Appe llee’s App. at 66.) No objection to any claim was f

iled by Appellant

o r an y o t h e r p a rt y.
On Aug ust 25, 2006, the Chapter 13 Tr ustee filed a Motion to Dismiss for Fa ilure to Make Pay ments (“Motion to D ismiss ”). Notice of a hear ing on the motion to be held on October 10, 2006,
was ser ved on both Appellant a

nd her attorney

on Aug ust 30, 2006. On October 11, 2006, a notice of continuanc e wa s entere d stating that “by agr ee ment of the pa rties pre sent” the he aringon the Motion to Dism iss was continued fr o m October 10, 2006, until October 24, 2006 (“ Notice of Continuance” ). Neither t he bankruptcy court’s doc ket nor the r ecor d on appea l refle ct servic e of the Notice of Continuance. B ut Appellan t co n ce d es i n her a ppellate br ief that she w as pre sent on October 24, 2006, at the hea

ring on the Motion to Dismi ss. She contends that she w as not allowed 1 to te stify at the hear ing; howeve r, Appellant has not inc luded a tra nscript of the O ctober

24 hear ing

a s p art of the re c or d o n a

pp e a l.

On Octobe r 25, 2006, the b an k ru ptcy court e ntere d an Or der D ismiss ing Ca se. The c ourt fo un d “ fr om the state me nts of the Cha pte r 1 3 T ru ste e a nd

the e nti re re c or d h e re in t hat th e . . . c a se should be dismissed fo r d eb tor’s fa ilure to abide by court orde rs.” (Appe llee’s App. a t 76.) The 2The August 25, 2006, order e ntere d by the bankr uptcy court is an ag ree d order resolving 3 Netbank ’s objection to conf irmation. (B .A.P. Case No. 06-8102, A ppellee’ s App. at 18.) In that order , Debtor a g ree d that “if Netbank fails to r ece ive a monthly ong oing mortg ag e pay ment from the

- 6- order a ls o d ir e c te d

th e T r u s te e to f il e a f in a l a c c o u n ti n g an d

d is b u r s e th e f

u n d s in h is p o s s e ssion. Ap p el l an t filed a timely

appea l of that order

on November

3, 2006. On Novembe r 9, 2006, the Chapter 13 Tr

ustee filed his Final Accounting and R eport showing tot al re ceipts fr om Appellant of $6,860 and disburseme nts as follows: administrative fee s i n the amount of $1,173.91, ong oing monthly mortg ag e pay

ments to Netbank in the am o u n t o f $ 3 ,606.09, pay ments on the I nterna l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e ’s prio ri ty c la im i n th e a mou

nt o f $ 64 0, and

mor tg a g e arr e a ra g e pa

y me nts to Netbank in the a

mount of $1,440, for a

total disbursed amount of $6,860.

On Novembe r 30, 2006, the ba nkruptcy court entered an orde r g ranting in part and de ny ing in part Appe llant’s motion for stay pending her timely

appea l of the orde r d i s m i ssing he r Chapter 13 case . The Nove mber 30 order g rante d a stay as to a ll c reditors except one, Ne tbank. Appellant filed a timely

appea l of that order

.

IV . D ISC USS ION

I nitially , the Panel notes the issues raised by Appellant in he r appea l of the dismiss al orde r that are no t pr op e rl y

be fo re it. F ir st, sh e a rgue s th a t the Cha pte r 13 Tr us te e mis c a lc ulate d amou nts
ow e d to the I nte rn a l Re ve nu e S ervi ce and Ne tba nk and pa id i nc or

re c t amou nts to t ho se c re dit or s. Howeve r, the Tr

u s t ee paid those cr editors in acc ordanc e with the conf irmation order , from which she d i d n o t ap p ea l , and the Or der A llowing Claims, to which she filed no obje ction. The prope r amount of the Interna l Revenue Service and Netbank’ s claims was not be fore the bankr uptcy court wh e n r uli ng on the Tr

us te e ’s Mo tio n to Dism iss

. Ne xt, App e lla nt a rgue s th a t th e fo re c los ur e sa le of her home was “ illega l” due to Ne tbank’s fa ilure to follow ce rtain admini s t rative r ules and proce dures. This issue has no be aringon Appel l an t ’s failure to comply with the court’s or ders requiringher to ma

ke Chapter 13 plan pay

ments and, thus, on the bankr uptcy court’s dismissal of her Chapte r 13 ca se. Appe llant also argues that the ba nkruptcy court’s or der e ntere d on Aug ust 25, 2006, violates her “civil and constitutional rig hts.” But that order was not a ppeale d and is not the

su bje c t of thi s a pp e a l. F ina lly , App e lla

nt ar g ue s tha t the Tr

us te e se t he r m on thl y

pla n p a y me nt s o 3Tr

us te e in a ny mon th b e g inn ingSe pte mbe r 2 00 6, the n th e a uto ma tic sta

y sh a ll b e te rm inate d a s to Netbank, the subject Proper ty and the pr ocee ds thereof

without f urther notice, hear ing, or der or ten (1 0) da y sta y no tw ith sta

nd ing a ny futur e mod if

ic a tio n o f t

he Pla n i n whi ch e ve nt D e bto r s ha ll voluntarily

surre nder the subject Proper ty to Netbank.” (

Id. at 19.) I n acc ordanc e with the bankr uptcy court’s or ders dire ct i n g Ap p ell ant to make plan 4 pay ments, she should have ma de total plan pay ments of at lea st $16,001 ($440 per w eek in Ma rch and $2 ,2 23 pe r m on th t

he re a ft e r) . T he Tr

us te e ’s F ina l A c c ounti ngand Re po rt ind ic a te s that only $6,860 was re ceive d from Appe llant, thus, only 43% of what was require d to have be en paid by that point in ti me under

the conf irmed plan. (A

ppellee’ s App. at 79.) Rule 2002 does not specific ally provide for notice or the t iming of the notice of a hea ring 5 on a motion to dism iss a Chapter 13 c ase. See Fe d. R. B ankr. P. 2002( a) (re quiring a t wenty -day no tic e of a he a ri ngon

the dis mis sa l of

a ca se un de r C ha

pte rs 7, 11 , o r 1 2) a nd

F e d. R. B a nk

r. P. 20 02 (f ) (r e qu ir ing no tic e to de bto r by ma il of the dis mis sa l bu t no t of the he a ri ng on a mot io n to dismiss ).

- 7- high she w a s u

n a b le to comply

with the court’s c onfirmation orde r. Howe ver, A ppellant, re prese nted by c ouns e l th ro ug ho ut h e r c a se , did not ob je c t to c on fi rm a tio n of he r Cha pte r 13 p lan a

nd a t no tim e moved to modify

the plan. Appe llant’s argument is, theref ore, not prope rly

raised in this appe al.

The Pane l also notes that Appellant does not argue that the bankr uptcy court e rre d in finding that she fa iled to comply

with the terms of he r conf irmed plan. She doe s not argue that she i n fac t did make the pa

y ments require d under her confirme d Chapter 13 plan and does not c ontest the fac t th a t s h e w a s in “ mate r ia l d e f a u lt

. ” T h e o n ly is s u e p r o p e r ly r a is e d in th is a p p e a l is whe ther the 4 bankruptc y

court dismissed Appellant’s Chapte r 13 ca se without g iving her notice of the he aringand an opportunity

to testify and pre sent evidenc e on her behalf

.
The F eder al Rules of B ankruptc y Procedur e provide that a ca se shall not be dismissed for

cause “bef

ore a hear ing on notice as provided in Rule 2002.” Fe d. R. Ba nkr. P

. 1017(a)

. Rule 2002,

rea d in conjunction with Rule 1017(a), r equire s that the cler k, or some other person as the cour t may direc t, give notice to the debtor by mail of a he aring on a motion to dismiss

. The bankruptc y court 5 docket r eport doe s not show that formal notice w as g iven of the O ctober 24, 2006, continued hea

ring on the Chapter 13 T rustee’ s Motion to Dis miss. Howeve r, t he Notice of C ontinuance states that the October 10, 2006, hear ing w as continued until Octobe r 24, 2006, “[b]y ag ree m en t of all par

ties prese nt.” (Appe llee’s App. at 75.) The r ecor d is silent as t o which parties wer e present on Octobe rAp pe lla nt s ta te s th a t sh e wa s “ ord ered to app ear in c ourt e ve ry oth e r w e e k f

ro m Ma y to 6 October 10, 2006 ” but that she “w as n ’t told to come to court on Oc tober 24, 2006.” (Appe llee’s App. at 80.) N ever

theless, this is not an admission t hat she wa s actua lly prese nt on October

10.

- 8- 10

. Ob vio us ly , if

Ap pe lla nt a nd /or he r atto rn e y

we re pr e sent

and a g re e d to the c on tin

ua nc e to 6 October 24, actua l notice was pr ovided. I n any event, Appellant states in her appellate brief that she

was , in fa c t, a t th e Oc tob e r 2 4 h e a ri ngon the Tr us te e ’s Mo tio n to Di smi ss. Whe re a state me nt i n an appe llate brief is “deliber ate, clear and unambig uous,” as is Appe llant’s statement, the Pane l has discretion to consider

the statement to be a j u d icial admission. United States v. Burns , 109 Fe d. Ap p’ x 5 2, 58 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; American Title Ins. Co. v. Lace law Cor p. , 8 61 F .2 d 2 24 , 2 26 -2 7 ( 9th Cir. 1988) (holding that statements of fac t c ontained in a brief may be conside red a dmissions of the pa rt y in t he dis c re tio n o f t

he c ourt ); City Nat. Bank v. United States , 907 F.2d 536, 544 ( 5th Cir. 1990) (f in d in g it w it h in th e c o u rt’ s d is c r e ti o n to tr e a t s tate me n ts in b r ie f s a s b in d in g ju dicial admissions of fact ). To the e x tent that Appellant wa s actua lly prese nt at the continued he aringor that she and/or he r attorne y rec eived a ctual notice and ag ree d to the continuance to October 24, any
err or in fa i l i ng to provide notice by mail is harmless as it is not “inconsistent with subst antial justice,” a

nd does not “a ffe ct the substantial rig hts of [Appellant] .” Citi ba nk v . A re ns ( In re Ar e ns

) , 1 3 9 B. R

. 6 6 7 , 6 6 9 (B an kr. N. D. Oh i o 1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g W alsh v. Bek

ins Van Lines Co. , 217 F.2d 388, 391 (8th Cir. 1954)); F ed. R. Ba nkr. P. 9005 (incorpor ating Fe d. R. Civ. P. 61, which provide s that “[t] he cour

t at ever y stag e of t h e procee ding must disreg ard a ny err or or de fec t in the proce eding which does not a ffe ct the substantial rig hts of the par ties”).
Appellant also a

rg ues that she w as n o t al l o wed to testi fy at the hea

ring on the Trustee ’s Motion to Dism iss. Howeve r, the transcr ipt of the October 24 hear ing is not pa rt of the r ecor d on appea l. Absent a transcr ipt, this Panel ca nnot determine the validity of Appe llant’s argument and cannot c onclude that she soug ht, but was denied, the opportunity to te stify at the hea ring

. See 6th Cir. B.A.P. L BR 8009-3( d) (pr oviding that “ the appendix shall include the portions of the tr anscr ipt

nece ssary for a dequate revie w of the issues be fore the pane l”).

As t h i s opinion affirms the ba nkruptcy court’s or der dismissing he r Chapter 13 petition, Appellant’s a

ppeal of the Novembe r 30, 2006, orde r g ranting in pa rt and de ny ing in pa

rt her motion for stay pending appea l of t he dis missal order is moot. See Carras v. W illiams , 807 F.2d 1286, 1289- 9-

(6th Cir. 1986) (“ Mootness results when e vents occ ur during the pende ncy o f a l itigation which rende r the c ourt unable to g rant the r equeste d relief .”).

V. CO NC LU SION

Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in di smi ssi ngAp pe lla nt’ s Ch a pte r 1 3 c a se for f ailure to c omply

with the terms of he r conf irmed plan. The ref

ore, f or the for eg oing r easons, the bankruptc y co u rt ’s order dismissi ng the ca se is AFF I RMED (B .A.P. Case No. 06-8102) , and Appellant’s a

ppeal of the bankr

uptcy court’s or der de ny ing in pa rt her motion fo r st ay

pending appea l is DI SMI SSED as moot (B.A.P. Case No. 06- 8103).