[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13977

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cv-02724-MSS,

Bkcy No. 8:16-bk-07504-RCT

In re: RODERICK O. FORD,

 

 Debtor.

________________________________________________________________

RODERICK O. FORD, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JON M. WAAGE, 

Chapter 13 Trustee, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 10, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 1 of 9
2

Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Ford, a bankruptcy attorney and pro se debtor under Chapter 13 of 

the United States Bankruptcy Code, appeals the district court’s order affirming the

bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) declining to reconsider dismissing Ford’s Chapter 13 

case and (2) refusing to vacate the dismissal. After careful consideration, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Roderick Ford filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in August 2016, submitting a 

bankruptcy petition and Chapter 13 plan to the bankruptcy court. The Florida 

Department of Revenue, relying on state family court judgments, filed a proof of 

claim identifying unpaid domestic support obligations. Ford objected to the 

Department’s claim. Following a hearing, the bankruptcy court ruled that Ford was 

entitled to a maximum credit of $1,700 per month for actual support payments made 

and deferred a final ruling to allow a state court to determine the amount of any 

credit or offset. Ford had not resolved the issue by August 9, 2017, when the 

bankruptcy court continued a scheduled confirmation hearing for the purpose of

allowing Ford to return to state court. Ford filed several motions challenging the 

bankruptcy court’s ruling that were denied. The district court affirmed, and the 

bankruptcy court scheduled another confirmation hearing, this time for July 31, 

2019. 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 2 of 9
3

Before the district court affirmed, Ford filed his first amended Chapter 13 

plan. This plan would have required the bankruptcy court to calculate the amount of 

Ford’s domestic support obligations. At his July confirmation hearing, Ford 

acknowledged that “the [p]lan, as written, can’t be [confirmed].” The bankruptcy 

court denied confirmation and gave Ford a 14-day deadline to file an amended plan, 

stating that failure to do so would result in the case “being dismissed or converted, 

as appropriate.” The court entered an order formalizing its ruling on August 7 that 

contained three relevant provisions: (1) that Ford “shall file an Amended Plan within 

fourteen (14) days (on or before August 14, 2019);” (2) that “[i]n the event [Ford] 

fails to file an Amended Plan on or before August 14, 2019 as herein provided, the 

Trustee may submit an order dismissing this case, without further notice or hearing;” 

and (3) that “[i]n the event [Ford] timely files an Amended Plan, on or before August 

14, 2019, the Trustee will submit a separate order setting a final confirmation hearing 

for October 23, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.” 

Despite Ford’s presence at the July confirmation hearing and service with the 

bankruptcy court’s order on August 8, he failed to file a timely amended Chapter 13 

plan. On August 19, the bankruptcy court dismissed the case without prejudice. Ford 

moved for reconsideration the next day, arguing that he was authorized to amend 

until October 23, and in the alternative that his failure to timely file was due to 

excusable neglect. He also filed a second amended plan on August 22. Like the plans

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 3 of 9
4

before it, this plan contemplated that the bankruptcy court would calculate the 

amount of Ford’s domestic support obligations. The Department opposed Ford’s 

motion for reconsideration and moved in the alternative for dismissal in case of 

reinstatement. 

The bankruptcy court denied the motion for reconsideration. It concluded that 

Ford had not shown excusable neglect, that the untimely second amended plan 

suffered from the same defects as previous plans and could not be confirmed, and 

that dismissal was proper based on “the delay and prejudice to creditors.” Ford next 

moved to vacate the dismissal, and the bankruptcy court declined to do so on the 

same grounds. On appeal, the district court held that the bankruptcy court acted 

within its discretion and affirmed. Ford filed motions for recusal of the district judge, 

reconsideration of its order affirming, and vacatur of the same. After his motions 

were denied, Ford timely appealed to this Court. 

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

In an appeal from a bankruptcy proceeding, “we independently examine the 

bankruptcy court’s factual and legal determinations, applying the same standards of 

review as the district court.” Coady v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P. (In re Coady), 

588 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2009). That means that we “review the bankruptcy 

court’s factual findings for clear error and its resolution of any legal questions de 

novo.” Id. Finally, when an originating court’s judgment “is based on multiple, 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 4 of 9
5

independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the 

judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 

678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). Thus, “[w]hen an appellant fails to challenge properly on 

appeal one of the grounds on which the [originating] court based its judgment, he is 

deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it follows that the 

judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Ford has waived arguments to many of the district court’s 

orders. This Court usually follows an “established rule of liberal construction for pro 

se pleadings.” Faulk v. City of Orlando, 731 F.2d 787, 790 (11th Cir. 1984). Because 

Ford is a “veteran bankruptcy attorney” who is “familiar with the federal bankruptcy 

rules, the federal bankruptcy code, and local practice in the Middle District of 

Florida,” however, we accord him no such advantage. Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 

1192, 1194 n.1. (5th Cir. 1977). Ford’s notices of appeal designate the district court’s 

orders denying his motions for recusal, reconsideration, and to reopen the case.

Ford’s brief, however, is confined to the issue of the district court’s order affirming 

the bankruptcy court and makes no arguments concerning recusal, reconsideration, 

or reopening. “We have long held that an appellant abandons a claim when he either 

makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without 

supporting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. Thus, Ford has 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 5 of 9
6

waived any arguments as to those orders on appeal. Likewise, the district court 

correctly held that Ford had abandoned any arguments regarding the bankruptcy 

court’s denial of his motion to strike by not including those arguments in his brief. 

Ford’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s order declining to reconsider 

dismissing his petition fares no better. 

“To proceed under Chapter 13, a debtor must propose a plan to use further 

income to repay a portion (or in the rare case all) of his debts over the next three to 

five years.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 498 (2015). see 11 U.S.C. 

§ 1321. A Chapter 13 plan must “provide for the full payment, in deferred cash 

payments,” of domestic support obligations unless the holder of the claim agrees 

otherwise. 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(1)(A), 1322(a)(2). We have made clear that a 

bankruptcy court cannot “fix a debtor’s personal liability for child-support [or 

alimony] through rulings on a claim objection or confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan.” 

Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Diaz (In re Diaz), 647 F.3d 1073, 1092 n.16 (11th Cir. 

2011) (concluding that “[f]ederal bankruptcy courts have no business becoming 

embroiled in state domestic relations to such a degree” as to “result in de facto 

modification of state child-support orders”). Section 1323(a) permits a debtor to 

“modify the plan at any time before confirmation,” but forbids modification if “the 

plan as modified fails to meet the requirements of section 1322 of this title.” 

11 U.S.C. § 1323(a). 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 6 of 9
7

Section 1307 permits a bankruptcy court, “on request of a party in interest or 

the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing,” to dismiss a Chapter 13 case

“for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c). Cause includes, among other things, “unreasonable 

delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors,” “failure to file a plan timely,” 

and “denial of confirmation of a plan . . . and denial of a request made for additional 

time for filing another plan or a modification.” 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(1), (3), (5).

When the bankruptcy court ruled that it would neither reconsider nor vacate 

its order dismissing Ford’s Chapter 13 case, it provided three independent and 

alternative grounds for that conclusion. First the bankruptcy court held that Ford’s 

stated grounds for not filing an amended plan by the court’s August 14, 2019, 

deadline did not constitute excusable neglect. Second, the bankruptcy court analyzed 

Ford’s untimely filed second amended plan and determined that it was not 

confirmable for the same reason as his previous plans: it would have improperly 

required the court to calculate the amount of state domestic support obligations.

Lastly, the court considered the Department’s “alternative motion to dismiss and 

ruled that even if the case were reinstated, the delay and prejudice to creditors 

warranted a dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(1).”

Each of these grounds would have been independently sufficient to support

the bankruptcy court’s denial of Ford’s motions for reconsideration and vacatur 

given the court’s power under section 1307(c) to dismiss Chapter 13 cases “for 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 7 of 9
8

cause.” Ford’s Chapter 13 case had been proceeding for almost three years, the full 

term of the first amended plan, and in that time, he had been unable to resolve his

dispute with the Department regarding domestic support obligations either through 

agreement or determination by a state court. The bankruptcy court correctly 

explained that, under this Court’s precedent and given the parties’ inability to agree, 

“[t]he bottom line is [that Ford] simply cannot confirm a chapter 13 plan until he 

resolves the dispute with FLDOR, and he cannot resolve his dispute with FLDOR 

until he returns to state court.” See In Re Diaz, 647 F.3d at 1092 n.16. The plain

language of section 1307(c) empowers bankruptcy judges to dismiss when, as the 

bankruptcy court put it, debtors “languish in chapter 13 by filing unconfirmable 

plans and thus hold [their] creditors at bay for years.” 

In light of the bankruptcy court’s independent, alternative grounds, Ford must 

“convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect” to 

prevail on appeal. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680. But, before this Court, Ford has only 

repeated the two arguments he advanced before the district court and the bankruptcy

court below: that section 1323 allowed him to file at any time before confirmation, 

which he asserts was set at October 23, 2019, and that any error on his part regarding

the filing deadline was excusable neglect. He failed to addressthe bankruptcy court’s 

alternative grounds: the confirmability of the second amended plan and the 

Department’s motion to dismiss. Thus, Ford has abandoned any challenge to “one 

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 8 of 9
9

[or more] of the grounds on which the [bankruptcy] court based its judgment” and 

“it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed. Id.

IV. CONCLUSION

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-13977 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 9 of 9