United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 17, 2020*

Decided September 18, 2020

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1404

JOAN PANSIER and ESTATE OF GARY 

PANSIER, 

Debtors-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Creditor-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

No. 19-C-1431 

William C. Griesbach,

Judge.

O R D E R

Joan Pansier challenges a district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court’s 

denial of damages for an alleged violation of a stay on collecting debts. Because she and 

her husband Gary (who died several months ago) did not timely appeal the bankruptcy

court’s decision, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions

to dismiss that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 20-1404 Page 2

Gary and Joan Pansier wanted to appeal a bankruptcy court’s ruling. They had

filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2018, and the automatic stay associated with the filing 

prevented the Internal Revenue Service from levying a portion of Gary Pansier’s 

pension to satisfy their tax liabilities. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The bankruptcy court 

granted the United States’ motion for relief from the stay. Although any order granting 

relief from an automatic stay is itself stayed for two weeks, see FED. R. BANKR. P.

4001(a)(3), just days after the court granted the motion the IRS issued a notice of levy to 

resume collecting the pension. In July 2019 the Pansiers moved for damages based on 

the notice of levy, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), and argued that the IRS had been collecting 

more from the pension than the bankruptcy court had permitted. The bankruptcy court 

denied relief on August 19, 2019. It ruled that, although the notice of levy violated the 

stay, the Pansiers had suffered no damages and the IRS had thereafter collected the 

proper monthly amounts from the pension. The Pansiers filed a notice of appeal on 

September 30, 2019—42 days later. The government did not argue that the appeal was 

untimely, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision on the merits.

The United States now argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review 

the bankruptcy court’s decision. We agree. A notice of appeal must be filed within 

14 days of a bankruptcy order. The 14-day rule comes from Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 8002(a)(1) and implements the statutory directive from 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). 

We held in In re Sobczak-Slomczewski that this 14-day appeal period is therefore 

jurisdictional and mandatory. 826 F.3d 429, 432 (7th Cir. 2016). The Pansiers filed their

notice of appeal 28 days after the deadline, so the district court never possessed 

jurisdiction over the bankruptcy court’s order. See id. Because the district court had no 

jurisdiction over the appeal, we must vacate its judgment and remand with instructions 

to dismiss. See Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 336 U.S. 631, 639 (1949); 

Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew, 773 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2014). 

We add two final observations. First, we recognize that the government did not 

raise this jurisdictional defect in the district court and, consequently, that court believed

that it had jurisdiction. But under the jurisdiction-granting statute, 28 U.S.C. § 158, 

failure to file a timely appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction regardless of 

whether the parties raise the issue. In re Sobczak-Slomczewski, 826 F.3d at 431–32. Neither 

the district court nor this court can make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional 

requirements. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Second, Joan Pansier tells us 

that she wishes to represent her husband’s estate in this matter. A non-lawyer may not, 

however, represent an estate (unless the non-lawyer is the sole beneficiary, a point that 

Joan does not clearly resolve for us). See Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 
No. 20-1404 Page 3

2007). No matter; there is no mandatory priority among reasons not to reach the merits 

of a case. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007).

Our decision about the untimeliness of the bankruptcy appeal renders any potential

representational issue irrelevant.

We thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND to the district court to DISMISS

the appeal from the bankruptcy court for lack of jurisdiction.