# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 17, 2020 *

Decided September 18, 20 20

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

- Appellant s ,

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 a n alleged violation of a stay on collecti ng 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 instruction s 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. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 20

- 1404 Page 2

Gary and Joan Pansier wanted to appeal a bankruptcy court ’s ruling. T he y 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. Al though any order granting relief from an automatic stay is itself stayed for two weeks, see F ED

. R. B ANKR

. P. 4001(a)(3), just days after the court granted the motion the IRS i ssued a notice of levy to resume collecting the pension

. In July 2019 t he Pansie rs moved for damages based on
th e notice of levy

, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), and a rgued 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 violate d the stay, the Pansiers had suffered no damages and the IRS had thereafter collect ed the

proper monthly amount s from the pension

. The Pansiers filed a notice of appeal on September 30, 2019

— 42 days later. T he government did not argue that the appeal was untimely, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision on the merits

.

T he United States now argues that t he district court lacked jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s decision

. We ag ree. A notice of appeal must be filed within

14 days of a bankruptcy order

. Th e 14

- day rule comes from Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1) an d 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). T he 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 i d

. 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. Lawrenc e Warehouse Co.

, 33 6 U.S. 631, 639 (19 4 9) ; Freedom from Religion Found

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

We add two final observations. First, w e recognize t hat the government did not raise this jurisdictional defect in the district court and

, consequently

, th at court believed that it had juris diction

. 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. N either
the district court n or 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 do es not clear ly 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 d ecision about the untimel iness of the bankruptcy appeal renders any potential representational issue irrelevan t.

W e thus VACATE the judgment and REMAND to the district court to DISMISS the appeal from the bankruptcy court for lack of jurisdiction.