United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 10-6087

________________

In re: *

*

Robert A. Brown, *

*

Debtor. *

*

Robert A. Brown, *

* Appeal from the United States

Debtor – Appellant, * Bankruptcy Court for the District of

* North Dakota

v. *

*

Bank of North Dakota, *

*

Creditor – Appellee, *

*

Wayne Drewes, *

*

Trustee – Appellee. *

_____

Submitted: March 15, 2011

Filed: April 5, 2011

_____

Before FEDERMAN, VENTERS, AND NAIL, Bankruptcy Judges.

_____

VENTERS, Bankruptcy Judge.
1

 The Honorable William A. Hill, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the District of

North Dakota.

2 See In re Waterman, 248 B.R. 567, 570 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2000). 

2

The Debtor, Robert A. Brown, appeals three bankruptcy court1 orders: (1) the

order denying confirmation of the Debtor’s Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan, (2) the

order granting creditor Bank of North Dakota’s motion for relief from the automatic

stay, and (3) the order granting the Chapter 13 trustee’s motion to dismiss the

Debtor’s bankruptcy case based on his failure to make his Chapter 13 Plan payments.

We affirm all of these orders. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and legal conclusions are reviewed

de novo.2

BACKGROUND

The following facts have been gleaned from the pleadings filed in the Debtor’s

bankruptcy case. No further record is available due to the Debtor's failure to provide

us with a transcript of the confirmation hearing and the fact that the orders granting

Bank of North Dakota relief from the stay and dismissing the case were unopposed

by the Debtor and, consequently, were entered without a hearing.

The Debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on June 18, 2010. He filed

three Chapter 13 plans: one on July 21, 2010, an amended plan on August 16, 2010,

and a second amended plan on September 20, 2010. Bank of North Dakota, a creditor

holding an allegedly fully secured claim in excess of $35,752.00, objected to the

Debtor’s plan, arguing, inter alia, that the amended plan failed to adequately provide

for the payment of the bank’s claim and that the plan was not feasible. 
3

 The motion to dismiss was docketed with the description that it was for a

failure to make plan payments, but the brief text of the motion stated only that

“[t]he debtor has indicated that he will not be filing an amended plan nor seeking

confirmation.” Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss, p.1 (Bankruptcy Court Doc. No. 30).

3

The bankruptcy court held a hearing on Bank of North Dakota’s objection on

September 28, 2010. The Debtor appeared at the hearing and (presumably) had an

opportunity to argue and present evidence in support of his Chapter 13 plan. The

bankruptcy court orally denied confirmation of the Debtor’s plan. That same day, the

bankruptcy court entered an order memorializing its ruling. The written order does

not provide the basis for the court’s ruling, and, as noted, no transcript of this hearing

has been provided.

Shortly thereafter, Bank of North Dakota filed a motion for relief from the

automatic stay and the Chapter 13 trustee, Wayne Drewes (“Trustee”), filed a motion

to dismiss the Debtor’s case “for failure to make plan payments.”3

 The record

indicates that the Debtor was served with the motions and notices that no hearing

would be held unless an objection was filed. The notice of motion attached to the

Bank of North Dakota’s motion for relief specifically stated that an order granting the

motion would be entered without further notice in the absence of an objection. The

Debtor did not respond to either motion. Consequently, the Court granted both

motions without a hearing.

The Debtor timely appealed these orders.
4

 Even under a generous reading of the Debtor’s pro se briefs, we are hard

pressed to find any arguments pertaining to an alleged error committed by the

bankruptcy court, other than a groundless contention that the bank, a secured

creditor, lacked standing to object to the Debtor’s plan. The Debtor’s arguments

are directed more at various alleged misdeeds committed by the bank.

5 See In re Webb, 212 B.R. 320, 321 n.1 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997) (“The Panel

does not have before it a transcript of the proceedings below. Inasmuch as it is the

appellant's burden to demonstrate the merits of her appeal, she must bear the

burden of the deficient record.”) (citations omitted). See also Schmid v. United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et. al., 827 F.2d 384 (8th Cir.

1987) (“It is important, if not essential, to the reviewing court that an appellant

under Rule 10, Fed. R. App. P., bring before this court all parts of the proceedings

below necessary for a determination of the validity of any claimed error.” (quoting

Ries v. Lynskey, 452 F.2d 172, 178 (7th Cir.1971)).

6 See United States v. Bentley, 82 F.3d 222, 223 (8th Cir. 1996) (arguments

not raised at trial are deemed waived on appeal); Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins., Co.,

736 F.2d 388, 393 (7th Cir. 1984) (“It is axiomatic that arguments not

raised below are waived on appeal.”).

4

DISCUSSION

Without delving into the substance of the Debtor’s appeal,4

 we affirm the

bankruptcy court’s orders based on well-established principles of appellate

jurisprudence. The bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of the Debtor’s

Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan cannot be reviewed because the Debtor failed to

provide an adequate record of that decision.5

 And we will not consider any

challenge to the orders granting Bank of North Dakota’s motion for relief and the

Trustee’s motion to dismiss the case because the Debtor failed to object to those

motions in the bankruptcy court. A party that fails to object to a motion cannot

seek review of an adverse decision on that motion on appeal.6

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the bankruptcy court’s orders

denying confirmation of the Debtor’s Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan, granting
5

Creditor Bank of North Dakota’s motion for relief from the automatic stay, and

granting the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion to dismiss are hereby affirmed.