Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Id.,  at  309.    The  Bankruptcy  Court  ordered 

hearing,  the  Bankruptcy  Court  declined  to  confirm  it. 
In re Bullard, 475 B. R. 304 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Mass. 2012).  The 
court  concluded  that  Chapter  13  did  not  allow  Bullard  to
split  the  Bank’s  claim  as  he  proposed  unless  he  paid  the 
secured portion in full during the plan period.  Id., at 314. 
The  court  acknowledged,  however,  that  other  Bankruptcy
Courts  in  the  First  Circuit  had  approved  such  arrange­
ments. 
Bullard to submit a new plan within 30 days.  Id., at 314. 
Bullard  appealed  to  the  Bankruptcy  Appellate  Panel
(BAP)  of  the  First  Circuit.    The  BAP  first  addressed  its 
jurisdiction  under  the  bankruptcy  appeals  statute,  noting 
that a party can immediately appeal only “final” orders of 
a bankruptcy court.  In re Bullard, 494 B. R. 92, 95 (2013) 
(citing  28  U. S. C.  §158(a)(1)).    The  BAP  concluded  that 
the order denying plan confirmation was not final because 
Bullard was “free to propose an alternate plan.”  494 B. R., 
at  95.  The  BAP  nonetheless  exercised  its  discretion  to 
hear  the  appeal  under  a  provision  that  allows  interlocu­
tory appeals “with leave of the court.”  §158(a)(3).  The BAP 
granted  such  leave  because  the  confirmation  dispute 
involved  a  “controlling  question  of  law  . . .  as  to  which 
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and 
“an  immediate  appeal  [would]  materially  advance  the 
ultimate  termination  of  the  litigation.”  494  B. R.,  at  95, 
and  n. 5.   On  the  merits,  the  BAP  agreed  with  the  Bank­
ruptcy  Court  that  Bullard’s  proposed  treatment  of  the
Bank’s claim was not allowed.  Id., at 96–101. 

Bullard  sought  review  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the
First Circuit, but that court dismissed his appeal for lack 
of  jurisdiction.    In re  Bullard,  752  F. 3d  483  (2014).    The 
First Circuit noted that because the BAP had not certified 
the  appeal  under  §158(d)(2),  the  only  possible  source  of 
Court  of  Appeals  jurisdiction  was  §158(d)(1),  which  al­
lowed appeal of only a final order of the BAP.  Id., at 485, 
and  n. 3.    And  under  First  Circuit  precedent  “an  order  of