Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BULLARD v. BLUE HILLS BANK, FKA HYDE PARK
 
SAVINGS BANK 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIRST CIRCUIT 

No. 14–116.  Argued April 1, 2015—Decided  May 4, 2015 

After filing for Chapter 13  bankruptcy, petitioner Bullard submitted  a
proposed repayment plan to the Bankruptcy Court.  Respondent Blue
Hills  Bank,  Bullard’s  mortgage  lender,  objected  to  the  plan’s  treat-
ment of its claim.  The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Bank’s objec-
tion and declined to confirm the plan.  Bullard appealed to the First
Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).  The BAP concluded that 
the  Bankruptcy  Court’s  denial  of  confirmation  was  not  a  final,  ap-
pealable order, see 28 U. S. C. §158(a)(1), but heard the appeal under
a provision permitting interlocutory appeals “with leave of the court,” 
§158(a)(3), and agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that Bullard’s pro-
posed  plan  was  not  allowed.    Bullard  appealed  to  the  First  Circuit, 
but it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  It concluded that its jurisdic-
tion  depended  on  the  finality  of  the  BAP’s  order,  which  in  turn  de-
pended on the finality of the Bankruptcy Court’s order.  And it found 
that the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying confirmation was not final 
so long as Bullard remained free to propose another plan. 

Held: A  bankruptcy  court’s  order  denying  confirmation  of  a  debtor’s
proposed repayment plan is not a final order that the debtor can im-
mediately appeal.  Pp. 4–12.

(a) Congress has long treated orders in bankruptcy cases as imme-
diately appealable “if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within 
the  larger  case,”  Howard  Delivery  Service,  Inc.  v.  Zurich  American 
Ins.  Co.,  547  U. S.  651,  657,  n. 3.    This  approach  is  reflected  in  the
current  statute,  which  provides  that  bankruptcy  appeals  as  of  right
may be taken not only from final judgments in cases but from “final
judgments,  orders,  and  decrees  . . .  in  cases  and  proceedings.”    28 
U. S. C. §158(a).  Bullard argues that a bankruptcy court conducts a