Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

BULLARD v. BLUE HILLS BANK 

Opinion of the Court 

est  of  any  creditor  provided  for  by  the  plan.”    §§1327(b), 
(c).  Confirmation  also  triggers  the  Chapter  13  trustee’s 
duty to distribute to creditors those funds already received
from the debtor.  §1326(a)(2).

When  confirmation  is  denied  and  the  case  is  dismissed 
as  a  result,  the  consequences  are  similarly  significant.
Dismissal  of  course  dooms  the  possibility  of  a  discharge
and the other benefits available to a debtor under Chapter 
13.  Dismissal lifts the automatic stay entered at the start 
of  bankruptcy,  exposing  the  debtor  to  creditors’  legal 
actions and collection efforts.  §362(c)(2).  And it can limit 
the  availability  of  an  automatic  stay  in  a  subsequent
bankruptcy case.  §362(c)(3). 

Denial of confirmation with leave to amend, by contrast,
changes  little.  The  automatic  stay  persists.    The  parties’
rights  and  obligations  remain  unsettled.    The  trustee 
continues  to  collect  funds  from  the  debtor  in  anticipation
of a different plan’s eventual confirmation.  The possibility 
of discharge lives on.  “Final” does not describe this state 
of affairs.  An order denying confirmation does rule out the 
specific  arrangement  of  relief  embodied  in  a  particular
plan.  But  that  alone  does  not  make  the  denial  final  any 
more  than,  say,  a  car  buyer’s  declining  to  pay  the  sticker 
price  is  viewed  as  a  “final”  purchasing  decision  by  either
the buyer or seller.  “It ain’t over till it’s over.” 

Several additional considerations bolster our conclusion 

that the relevant “proceeding” is the entire process culmi­
nating  in  confirmation  or  dismissal.    First  is  a  textual 
clue.  Among  the  list  of  “core  proceedings”  statutorily
entrusted  to  bankruptcy  judges  are  “confirmations  of
plans.”  28  U. S. C.  §157(b)(2)(L).    Although  this  item
hardly  clinches  the  matter  for  the  Bank—the  provision’s
purpose is not to explain appealability—it does cut in the 
Bank’s favor.  The presence of the phrase “confirmations of 
plans,”  combined  with  the  absence  of  any  reference  to
denials,  suggests  that  Congress  viewed  the  larger  confir­