Source: https://casetext.com/case/cody-v-micale
Timestamp: 2019-06-27 12:40:23
Document Index: 436974635

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

Cody v. Micale, Civil Action No. 7:19-MC-4 | Casetext
Civil Action No. 7:19-MC-4 (W.D. Va. Jun. 10, 2019)
Codyv.Micale
Civil Action No. 7:19-MC-4
LINDA RENE CODY, Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER MICALE, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellee
On February 5, 2019 the bankruptcy court entered an order dismissing the petition. The court noted that the petition was Cody's fourth attempt to prevent the sale of a parcel of real property she owns. The City had condemned the property as unsafe and unfit for human habitation in November 2015. Cody testified that she had continued to live there until at least January 2016. Records showed that she had not paid real estate taxes on the property since 2013 and owed at least $8,158.77 in taxes to the City.
The City twice attempted to sell the property for delinquent taxes, once in September 2017 and once in May 2018. Both times Cody filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions and stopped the sales. Both petitions were dismissed for failure to file required documentation and in the dismissal of July 17, 2018 the bankruptcy court barred Cody from filing another bankruptcy petition for 180 days, or until January 13, 2019. ECF No. 27 at 2 in In re Cody, No. 19-70043.
Cody seeks leave from this court to file an appeal of the bankruptcy dismissal. As a general rule, United States district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from bankruptcy courts of final judgements, orders, and decrees entered in cases and proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Petitioners are required to seek leave of court prior to appealing some interlocutory orders and decrees. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). A final order "'ends litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.'" Thomas v. Grigsby, 556 B.R. 714, 718 (D. Md. 2016) (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). An interlocutory order "decides some intervening matter that requires other action to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits." Id. (citing In re Rood, 426 B.R. 538, 546 (D. Md. 2010)). Dismissal of a bankruptcy case is a final order because it "dooms the possibility of a discharge and the other benefits available to a debtor under Chapter 13." Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692-1693 (2015).
In this case, the order dismissing the bankruptcy case was final, rather than interlocutory, because it dismissed Cody's petition entirely. Thus, Cody does not need to obtain leave to appeal the dismissal and her request for leave to appeal the dismissal is DENIED.
Cody also seeks appointment of counsel to represent her in this bankruptcy appeal. However, no provision of the Bankruptcy Code either requires or allows the appointment of counsel for a debtor appealing an adverse ruling. In re Eilerston, No. 3:96-600-17BC, 211 B.R. 526, 531 (D.S.C. 1997) (citing Graham v. Lennington, 74 B.R. 967 (S.D. Ind. 1987)). See also In re Villanueva, No. RWT 09cvl443, 2009 WL 3379934 (Bankr. D. Md. 2009) (noting that a bankruptcy proceeding is a civil matter and there is no right to appointment of counsel in a civil matter).
In Eilerston, the court noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), a court has discretion to appoint counsel for an indigent party in a civil action, but it should be allowed only in exceptional cases. However, it is not clear that § 1915(d) applies to bankruptcy proceedings. See United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 441 (declining to find that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) applies to bankruptcy proceedings, but not discussing § 1915(d)). Even if § 1915(d) applies to bankruptcy proceedings, Cody has paid the filing fee and has not alleged indigency. In addition, although she asserts that she is seventy-five percent deaf, she has not stated any facts to indicate that her hearing loss prevents her from representing herself. Finally, a review of her case does not reveal any unusual circumstances that would justify the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Cody's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Based on the foregoing, Cody's motions for leave to file an appeal and for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 1 and 3, are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to docket this case as a bankruptcy appeal and enter a briefing order.
Entered: 06/10/2019