Opinion ID: 486587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the deacceleration issue

Text: 12 The September 11, 1984 order of the Bankruptcy Judge discussed five issues. Issue d was Whether Debtors' Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan may 'deaccelerate' and reinstate Debtors' defaulted mortgage? At the close of an extensive discussion of that issue the Bankruptcy Judge stated his conclusion that Debtors' Chapter 13 Plan may 'deaccelerate' Mattoon's mortgaged debt by paying mortgage arrearages within the plan and by paying their regular payments outside of the plan. None of the four specific orders at the close of the order reflected that ruling nor related in any way to issue d. The order of the district court on appeal did not discuss issue d, although it referred initially to the order of September 11 as having de-accelerated and reinstated the mortgage. Mattoon's petition for rehearing asserted that the district court order had failed to dispose of this issue. The petition for rehearing was denied after colloquy which related only to contentions about Sec. 549(c). 13 We conclude that the order of September 11, 1984 was not a final order on the issue of deacceleration. A plan which proposed deacceleration of the mortgage debt had been filed, but consideration and approval remained for later action. What the Bankruptcy Judge wrote about deacceleration in the order of September 11 was a preliminary ruling on that feature of the plan. He evidently adhered to the ruling in his order of approval entered January 31, 1985, but there was no appeal taken from that order to the district court. As to this issue the order of September 11 could not be appealed to the district court as a matter of right under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a). It could have been appealed only with leave of court. No leave was expressly given, and leave cannot be implied where the district court failed to discuss the issue even after the original failure was brought to the court's attention. 14 The parties have argued the matter as if the deacceleration issue were properly before us. We conclude, however, that it is not. 15 As heretofore stated, the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the Bankruptcy Judge as to the avoidance of the foreclosure sale is AFFIRMED.