Opinion ID: 2973187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conversion to Chapter 7

Text: As the adversary proceeding progressed, Appellant raised several objections in the main bankruptcy case. On June 10, 2004, the United States Trustee filed a motion to convert the case from chapter 11 to chapter 7. The motion stated that “cause” for conversion existed because the trustee was no longer operating Erin Farms’ business and there was no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. Furthermore, the motion alleged that Erin Farms was unable to effectuate a plan and that conversion would prevent the accrual of additional administrative expenses. On June 21, 2004, Appellant objected to the conversion motion. The objection states: “[Appellant] respectfully objects to the Trustee’s proposed order for dismissal of this Chapter 11 reorganization. This objection is 6 only for purposes of obtaining finality in the adversary proceeding where unsettled issues still exist.” (Appellees’ App. at 7, Case No. 04-8096.) A hearing on the motion to convert was held before the bankruptcy court on August 5, 2004. At the hearing, the trustee consented to the requested conversion. Timmons also appeared and was given the opportunity to present argument to the court. The court attempted to explain that Timmons’ concerns about the effect of conversion on his potential claims against Deere Credit and the estate were not warranted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion, and on August 11, 2004, an order converting the case to chapter 7 was entered (“conversion order”). On August 16, 2004, Timmons filed the pleading Motion for Rehearing to Amend Order of Conversion. Notwithstanding the bankruptcy court’s previous explanation of the effect of conversion, the motion asserts: Conversion of the case implies that all work in the Chapter 11 Case and the Adversary Case have been satisfactorily resolved and would hence leave no forum in which a new adversary case can be taken or in which the old adversary case can be modified. This would relieve the Chapter 11 Trustee from any bond liability and would indeed be prejudicial to [Appellant’s] interests. (Appellees’ App. at 13, Case No. 04-8096.) The motion for rehearing was denied by the bankruptcy court in an order entered on November 8, 2004. Appellant timely appealed the conversion order on November 17, 2004, since he filed his appeal within ten days of entry of the order denying his motion for rehearing. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), (b)(2) . D. Appellant’s Motion to Compel Service of Process In addition, the order of November 8, 2004, denied several procedural motions by Timmons, including his Suggestion of Non-Joinder with Supporting Documents and Amended Motion to Compel Service of Process. The motion to compel service of process alleges that Deere Credit’s 7 failure to serve Timmons with a summons and complaint in the adversary proceeding deprived him of his “constitutional right to counter-claim and defend the erroneous allegations of lien priority . . . .” (Appellant’s App. at 84, Case No. 04-8096.) On November 17, 2004, Appellant filed a separate appeal from that portion of the November 8 order which denied his amended motion to compel service of process. That appeal also was timely.