Opinion ID: 4469326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pilcher’s BAP Appeals

Text: Pilcher appealed to the BAP from the bankruptcy court’s orders. The BAP construed his notice of appeal (NOA) as two separate NOAs and opened two separate appeals, No. WY-18-064 and WY-18-065. It then issued an order to show cause concerning its appellate jurisdiction. The BAP later dismissed WY-18-065 (the appeal from the order granting Elliott’s motion and denying Pilcher a discharge) because Pilcher had failed to respond to the show-cause order or to its fee notice concerning the appeal. It dismissed WY-18-064 because it determined the order appealed from—reserving a ruling on Pilcher’s motion for summary judgment—was not a final order. After this initial round of BAP appeals, proceedings continued in bankruptcy court. Pilcher filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s summary-judgment findings. On June 29, 2018, the bankruptcy court entered orders denying this motion for reconsideration and Pilcher’s motions for summary judgment. It also entered a judgment pursuant to its earlier order granting Elliott’s motion for partial summary judgment, certifying the judgment as a final order pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7054. On July 9, 2018, Pilcher filed a new NOA in which he appealed from the bankruptcy court’s orders entered on April 11, 2018 (the date of its oral ruling on 3 Elliott’s motion) and June 29, 2018. The BAP again construed his NOA as two separate NOAs. It assigned Pilcher’s appeal from the judgment granting Elliott’s motion for partial summary judgment to BAP Appeal No. WY-18-074, his appeal of the denial of his motions for summary judgment to BAP Appeal No. WY-18-075, and the order denying his motion for reconsideration to both appeals. On July 10, 2018, the BAP entered notices of deficiency in both pending appeals, requiring Pilcher to satisfy the filing and docketing fees. It also entered an order to show cause why No. WY-18-075 should not be dismissed as interlocutory. Rather than attempting to show cause, Pilcher moved to withdraw both appeals. In his motion to withdraw No. WY-18-075, he explained he would “appeal court order finding [Elliott] to be a creditor once that order becomes final.” Aplee. App. at 215. In his motion to withdraw No. WY-18-074 he stated, “Defendant to appeal Plaintiff was not creditor.” Id. at 209. The BAP then entered orders dismissing both appeals with prejudice. Pilcher filed a motion for reconsideration with the BAP, requesting it change its dismissal in No. WY-18-075 to a dismissal without prejudice. The BAP construed his motion as a motion to reopen the appeal and denied it, reasoning the dismissal with prejudice would not prevent Pilcher from eventually appealing any final order entered in the underlying adversary proceeding.