Opinion ID: 766991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Intent of the Order

Text: 32 This question need not detain us long. The Order's sole decretal paragraph provided that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1112(b), this case commenced under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code be, and hereby is, dismissed with prejudice. The Order does not say with prejudice to what, although it could have done so, viz, with prejudice to any further filings under the Bankruptcy Code, or with prejudice to any further filings under Chapter 11. Accordingly with prejudice may be regarded as ambiguous, as at least one other circuit has found when the phrase is used in a bankruptcy court's order. See Colonial Auto Ctr. v. Tomlin (In re Tomlin), 105 F.3d 933, 940 (4th Cir. 1997) ([W]e believe the bankruptcy court's order granting the trustee's motion to dismiss 'with prejudice,' '[f]or the reasons set forth' in that motion, is ambiguous. . . . Our remaining task is to determine the meaning of the ambiguous order at issue here.). 33 As Tomlin also holds, if a bankruptcy order of dismissal is ambiguous in this regard, the bankruptcy court's interpretation of its own order warrants customary appellate deference. The bankruptcy court was in the best position to interpret its own orders. 105 F.3d at 941 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This brings us to Bankruptcy Judge Feller's April 21, 1998 opinion and order, which remove any lingering doubt as to his intention when he dismissed the Casses' third Chapter 11 petition with prejudice. 3 . 34 In its April 21, 1998 opinion, which denied Casse's motion to vacate the sale of the Property, the bankruptcy court specifically concluded that 35 [t]he instant Chapter 13 case was filed in violation of the Order dismissing the Debtor's third Chapter 11 case with prejudice. The Debtor was thus ineligible to file under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, this Chapter 13 case is dismissed as a nullity. 36 219 B.R. at 665. 37 One cannot imagine a more clear declaration of the bankruptcy court's intention than its July 16, 1997 order barring all future filings by the debtor, including those invoking other chapters of the Code. 4 We agree with the Fourth Circuit in Tomlin, 105 F.3d at 941, that an appellate court reviewing bankruptcy orders should defer to a district court's interpretation of its own order, and extend the same deference to Bankruptcy Judge Feller's interpretation of his order in the case at bar.