Opinion ID: 487154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 5 At the outset, it is necessary that we examine appellate jurisdiction. Initially the parties did not address the issue. Pursuant to our continuing duty to consider the existence of jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, Giannakos v. M/V Bravo Trader, 762 F.2d 1295 (5th Cir.1985), we requested additional briefing. The parties now submit that the decision of the district court is an appealable order. Because appellate jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent of the parties, we must examine further. 6 Jurisdiction of appeals in bankruptcy matters is provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d): 7 The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered ... [by district courts or bankruptcy appellate panels provided by the same section]. 2 8 We analyzed this provision at length in In re Delta Services Industries, 782 F.2d 1267, 1269 (5th Cir.1986), recognizing that courts properly view finality more flexibly under Sec. 158(d) (and its predecessor, Sec. 1293(b)) than under [28 U.S.C.] Sec. 1291 (which provides for appeals from final judgments in ordinary civil proceedings). As a panel of this court recently noted, in the bankruptcy context ... a case need not be appealed as a 'single judicial unit' at the termination of the proceeding as a whole. In re County Management, Inc., 788 F.2d 311, 313 (5th Cir.1986). 9 The reason for the more liberal application of finality rules in the bankruptcy setting is obvious. Under the umbrella of a single bankruptcy proceeding there may be any number of separable claims which, outside of bankruptcy, would form separate lawsuits. Only after each of the creditors' claims is defined may the bankruptcy court entertain a final disposition of the estate. For that reason, the courts have consistently held that  'final' does not mean the same thing in bankruptcy as in other federal cases. A proceeding to establish a claim against a bankrupt estate is final for purposes of appeal when it is over and done with, even though the bankruptcy goes on. In re Fox, 762 F.2d 54, 55 (7th Cir.1985); In re County Management, Inc., 788 F.2d 311 (5th Cir.1986). 10 While finality in bankruptcy is a more flexible concept than in ordinary civil proceedings, it is not an empty vessel into which the courts may pour whatever meaning they favor. The general rule prevails, as it does in civil actions, that a final order 'must generally be one which ends the litigation    and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. '  Id. at 313 (citations omitted). In bankruptcy cases involving remands, the order which includes the remand is appealable if all that remains to do on remand is a purely mechanical, computational, or in short 'ministerial' task, whose performance is unlikely to affect the issue that the disappointed party wants to raise on appeal from the order of remand. In re Fox, 762 F.2d at 55. 11 Consistent with the foregoing principles of finality in bankruptcy we recognize  'the general rule that an order determining the rights and liabilities of the parties and remanding for an accounting is interlocutory.'  In re County Management, 788 F.2d at 314, quoting In re Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 758 F.2d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir.1985). As with the general rule of finality, however, the quoted rule is subject to exception where the accounting is merely mechanical and ministerial. Id. at 1250. 12 While the record in the instant case is unclear as to the specific proceedings which will be required on remand, counsel agreed at oral argument that all requests for payment of administrative and legal expenses have already been approved and the disputed receivables have been accounted for and segregated. What remains is merely the bankruptcy court's review of the scheduled expenses to determine which items should be deducted from the accounts receivable, rather than from the other assets. In the posture presented herein, this is no more than a mechanical and ministerial task. Appellate jurisdiction lies.