Opinion ID: 3019753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We must address the issue of whether the bankruptcy appellate panel has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in this case. The appellants timely filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 1997. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). The bankruptcy court’s denial of the appellants’ motion to set aside the order confirming the debtors’ plan is a final order over which the bankruptcy appellate panel unquestionably has appellate jurisdiction. See KCC-Leawood Corporate Manor I v. Travelers Ins. Co., 117 B.R. 969, 972 (W.D. Mo. 1989) (“Confirmation of a plan is a final order for purposes of an appeal.”). The inquiry over whether we may exercise jurisdiction in this case arises in the context of the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion to change venue. Although the denial of a motion to change venue is interlocutory in nature, it has been held to be appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). See ICMR, Inc. v. Tri-City 8 Foods, Inc., 100 B.R. 51, 53 (D. Kan. 1989). In ICMR, Inc. the district court, quoting 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.02[4][f] (L. King 15th ed. 1988), opined: The discretion of the district court or appellate panel [to permit interlocutory appeals of orders changing venue] should be more readily obtained when an order regarding the venue of the title 11 case is concerned than in an appeal from a venue order in a civil proceeding. Unlike a civil proceeding in which the order regarding 9 venue can be appealed at the conclusion of the proceeding, there is a very small chance of success on an appeal which is taken after the title 11 case has been administered and closed, which may be the only time when the order regarding venue becomes a final order. The appellate panel or district court should recognize this, and be more inclined to grant the interlocutory appeal when a motion regarding venue of the case is involved. ICMR, Inc., 100 B.R. at 53. We choose to follow the guidance provided by the district court in ICMR, Inc. and determine that we have jurisdiction to rule on the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion to change venue. For practical reasons it is appropriate for us to exercise appellate jurisdiction now over the denial of the motion to change venue. If we fail to do so, the Lands’ Chapter 13 case will run its course, the bankruptcy court may issue rulings during the pendency of the case, dividends will be paid to the creditors, and the Chapter 13 trustee will be paid the percentage fee. After the case has been administered and closed, the appellants could bring an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion to change venue. If they are successful at that time in their assertion that venue was improper from the inception of the case, the bankruptcy court will be required to order and oversee the recovery of the dividends paid to the creditors and the fee paid to the Chapter 13 trustee, vacate any orders entered in the case, then transfer the case to the Southern District of Iowa for the entire process to begin anew. This would certainly defeat the promotion of the efficient use of judicial resources, and frustrate the expectations of the debtors, their creditors and the Chapter 13 trustee. Further, exercising jurisdiction over the denial of the motion to change venue also comports with the three-part test for 10 determining whether a bankruptcy decision is final that is set forth in Lewis v. U.S., Farmers Home Admin., 992 F.2d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 1993). Here, the order leaves the bankruptcy court with nothing to do but to execute the order; delay in obtaining review would prevent the appellants from obtaining effective relief; and a later reversal on the issue of venue would possibly require recommencement of the entire bankruptcy case. See Lewis, 992 F.2d at 772. 11 See also Moix-McNutt v. Coop, 212 B.R. 953, 954 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997). “[T]he test for finality in the bankruptcy area is more liberal than in nonbankruptcy proceedings.” Lewis, 992 F.2d at 772. “‘[F]inality for bankruptcy purposes is a complex subject . . . [and courts deciding appealability questions] must take into account the peculiar needs of the bankruptcy process.’” In re Koch, 109 F.3d 1285, 1287 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Huebner, 986 F.2d 1222, 1223 (8th Cir. 1993)). ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL The appellants raise two points on appeal. First, whether a motion to change venue filed within twenty-nine days of the petition is timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1408 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(a)(2). Second, whether notice of the bankruptcy filing may be imputed to Sharon Bryan. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL Whether the appellants’ motion to change venue was timely filed under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(a)(2) involves a question of fact and the bankruptcy court’s ruling on this matter shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. See First Nat’l Bank v. Allen, 118 F.3d 1289, 1294 (8th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013. A bankruptcy court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a “‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” In re Waugh, 95 F.3d 706, 711 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985)). The appellant bears the burden of proving that the bankruptcy court’s determination was clearly erroneous. U.S. Machinery Movers v. 12 Beller, 280 F.2d 91, 95 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 903, 81 S. Ct. 236, 5 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1960). Whether notice of the Lands’ bankruptcy filing may be imputed to Sharon Bryan involves a question of law over which the bankruptcy appellate panel exercises de novo review. See First Nat’l Bank, 118 F.3d at 1294. 13