Opinion ID: 764968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of Preblich's Appeal from Denial of Exemption

Text: 48 To timely appeal from the bankruptcy court's order denying her claim of exemption, Preblich had to file a notice of appeal within ten days of entry of the order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). 8 Preblich failed to comply with this requirement. 49 On February 24, 1993, the bankruptcy court entered its order denying Preblich's January 1993 motion claiming an exemption in the escrow proceeds. Preblich never filed a notice of appeal from this order. Instead, on July 29, 1994, Preblich filed another motion claiming the escrow proceeds were exempt. It was only after this second motion was denied by the bankruptcy court that Preblich filed a notice of appeal on September 2, 1994. This notice of appeal, filed more than eighteen months after entry of the bankruptcy court's February 24, 1993, order denying the exemption, was well outside of the ten-day period allowed under Rule 8002(a). It was therefore untimely. 50 Even if we construe Preblich's second motion, filed July 29, 1994, as a Rule 9023 motion to alter or amend the judgment, 9 we must still hold that the notice of appeal was untimely. Under Rule 8002(b), if a party makes a timely motion for relief under Rule 9023, the time to file a notice of appeal does not begin to run until the bankruptcy court's order disposing of the motion is entered. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b) (1993). 10 51 A timely motion to alter or amend under Rule 9023 is one filed within ten days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023; Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). 52 Preblich did not file her second motion for return of the escrow proceeds until July 29, 1994, approximately seventeen months after the bankruptcy court entered its order denying her claim of exemption. This motion, filed more than ten days after the entry of judgment was therefore not timely for purposes of appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b). 53 Preblich's failure to file a notice of appeal within ten days of the bankruptcy court's February 24, 1993, order deprived the district court of jurisdiction to consider whether the escrow proceeds were exempt under Alaska state law. See In re Mouradick, 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) ([T]he untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court's order.).