Court Opinion

ID: 9685492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:43:38.333286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.036176
License: Public Domain

BRANDT, Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting in part.
While I join the balance of the foregoing opinion, I respectfully dissent from part I of the discussion, respecting our jurisdiction. I do not see any mistake in the prior dismissals: although the clerk’s notices were based on the incorrect premise that the order was interlocutory, Debtors and Ferndale were asleep at the switch.
There was neither an inadvertent misapprehension of the facts, nor did the initial dismissals not reflect the panel’s real intentions. The unique circumstances exception does not work because the premise, that the order was interlocutory, was not a panel determination. Rather it was in essence a query, and appellants were invited to show the premise incorrect. When they did not respond, the prior appeals were properly dismissed.
I would dismiss the appeals of the Order Re Secured Status as untimely.