Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank (In re Bullard)
- Summarized by William Amann , Amann Burnett, PLLC
- 9 years 3 weeks ago
- Citation:
- U.S.C.A., 1st Cir., No. 13-9009
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- An intermediate appellate court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court's denial of
confirmation of a reorganization plan is not a final order appealable under § 158(d)(1) so long as the debtor remains free to propose an amended plan.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor proposed a so-called "hybrid" plan, which proposed to bifurcate
Hyde Park's claim into secured and unsecured portions per 11 U.S.C. § 506(a), with the secured portion being reduced to the value of the property. The plan called for paying a dividend of approximately 5.26% on the unsecured portion over sixty months under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) and paying the secured portion according to the terms of the promissory note under § 1322(b)(5). Hyde Park objected, arguing that the plan could invoke either the modification provision of § 1322(b)(2) or the cure-and-maintain
provision of § 1322(b)(5), but not both. The bankruptcy court agreed, sustaining Hyde Park's objection, denying confirmation of the plan, and ordering Bullard to file an amended plan within thirty days or else face dismissal.
- Facts:
- Bullard appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (BAP). Recognizing, though disagreeing with, BAP precedent holding that denial of confirmation of a reorganization plan is not a final order appealable as of right, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(a)(1); The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of confirmation.
Because this appeal comes to us under § 158(d)(1), we have jurisdiction only if the BAP's order rejecting Bullard's proposed plan is a final order.3 We have noted that an order of the BAP cannot be final unless the underlying bankruptcy court order is final. Watson v. Boyajian (In re Watson), 403 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005).
Bullard urges us to eschew a rigid standard by which an order denying confirmation is per se not a final order, and, more expansively, to hold not only that such an order can be final, but that it should be presumed to be final unless the appellee can show
otherwise. Hyde Park urges us to join the majority of the circuits and hold that an order denying confirmation is not a final order if the debtor may still propose an amended plan. It argues in the alternative that, even if such an order could be final, Bullard has not satisfied any flexible standard we might adopt.
- Judge(s):
- Thompson, Stahl and Kayatta
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
