David Findling v. Tammy Terry
- Summarized by Christopher Muniz , U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Indiana
- 8 months 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Dismissed
- Citation:
- 24-1380 (6th Circuit, Jun 13,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (“6th Cir.”) dismissed the appeal of the Chapter 13 trustee for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court’s orders were not final, appealable orders.
- Procedural context:
- Findling filed a notice of appeal with the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) but did not file a brief as ordered. While the district court denied Terry’s motion to dismiss the appeal, it ordered Findling to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. After Findling filed his response, the district court vacated the show cause order “without explanation.” Terry appealed the orders denying her motion to dismiss and vacating the show cause order.
The 6th Cir. determined that since “the district court neither affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order nor dismissed the appeal,” such that the orders “are quintessentially interlocutory,” it did not have jurisdiction to review the orders under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The panel found that “Terry confuses the standard for determining whether a bankruptcy court order is final and therefore appealable by right to the district court (§ 158(d)(1)) with the standard for determining whether a district court’s decision in a bankruptcy appeal is appealable to this court (§ 158(d)(1)).” Orders under the former are final “when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the overarching bankruptcy case,” while jurisdiction under the latter “focuses on whether the district court finally disposed of an appeal from the bankruptcy court, or whether further proceedings will occur on a district court’s remand.” As Findling’s appeal of the bankruptcy court order remained unresolved, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) did not arise.
- Facts:
- Attorney Findling represented the Debtor in her Chapter 13 case until he and his firm were disqualified for asserting a pre-petition attorney’s fee lien. Although the Debtor made close to $150,000 in plan payments to Terry, the Chapter 13 trustee, her case was dismissed pre-confirmation. Terry proposed retaining eight percent of the funds as her trustee’s fee under 28 U.S.C. § 586(e)(2). Findling and the Debtor each objected to the trustee’s proposed distribution. After the bankruptcy court ordered Terry to return all of the money to the Debtor, except for allowed administrative expenses and the trustee’s percentage fee, and “without prejudice to any attorney lien that Findling may claim in any of the funds to be paid to the Debtor by the Trustee under this Order,” Terry made the distributions.
- Judge(s):
- Moore, Griffin, and Kethledge
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!
