In re Mondelli

Summarized by Ferve Ozturk , BakerHostetler
13 years 2 months ago

Citation:

Case No. 11-3029, 2012 WL 6685476 (3d Cir. Dec. 26, 2012)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

1. The district court did not err in concluding that the appeals of bankruptcy court orders were untimely. Orders re-converting case into chapter 13 proceeding were final when chapter 13 case was confirmed, and orders granting compensation were final when they were entered on the docket. Id. at *3. Appellants did not appeal these orders within fourteen days from the date the orders became final for purposes of appeal, as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). 2. Appellants lacked standing to appeal a final decree holding that the bankruptcy estate had been fully administered and order necessary ministerial acts. “[O]nly those whose rights or interests are directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by an order of the bankruptcy court may bring an appeal.” Id. at *3 (citing In re PWS Holding Corp., 228 F.3d 224, 249 (3d Cir.2000)). Appellants did not argue that their rights were compromised by the final decree. 3. District court did not err in concluding that letter seeking Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 sanctions complied with safe-harbor provision in Rule 11 and hence, the movants were entitled to a decision on the merits of their request for sanctions. Id. at *4. 4. District court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions for appeal of consent order. "A party cannot appeal a consent judgment unless at least one of three exceptions applies: (1) a party did not actually consent; (2) the court approving the consent order lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment; and (3) the consent judgment explicitly reserves the right to appeal." Id. at *4 (citing Verzilli v. Flexon, Inc., 295 F.3d 421, 424 (3d Cir. 2002)). Those exceptions did not apply to the current case.

Procedural context:

Appeal from district court's dismissal of appeals of bankruptcy court orders, district court's denial of appellants' motion for reconsideration, and district court's imposition of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 sanctions.

Facts:

On February 18, 2004, Appellant Victor Mondelli commenced a chapter 13 proceeding, which subsequently was converted to a chapter 7 proceeding and then re-converted to a chapter 13 proceeding. Appellant agreed to certain consent orders authorizing him to lease property. The bankruptcy court issued orders re-converting the case to a chapter 13 proceeding, granting compensation to the chapter 7 trustee and the trustee's attorneys, and issuing a final decree. The chapter 13 case was confirmed. Appellant appealed the consent orders, and his creditors moved for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 sanctions in connection therewith by means of a letter to Appellant that outlined their reason for seeking sanctions. The district court dismissed all the appeals, held that the letter complied with Rule 11's safe-harbor provisions, and granted sanctions against Appellant's attorneys.

Judge(s):

J. Rendell, J. Fuentes, J. Chagares

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!