Richardson v. Peterson

Summarized by Ji Kim , Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
14 years 11 months ago

Citation:

11th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-11695, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, April 7, 2011

Tag(s):

11th Circuit

Ruling:

The Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration is untimely if it is filed past the ten day period to appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) and cannot be enlarged by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c) when no excusable neglect is present.

Procedural context:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court ruling that appellant's motions for reconsideration of a ruling of Bankruptcy Court should be denied because his time to appeal ran from the entry of the order denying his motion and not service of the order pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a).

Facts:

Appellant appealed from bankruptcy court ruling that the debt arising from a judgment against appellant was nondischargeable. Appellant filed a first motion to reconsider, which was denied as untimely. Appellant filed a second motion to reconsider, which was also denied. Appellant argued that his due process rights were violated because he never received an evidentiary hearing after his case was remanded to the district court. However, the district court allowed appellant to file a supplemental brief in which he was allowed to raise arguments. The Eleventh Circuit relied on Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349, 96 S. Ct. 893, 909 (1976), in finding that a litigant's rights of due process are satisfied as long as the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to be heard. The filing of the supplemental brief did not violate the appellant's rights of due process as it gave appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, appellant claimed that the time to appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) should run from service of an order and not entry of that order, and requested an extension to file notice of appeal. The ten day period of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), however, begins to run upon the entry of the order and not service. Furthermore, appellant did not show that he had “excusable neglect” to require an extension of time to appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(c).

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!