Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealbankruptcychapter 13 bankruptcyobjectionsustained
appealbankruptcychapter 13 bankruptcy

Related Cases

Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 56 USLW 2616, 17 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 695, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,264
View Case »
In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., 416 F.3d 136, 54 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1033, 44 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 276, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,397
View Case »
In re Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, L.L.C., 710 F.3d 324, 57 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 177, Bankr. L. Rep. P 82,438
View Case »
In re Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc., 804 F.3d 328, 74 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 949, 61 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 186
View Case »
Credit Alliance Corp. v. Williams, 851 F.2d 119, 57 USLW 2059, 18 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 227, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,369
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 191 L.Ed.2d 621, 83 USLW 4288, 73 C.B.C. 1492, 60 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 258, Bankr. L. Rep. P 82,793, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4282, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4917, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 228

Facts

After filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Louis Bullard submitted a proposed repayment plan to the Bankruptcy Court, which was objected to by Blue Hills Bank, his mortgage lender. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Bank's objection and declined to confirm Bullard's plan, stating that it did not comply with the Bankruptcy Code. Bullard appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, leading to further appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

In December 2010, Louis Bullard filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts. A week later he filed a proposed repayment plan listing the various claims he anticipated creditors would file and the monthly amounts he planned to pay on each claim over the five-year life of his plan.

Issue

Is a bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of a debtor's proposed repayment plan a final order that the debtor can immediately appeal?

The question presented is whether such an order denying confirmation is a 'final' order that the debtor can immediately appeal.

Rule

A bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of a proposed repayment plan is not a final order that the debtor can immediately appeal, as only confirmation or case dismissal alters the status quo and fixes the parties' rights and obligations.

A bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of a debtor's proposed repayment plan is not a final order that the debtor can immediately appeal.

Analysis

The court determined that the relevant proceeding is the entire process of attempting to arrive at an approved plan, rather than each individual plan submission. The denial of confirmation with leave to amend does not finalize the proceedings, as the debtor remains free to propose another plan. This approach prevents piecemeal appeals and encourages debtors to work with creditors to develop a confirmable plan.

We agree with the Bank: The relevant proceeding is the process of attempting to arrive at an approved plan that would allow the bankruptcy to move forward.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the order denying confirmation was not final and therefore not immediately appealable.

Because the Court of Appeals correctly held that the order denying confirmation was not final, its judgment is Affirmed.

Who won?

Blue Hills Bank prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions that the denial of confirmation was not a final order.

Blue Hills Bank prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions that the denial of confirmation was not a final order.

You must be