Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Theresa MARSHALL Debtor Theresa Marshall Appellant v. Educational Credit Management Corporation; MOHELA Appellees
IN RE: Theresa Marshall Debtor Theresa Marshall Appellant v. Educational Credit Management Corporation; MOHELA Appellees
[Unpublished]
In these consolidated appeals, Theresa Marshall appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) orders dismissing her appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Marshall filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Relevant to this appeal are the bankruptcy court's 1 orders, which overruled Marshall's objections to the proof of claim submitted by Educational Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”) and MOHELA, and denied her emergency motion to invalidate a transfer of a claim by ECMC. The BAP concluded that the notices of appeal regarding the July 28, 2017, and August 24, 2017, bankruptcy court orders were untimely, as they were filed beyond the 14-day deadline set forth in Rule 8002(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The BAP further concluded that Marshall's September 1, 2017, motion to require the bankruptcy court to reduce its oral findings to writing was not a motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052 and thus did not toll the 14-day appeal deadline under Rule 8002(b).
We have jurisdiction to review final decisions of the BAP under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). When reviewing a decision of the BAP, “we act as a second reviewing court of the bankruptcy court's decision, independently applying the same standard of review as the BAP.” In re Lasowski, 575 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Eilbert v. Pelican ( In re Eilbert ), 162 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir.1998) ). We review de novo the BAP's determination on jurisdiction. See In re O & S Trucking, Inc., 811 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2016).
Upon review of the record, we hold that the BAP did not err in dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, Marshall's untimely appeal from the bankruptcy court's orders at issue in this consolidated appeal. Because it is apparent from the record that the notices of appeal were untimely and there is no set of facts to support equitable tolling, we need not reach the issue of whether the September 1, 2017, motion falls within the parameters of Rule 7052. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Richard D. Taylor, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1843, No. 18-1845
Decided: May 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)