IN RE: KIZZIE NICOLE HARRIS Debtor. (2026)

Chapter 7

Memorandum Decision Reserving Ruling on Joint Motion

Although the parties tendered a joint proposed nunc pro tunc order, the Court declines to adopt it. A court should use a nunc pro tunc order when the court ordered something but through inadvertence, never entered that order. Those facts are not the facts before the Court. Doc 120, the nunc pro tunc proposed order the Chapter 7 Trustee and the Intervenor, Castle Point Apartments Property, LLC submitted asks the Court to rewrite history. Therefore, the Court declines to sign Doc 120 and reserves its ruling on the parties’ Joint Motion, Doc 119.

I. Background

On July 1, 2026, the Trustee filed his “Motion to Compromise and Settle,” Doc 91, and the Court granted his request in Doc 107. In September 2026, the Trustee and the Intervenor moved the Court to approve their “Joint Motion to Amend Order Granting Motion to Compromise and Settle, Nunc Pro Tunc,” Doc 120.

The parties may have shown cause for the Court to vacate the original order, Doc 107, and implement most of the provisions in the proposed amended order. The original court-approved order that was tendered lacked language addressing, among other things, administration and distribution of settlement proceeds, scope of liens, and dismissal of a currently pending state court case. The amended order addresses those issues, and the proposed amendments do not prejudice any party. The parties ask that the amended order be a nunc pro tunc order.

II. Nunc Pro Tunc Orders

Nunc pro tunc orders are “ ‘now for then’ orders” that “ ‘reflect the reality’ of what has already occurred.” Roman Cath. Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Acevedo Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 65 (2020) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, at 1287 and Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 49 (1990)). “Such a decree presupposes a decree allowed, or ordered, but not entered, through inadvertence of the court.” Id. (quoting Cuebas y Arredondo v. Cuebas y Arredondo, 223 U.S. 376, 390 (1912)).

The Seventh Circuit gives the following example of an appropriate nunc pro tunc order. Justice v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 682 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2012). Suppose a party filed a motion on November 22, but the clerk erroneously noted the party filed the motion on November 23. Id. A court could use its nunc pro tunc powers to show the correct date. Id.

But courts may not “make the record what it is not.” Puerto Rico, 589 U.S. at 65 (quoting Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 49 (1990)). “Nunc pro tunc ‘is not a substitute for relation back. It can't be used to revise history, but only to correct inaccurate records.’ ” Justice, 682 F.3d at 664 (citations omitted). “Put colorfully, ‘[n]unc pro tunc orders are not some Orwellian vehicle for revisionist history—creating ‘facts’ that never occurred in fact.’ ” Puerto Rico, 589 U.S. at 65 (citation omitted). The court “cannot make the record what it is not.” Id.

A court should deny a party's request to “change history,” and when a court exercises its “Orwellian power” via a nunc pro tunc order, the reviewing court may vacate and remand the order. Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193, 196 (7th Cir. 1995).

III. Analysis

The Trustee and Intervenor stylized their proposed amended order as a nunc pro tunc request, but they mislabeled their form of order. They added provisions to the proposed order that do not reflect the reality of what really happened. Their motion does not correct a clerical or ministerial error. Instead, the parties attempt to: make a record that was not; rewrite history; create facts that never actually happened; and ask that the Court exercise Orwellian power. The Court declines to sign the proposed amended order; doing so is reversable error.

And even if the Court were to grant the parties request, there would be two competing orders – the original order that lacks the appropriate language – and the amended order. No party has filed a motion to vacate Doc 107.

IV. Conclusion

The parties’ form of order accompanying their Joint Motion to Amend Order Granting Motion to Compromise and Settle, Nunc Pro Tunc asks the Court to change history, so the Court declines to adopt it. Therefore, the Court:

(1) RESERVES its ruling on the Joint Motion for 21 days;

(2) DIRECTS the parties to address the original order, Doc 107; and

(3) INSTRUCTS the parties to file form of order that excludes the nunc pro tunc language.

SO ORDERED.

PAUL E. SINGLETON United States Bankruptcy Judge