In re Bushnell

• Decision Date: 26 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 94-10706.,94-10706.
• Citation: 273 B.R. 359
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Vermont
• Parties: In re Robert G. BUSHNELL, Jr., Debtor.

273 B.R. 359

In re Robert G. BUSHNELL, Jr., Debtor.

No. 94-10706.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont.

November 26, 2001.

Gerard A. Riso, Esq., Stein, Riso & Mantel, New York City, Bernard M. Lewis, Bethel, VT, for Debtor.

Mary G. Kirkpatrick, Esq., Lisman, Webster Kirkpatrick & Leckerling, PC, Burlington, VT, for Creditors.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEBTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, DENYING CLAIMANTS' MOTION TO PERMIT NOTICE OF APPEAL

NUNC PRO TUNC

AND DENYING CLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER § 105 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

COLLEEN A. BROWN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Multiple creditors, who filed individual proofs of claim based upon the debtor's vicarious liability for an alleged scheme to defraud them (hereafter "the claimants"), seek an enlargement of time within which to file an appeal of the decision of this Court granting the debtor's motion for summary judgment. The debtor, Robert G. Bushnell, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. This Court has jurisdiction over these motions pursuant to Rule 8002(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and under Local Rule 8002 of the Local Rules of Practice and Procedure in Bankruptcy for the District of Vermont dated May 1, 1992¹, which specifically provides that the Bankruptcy Court shall rule on motions as to late filed notices of bankruptcy appeals in this District.

BACKGROUND

The questions raised by the debtor's motion, and the motions filed by the claimants, turn upon a procedural chronology which is not in dispute:

                Thursday, August 30, 2001:     Memorandum of Decision granting the debtor's
                                               motion for summary judgment issued and faxed
                                               to counsel for the parties; a copy of the
                                               decision was also transmitted to the
                                               Bankruptcy Noticing Center ("BNC") for
                                               mailing to interested parties, including
                                               claimants' counsel2
                Saturday, Sept. 1, 2001:       The BNC served the Memorandum of
                                               Decision by
                                               first class mail upon the interested persons
                                               [Dkt. # 471-1]
                Thursday, Sept, 6, 2001:       The Court signed the Order granting
                                               the debtor's motion for summary judgment
                Saturday, Sept. 8, 2001:       The Clerk's Office entered the Order
                                               on the docket
                Monday, Sept. 10, 2001:        The Clerk's Office transmitted a copy of the
                                               Order to the BNC for mailing to interested
                                               parties in compliance with the notice of
                                               entry requirement under Federal Rules of
                                               Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9022(a)
                Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001:       The terrorists attacked the World
                                               Trade Center; Court closes mid-day
                Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2001:     The BNC served the Order by mail upon the
                                               interested persons [Dkt. # 472-1]; Court
                                               remains closed
                Monday, Sept 17, 2001:         The claimants' counsel received a copy of the
                                               Order granting summary judgment in favor of
                                               the debtor
                Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001:       The 10 day period for appealing the order
                                               expired
                Friday, Sept. 21, 2001:        The claimants filed a Notice of Appeal dated
                                               September 19, 2001
                Monday, Oct. 8, 2001:          The 20-day period for filing a motion to
                                               enlarge time for filing an appeal, pursuant
                                               to F. R.Bankr.P 8002(c), expired
                

                Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001:      The debtor filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal
                                               on the grounds that the claimants failed to file
                                               a timely notice of appeal
                Friday, Oct. 19, 2001:         The claimants filed their motion seeking both
                                               to enlarge time under F.R.Bankr P 8002(c)(2)
                                               and to permit appeal nunc pro tunc pursuant
                                               to 11 U.S.C. § 105
                Friday, Nov. 9, 2001:          The Court heard oral argument by counsel on
                                               all three motions
                

ISSUE

The issue before the Court is whether the circumstances presented by the claimants justify relief from the stringent requirements of Rule 8002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (hereafter "Rule 8002"), governing the filing of bankruptcy appeals.

DISCUSSION

The pertinent provisions of Rule 8002 direct as follows:

(a) Ten-Day Period: The notice of appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from....

(c) Extension of Time for Appeal:

...

(2) A request to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal must be made by written motion filed before the time for filing a notice of appeal has expired, except that such motion filed not later than 20 days after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal may be granted upon a showing of excusable neglect. An extension of time for filing a notice of appeal may not exceed 20 days from the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal otherwise prescribed by this rule or 10 days from the date of entry of the order granting the motion, whichever is later.

The claimants do not dispute that they failed to comply both with the requirement that the appeal be filed within 10 days of notice of entry and with the requirement that the request to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal on the grounds of excusable neglect be filed within 20 days after the expiration of the time for filing the notice of appeal.

The claimants rely on three grounds for relief from the mandates of Rule 8002: excusable neglect, equitable policy considerations, and force majeure. For the reasons set forth below, this Court does not find any of these arguments sufficiently compelling to relieve the claimants from the very strict and clear mandate of Rule 8002, as enforced in this Circuit and elsewhere. See In re Peryea, 107 F.3d 3, 1997 WL 50015 (2nd Cir.1997)(unpublished)(affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal based upon untimely notice of appeal and quoting COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (1996) for the proposition that "[a] multitude of cases hold that unless an appeal is timely taken, the reviewing court lacks jurisdiction to hear it"); In re Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d 754, 758 (2nd Cir.1981)(finding, under the predecessor rule, that "failure to file timely notice of appeal affects the jurisdiction of a reviewing court to consider the bankruptcy court's judgment or order"); Gravel and Shea v. Vermont National Bank, 162 B.R. 969, 973 fn. 7 (D.Vt.1993)(noting agreement with Bankruptcy Court's finding that lack of notice from the Clerk's office regarding an appealable order does not authorize court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within allowed time); In re Soter, 31 B.R. 986, 989-90 (D.Vt.1983)(dismissing bankruptcy appeal as untimely, stating that non-compliance with filing deadline is jurisdictional and noting that "[t]he public interest in timeliness and finality of bankruptcy proceedings underlies the rules' time requirements"); see also In re Wechsler, 246 B.R. 490 (S.D.N.Y.2000)("The district courts do not have jurisdiction to review an order of the Bankruptcy Court if the notice of appeal is not timely."); French Bourekas, Inc. v. Turner, 199 B.R. 807 (E.D.N.Y.1996)(failure to file timely notice of appeal from bankruptcy court's order constitutes a jurisdictional defect); In re White, 183 B.R. 356 (D.Conn.1995)(untimely notice of appeal is jurisdictional defect); In re Hotel Syracuse, Inc., 154 B.R. 13, 15 (N.D.N.Y.1993)("The 10-day period for filing a notice of appeal has been strictly construed, requiring strict compliance with its terms."); accord In re Kingsmen Enterprises, 83 F.3d 422, 1996 WL 193805 (6th Cir.1996)(unpublished); In re Weston, 18 F.3d 860 (10th Cir.1994); In re Mouradick, 13 F.3d 326 (9th Cir.1994); In re Colon, 941 F.2d 242 (3rd Cir.1991); Matter of Topco, Inc., 894 F.2d 727 (5th Cir.1990); In re Luedtke, 215 B.R. 390 (8th Cir. BAP 1997). In sum, it is well settled that the filing requirements of Rule 8002 are jurisdictional and failure to timely file a notice of appeal precludes appellate review.

A very recent ruling issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sets forth a thorough analysis of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the time limits for filing appeals imposed by comparable Rule 4(a)(1), F.R.App.Proc., and is instructional to the determination in the instant case. See Poblah v. Beaty, 21 Fed.Appx. 56, 2001 WL 1230649 (2nd Cir. October 12, 2001)(time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional); see also McAllan v. City of New York, 248 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir.2001); Rezzonico v. H & R Block, Inc., 182 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir.1999); Canfield v. Van Atta Buick/ GMC Truck, Inc., 127 F.3d 248 (2nd Cir.1997); Martinez v. Hoke, 38 F.3d 655 (2nd Cir.1994); In re Cosmopolitan Aviation Corporation, 763 F.2d 507 (2nd Cir.1985).

Since the claimants also argue that their failure to file a timely appeal could be excused if this Court granted their request for an extension of time based upon excusable neglect, the criteria for satisfying the timeliness requirements of Rule 8002(c)(2) must also be examined. This Court has considered this issue and concludes that it is well settled that a party's failure to file a motion for extension of time within 20 days after the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 8002(c)(2) is likewise fatal and precludes any consideration of purported excusable neglect. See In re McLeod, 100 F.3d 957, 1996 WL...