In re Smelser, Bankruptcy No. 03-41980.

Decision Date25 May 2005
Docket NumberNo. 05-CV-70027-DT.,Bankruptcy No. 03-41980.,05-CV-70027-DT.
Citation327 B.R. 815
PartiesIn re David & Stacy K. SMELSER, Debtors. David & Stacy K. Smelser, Appellants, v. United States of America, improperly named as the Internal Revenue Service, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Thomas J. Budzynski, Clinton Township, MI, for Debtors/Appellants.

John A. Lindquist, III, Peter Sklarew, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

OPINION AND ORDER

ZATKOFF, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Appellee United States of America's (hereinafter, the "Government") Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Docket # 2) pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8011. The Appellants, David and Stacy K. Smelser (hereinafter, the "Smelsers"), have filed a response and the reply period has expired. The facts and legal arguments are adequately set forth in the briefs submitted. Therefore, finding that the determination of the issues will not be aided by oral argument, and pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(e), this Court ORDERS that the Government's Motion to Dismiss Appeal be decided upon the briefs submitted, without this Court entertaining oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, Government's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, Government's Motion to Consolidate Cases (Docket # 10) is hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.

II. BACKGROUND

The Smelsers filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy on January 23, 2003, electing to seek rearrangement under Chapter 13. On April 17, 2003, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") filed a proof of claim in the case. The Smelsers' plan was confirmed on June 12, 2003, by Order Confirming Plan signed by the bankruptcy court. On November 19, 2003, the Smelsers filed a Notice of Objection to the claim of the IRS, which Notice was sent to the IRS but not the U.S. Attorney General's Office. For a variety of reasons, neither the IRS nor the Attorney General's Office responded to the Smelsers' Notice of Objection within the period required by applicable law. Accordingly, on January 14, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an Order (the "1/14/04 Order") disallowing the IRS's claim because the IRS had not responded to the Smelsers' objection. Throughout the ensuing nine months, the Smelsers, the IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice (Attorney General's Office) engaged in a series of motions, objections and claims.

On October 8, 2004, the Government filed a motion to vacate or reconsider the 1/14/04 Order, arguing (among other reasons) that the failure to serve the Attorney General rendered the 1/14/04 Order void under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). The Government also asserted that the Order was invalid because it improperly granted a default judgment against the United States without an evidentiary hearing required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(e), made applicable under Bankruptcy Rules 7055 and 9014. The Smelsers filed a response and the Government replied. The parties argued the motion at a hearing on December 8, 2004, at which time the bankruptcy court orally granted the Government's motion to vacate the 1/14/04 Order. The bankruptcy court directed counsel for the Government to prepare an order consistent with its ruling from the bench, obtain agreement from the Smelsers' attorney as to form and submit the same to the bankruptcy court pursuant to Bankruptcy Local Rule 9021-1.

On December 14, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an Order (agreed upon as to form by counsel for both parties) vacating the 1/14/04 Order, wherein the bankruptcy court stated, in part, that "[t]he claim of the Internal Revenue Service filed on April 4, 2003 (Claim No. 8) is REINSTATED subject to the Objection to said claim filed by the debtors on November 21, 2003 (DI# 39), which remains to be resolved by further proceedings." The December 14, 2004, Order (the "12/14/04 Order") also allowed discovery (as requested by the Smelsers) and set a status/scheduling conference for February 28, 2005.

On January 3, 2005, the Smelsers filed a "Claim of Appeal" in this Court.

III. OPINION
A. Appeal of a Final Order

Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), district courts have jurisdiction over appeals from "final judgments, orders, and decrees" of bankruptcy courts. As the Sixth Circuit has stated: "[f]or purposes of appeal, an order is final if it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." In re Janna W. Cundiff, 227 B.R. 476, 477 (6th Cir. BAP 1998) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

In the instant case, the Court is not persuaded that there has been a final judgment, order or decree of the bankruptcy court. Rather, the language of the 12/14/04 Order expressly says that "[t]he claim of the Internal Revenue Service filed on April 4, 2003 (Claim No. 8) is REINSTATED subject to the Objection to said claim filed by the debtors on November 21, 2003 (DI# 39), which remains to be resolved...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • In re Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 15, 2011
    ...do but execute the judgment.” E.g., In re Barrett, 337 B.R. 896 (6th Cir. BAP 2006), aff'd, 487 F.3d 353 (6th Cir.2007); In re Smelser, 327 B.R. 815, 817 (E.D.Mich.2005). Analyzing nearly identical language in 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) regarding the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal, the Sevent......
  • In re Asc Inc., Civil Case No. 07-14142.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • February 26, 2008
    ...district courts have jurisdiction over appeals from `final judgments, orders, and decrees' of bankruptcy courts." In re Smelser 327 B.R. 815, 817 (E.D-Mich.,2005) (Zatkoff, J.). Smelser states further that "[f]or purposes of appeal, an order is final if it ends the litigation on the merits ......
  • In Re: Derrick Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 15, 2011
    ...execute the judgment." E.g., In re Barrett, 337 B.R. 896 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2006), aff'd, 487 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2007); In re Smelser, 327 B.R. 815, 817 (E.D. Mich. 2005). Analyzing nearly identical language in 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) regarding the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal, the Seventh......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT