United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit
In re: YAVAUGHNIE RENEE WILKINS, Debtor.
JOHN J. MENCHACA, Chapter 7 Trustee; SCHREIBER FAMILY TRUST dated March 22, 1989, Appellees. YAVAUGHNIE RENEE WILKINS, Appellant,
and Submitted on May 24, 2018 at Pasadena, California
from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California Honorable Sandra R. Klein, Bankruptcy
M. Wyatt of Wyatt Law argued for appellant Yavaughnie Renee
William J. Wall argued for appellee Schreiber Family Trust.
Before: KURTZ, LAFFERTY, and SPRAKER, Bankruptcy Judges.
these related appeals, chapter 7 debtor Ms. Yavaughnie
Wilkins appeals from the bankruptcy court's (1) Order
Granting Trustee's Motion For Conversion To Chapter 7
(Conversion Order) and from the portion of the Order Denying
Ms. Wilkins' Motion for Reconsideration related to the
Conversion Order (BAP No. CC-17-1335); (2) Order Granting
Trustee's Motion to Sell Real Estate (Sale Order) and
from the portion of the Order Denying Ms. Wilkins' Motion
For Reconsideration related to Sale Order (BAP No.
CC-17-1337); and (3) Order Granting Turnover Order and Writ
of Possession (BAP No. CC-17-1346).
Wilkins filed a single notice of appeal which was untimely
filed as to all of the above-referenced orders. The BAP
Clerk's office issued a notice of deficiency requesting
the parties to explain why these appeals should not be
dismissed. Ms. Wilkins' counsel responded by requesting
an extension of time to appeal under Rule 8002(d)(1)(B),
claiming excusable neglect. Appellee, John J. Menchaca, the
chapter 7 trustee, maintained that the standards for
excusable neglect were not met and therefore the appeals
should be dismissed. Appellee, Schreiber Family Trust (SFT),
responded similarly and also contended that counsel's
request for an extension of time to appeal was untimely under
Rule 8002(d)(1)(B). Therefore, the Panel was required to
dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. SFT
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss these appeals on these
light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamer v.
Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, 138 S.Ct. 13
(2017), the Panel sua sponte requested further briefing on
whether the 14-day time deadline for filing an appeal from a
bankruptcy court's decision was jurisdictional, thereby
requiring dismissal of these appeals, or whether the time
deadline was a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to
waiver or forfeiture.
reviewed the briefs from Ms. Wilkins and SFT and considered
the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the 14-day
time deadline in Rule 8002(a) remains a mandatory and
jurisdictional requirement in this court as the Ninth Circuit
has held for decades. Accordingly, we dismiss these three
appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction and consider
the issue de novo. Gugliuzza v. Fed. Trade Comm'n (In
re Gugliuzza, 852 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2017). The
Panel's first consideration on appeal is our
Time Deadline For Appeal: The Jurisdictional/Claim-Processing
Hamer, the Supreme Court considered whether the
maximum time a court may extend an appeal deadline in
FRAP(4)(a)(5)(C), in a case in which the appellant received
timely notice of the judgment or order appealed from, was a
jurisdictional requirement or a mandatory claim-processing
rule that was subject to waiver or forfeiture.
2107 of title 28 and FRAP (4)(a)(1) state that in a civil
case, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after
entry of the judgment or order appealed from. FRAP(4)(a)(5)