S.C. of Okaloosa, Inc. v. Sunnyside Timber LLC , 81 F. App'x 840 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                 December 4, 2003
    FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-30291
    Summary Calendar
    S.C. OF OKALOOSA, INC.,
    Appellant,
    versus
    SUNNYSIDE TIMBER LLC; SUNNYSIDE LAND LLC;
    WASHINGTON STATE BANCSHARES, INC.; D. CREIG BRIGNAC;
    SUE S. BREIGNAC; FRANK BARNES; W. F. BARNES CORP.;
    PAUL SIMS; REGIONS BANK N.A.; MERRILL LAND CO.;
    BERNIE H. MERRILL; WILLIS C. MERRILL; J. COLLIER MERRILL,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    (02-CV-2315)
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    According to the parties, at issue is whether, under Louisiana
    law, there was an enforceable settlement agreement in an adversary
    action in the bankruptcy court.         Instead, we lack jurisdiction.
    In early 2002 the parties to this appeal were involved in
    settlement     discussions.     Some   thought    an   agreement    had   been
    reached;   others   disagreed.      Those   who   thought   there     was    an
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    agreement filed a motion to enforce it in the bankruptcy court.           On
    20 March 2002, the motion was granted.       In so doing, the bankruptcy
    judge stated:
    For these reasons, I conclude ... that a
    valid agreement of compromise was entered into
    by and between those parties named, and
    identified in the Memorandum of Settlement
    attached to Mr. Durio’s letter of February 28,
    2002, identified as Exhibit 8.
    The settlement, however, is without
    effect as to the Debtor, unless and until the
    Court approves the settlement after notice and
    a hearing.
    (Emphasis added.)
    This order is interlocutory.          For a bankruptcy order to be
    final, it must be either “a final determination of the rights of
    the parties to secure the relief they seek, or a final disposition
    of a discrete dispute within the larger bankruptcy case”.              In re
    Bartee,   
    212 F.3d 277
    ,   282   (5th   Cir.   2000)   (quotation   marks
    omitted).
    S.C. of Okaloosa, Inc. (S.C.) filed a notice of appeal with
    the bankruptcy court on 9 April 2002.         That same day, it filed a
    motion for leave to appeal to the district court.              It does not
    appear this motion was filed in district court; instead, it appears
    it was filed in bankruptcy court (
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (a), governing
    appeals to the district court from bankruptcy court, requires that
    most interlocutory appeals can only be taken with leave of district
    court).
    2
    The bankruptcy judge — apparently thinking that the motion for
    leave to appeal was before him — signed an order on 16 April 2002
    denying the motion.        A few days later, he realized his error and
    vacated the order (19 April).
    The district court never ruled on the motion for leave to
    appeal. Instead, it docketed the appeal in November 2002 and ruled
    against S.C. on 27 January 2003, stating that it did so for the
    reasons in the bankruptcy court’s 20 March 2002 ruling.                We assume
    that the district court gave valid, implied leave to S.C. to appeal
    the bankruptcy court’s interlocutory order.
    Our jurisdiction is controlled by 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d).                    The
    instant appeal presents a final district court order of a nonfinal
    bankruptcy court order. Needless to say, we do not ordinarily have
    jurisdiction over such orders.         In re Phillips, 
    844 F.2d 230
    , 234
    (5th Cir. 1988) (“Generally, in our circuit, for the courts of
    appeals   to   have    jurisdiction    over     an   appeal,    the   underlying
    bankruptcy court order must have been final.”).
    Phillips recognized an exception to this general rule when the
    final    district     court   order   “cured”    the    non-finality     of   the
    bankruptcy court order.         
    Id. at 234-35
    .         The order granting the
    motion    to   enforce    a   settlement   agreement      was   interlocutory.
    Therefore, at issue is whether the district court’s order cured
    that nonfinality.        If not, we lack jurisdiction.          See 
    id. at 235
    .
    3
    Because     the   district   court   order   simply   affirmed   the
    bankruptcy court, it could not have cured the interlocutory nature
    of that order.
    DISMISSED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-30291

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 840

Judges: Barksdale, Dennis, Emilio, Garza, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023