Barben v. Donovan (In re Donovan), No. 07-13915 (11th Cir. July 2, 2008).
Donovan filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on February 17, 2004, prior to the passage of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. … Donovan became unable to make the payments under the plan as they came due. Accordingly, Donovan—apparently at the bankruptcy court’s suggestion—converted the case to Chapter 7 on June 14, 2006; the bankruptcy court dismissed the Chapter 13 case on June 30, 2006.
Barben objected to the conversion and moved to dismiss the Chapter 7 case. She argued that the conversion to Chapter 7 was presumptively abusive within the meaning of the 2005 Act … The bankruptcy court held that the more stringent standards of the 2005 Act for conversion to Chapter 7 did not apply … Accordingly, her motion to dismiss was denied on November 8, 2006. It is this denial of the motion to dismiss that was appealed first to the district court, which affirmed and granted costs to Donovan, and now to this court.
A court of appeals has jurisdiction over only final judgments and orders arising from a bankruptcy proceeding, whereas the district court may review interlocutory judgments and orders as well….Finality is given a more flexible interpretation in the bankruptcy context, however, because bankruptcy is an aggregation of controversies and suits. ..Instead, “[i]t is generally the particular adversary proceeding or controversy that must have been finally resolved rather than the entire bankruptcy litigation.”… Thus, to be final, a bankruptcy court order must “completely resolve all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim, including issues as to the proper relief."
Based essentially on this logic, the weight of circuit authority has concluded that orders denying a motion to dismiss for bad faith or abuse are not appealable. At least three other circuits have specifically held that an order denying a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case for abusive filing is not a final order. In re Jartran, 886 F.2d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 1989); In re 405 N. Bedford Dr. Corp., 778 F.2d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1985); see also In re Comm. of Asbestos Related Litigants, 749 F.2d 3, 5 (2d Cir. 1984) (declining to issue mandamus to review denial of motion to dismiss; suggesting in dicta that such denial was insufficiently final for direct appeal). But some courts have concluded to the contrary. In particular, the Third Circuit has held that the denial of a motion to dismiss for bad faith is immediately appealable in both Chapter 7 and 11. See In re Brown, 916 F.2d 120, 123-124 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing In re Christian, 804 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1986)). These cases, however, do not discuss whether a particular adversary proceeding must be final. Here, the bankruptcy court’s order denying Barben’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case is not a final order. By denying her motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court permitted the Chapter 7 case to continue. The court did not conclusively resolve the bankruptcy case as a whole, nor did the court resolve any adversary proceeding or claim.