Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank
575 U.S. (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor's proposed Chapter 13 repayment plan is not a 'final order' appealable as of right if the order gives the debtor leave to file an amended plan.
Facts:
- Louis Bullard filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.
- Bullard owned a multifamily house with a mortgage held by Blue Hills Bank, but the mortgage debt of approximately $346,000 exceeded the house's value of $245,000.
- Bullard proposed a repayment plan that would split the bank's claim into a secured claim for the house's value ($245,000) and an unsecured claim for the remainder ($101,000).
- Under the proposed plan, Bullard would pay the secured portion in full over the life of the mortgage but would only pay about $5,000 of the $101,000 unsecured portion before it was discharged.
- Blue Hills Bank objected to Bullard's proposed plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Bullard filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- After Blue Hills Bank objected to Bullard's plan, the Bankruptcy Court denied confirmation and ordered Bullard to submit a new plan within 30 days.
- Bullard (appellant) appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the First Circuit.
- The BAP determined the order was not final but exercised its discretion to hear the interlocutory appeal, ultimately affirming the Bankruptcy Court's decision.
- Bullard (appellant) appealed the BAP's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the underlying Bankruptcy Court order was not a 'final order' from which an appeal could be taken.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a bankruptcy court's order that denies confirmation of a debtor's proposed Chapter 13 repayment plan, while simultaneously granting the debtor leave to file a new plan, a 'final order' that can be immediately appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. A bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of a debtor's plan with leave to amend is not a final, appealable order. The relevant appealable 'proceeding' in bankruptcy is the entire process of attempting to confirm a plan, not the ruling on each individual proposed plan. A final order is one that definitively alters the status quo and fixes the rights and obligations of the parties, which only occurs upon plan confirmation or case dismissal. An order denying confirmation with leave to amend does not have these conclusive effects; the automatic stay remains in place, the parties' rights are not yet fixed, and the debtor can continue to work towards a confirmable plan. This approach promotes judicial efficiency and aligns with the purpose of the finality rule, which is to prevent piecemeal and premature appeals that would delay the resolution of the underlying bankruptcy case. While discretionary interlocutory review mechanisms exist for important legal questions, an appeal of right is not available at this stage.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and establishes a clear, uniform national standard for the finality of plan confirmation denials in bankruptcy. By defining the appealable 'proceeding' as the entire plan confirmation process, the Court prioritizes judicial efficiency and discourages debtors from using piecemeal appeals as a delay tactic. The ruling forces the resolution of most plan-related disputes at the bankruptcy court level, compelling debtors to propose viable plans rather than immediately litigating rejected ones. It solidifies the principle that finality in bankruptcy appeals attaches to orders that conclusively resolve a discrete dispute within the larger case, not to interim rulings that leave the ultimate outcome undecided.
Unlock the full brief for Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank