Following the re-opening of Ms. Washabaugh’s Chapter 7, the Bankruptcy Administrator sought revocation of her discharge. Ms. ’s motion to dismiss that complaint, alleging that the Bankruptcy Administrator lacked standing for such action, was denied by the bankruptcy court and Ms. Washabaugh sought leave to bring an interlocutory appeal to the district court.
The district court began with 28 U.S.C. § 158, which allows “with leave from the court” appeal of interlocutory orders based on the following factors:
(1) the appeal involves a controlling question of pure law, the resolution of which will completely determine the outcome of the litigation;
(2) as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion between courts; and
(3) the resolution of the question as a whole would materially advance the termination of the litigation.
See In re Biltmore Invs., Ltd, 538 B.R. 706 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2015), appeal dismissed (4th Cir. 15-2313) (Feb. 5, 2016).
While not squarely on same specific issue as Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686 (2015), which involved whether the denial of confirmation was a final, appealable order, the Supreme Court there did recently address interlocutory appeals in bankruptcy. While not giving carte blanche to such, it the unanimous opinion did discuss the “several mechanisms for interlocutory review” available and also expressed its “expectation that lower courts will certify and accept interlocutory appeals from plan denials in appropriate cases.”
For a copy of the opinion, please see: