Summary:
The Fannings sought direct appeal to the 4th Circuit of the bankruptcy court's denial of their motion for authorization to incur debt to purchase a home, which also sought to abrogate local bankruptcy rules requiring such authorization.
The district court declined to certify the case for direct appeal, determining that the issues raised did not meet the standard required for such certification. The court found that the bankruptcy court's orders did not involve questions of law without controlling decisions or matters of public importance, nor did they require resolution of conflicting decisions. Additionally, the court did not find that an immediate appeal would materially advance the progress of the case. The court also noted that related appeals were pending, and maintaining the appeal in the district court would conserve judicial resources.
Regarding the appeal of the bankruptcy court's order denying the motion to abrogate, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. It found that the local bankruptcy rules in question were procedural rather than substantive and did not abridge the appellants' rights or violate the Constitution's uniformity requirement.
Commentary:
In a case that sought direct appeal to the 4th Circuit, it is odd that no "normal" appeal to the 4th Circuit has been sought, particularly as this is a persistent issue being raised by the attorney and this is a comparatively clean case, lacking the problematic facts in others.
Also, for what it's worth, Judge Flanagan's opinion has a typo on page 4, misspelling Logan in its citation "Crosiner v. Locan et al., Nos. 5:20-cv-654, 20-cv-656 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2022)".
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments