GOLDEN
v.
UNITED STATES (IN RE GOLDEN)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an order from the bankruptcy court overruling objections to a claim is not a final, appealable order without a separate final judgment being entered.
The debtor appealed an order from the bankruptcy court allowing the IRS's claim in its entirety. The bankruptcy court had not entered a separate final…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealability cases and more on FLexlaw
HINKLE, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court overruling the objections of the debtor, Ronnie Dale Golden, to the claim of the Internal Revenue Service. The order provides that “the claim of the IRS is allowed in its entirety.”
The bankruptcy court has not entered a separate final judgment on the IRS’s claim. Nor has the court explicitly set forth the amount of the judgment it intends to enter. Determining the amount of the judgment may require more than simply consulting the claim itself; the IRS may, for example, be entitled to interest from the date of the claim forward, as well as to pre-claim interest as set forth in the claim itself. Moreover, Mr. Golden asserts he paid some or all of the amount the IRS claims; it is not completely clear whether the bankruptcy court has finally rejected this assertion.
1
*253
In the absence of a separate final judgment, the bankruptcy court’s order is not a final, appealable order. See, e.g.,
Bankr.R. 9021;
see also In re Southeast Bank Corp.,
97 F. 3d 476, 478 n. 4 (11th Cir.1996) (recognizing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 is made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by Bankruptcy Rule 9021). The parties have treated the order as appealable without raising this issue, and I therefore could do likewise, overlooking the technical requirement of a separate judgment.
See, e.g., Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis,
435 U.S. 381, 383-88, 98 S.Ct. 1117, 1119-22, 55 L.Ed.2d 357 (1978). Here, however, in light of the lack of definiteness regarding the precise amount of the judgment to be entered and the uncertainty regarding whether the bankruptcy court has finally rejected Mr. Golden’s payment defense, the better course is not to ignore the absence of a final judgment.
See, e.g., In re Behrens,
900 F. 2d 97, 100 (7th Cir.1990). The order from which Mr. Golden has appealed is not a final judgment and is not otherwise appealable.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A & S Ent., LLC v. State of Fla. Dep't of Revenue (S.D. Fla. 2022)…ss made orders in bankruptcy cases immediately appealable if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger bankruptcy case.” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582, 587 (2020). A&S argues, relying on In re Golden, 207 B.R. 252 (N.D. Fla. 1996), that because no separate final judgment was entered in the bankruptcy proceeding, the Priority and Reconsideration Orders are not final and appealable. Upon review, the Court does not find Golden to be persuasive. In Gol…
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Tr. Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (U.S. 1978)
- In re Behrens, 900 F.2d 97 (7th Cir. 1990)
- In re Se. Bank Corp. v. Brandt, 97 F.3d 476 (11th Cir. 1996)