Patterson v. Spears
Appeal Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Case No. 97-6261

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (2) Tab Overlap Cited By (56) Right End
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 3 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
THELMA PATTERSON,
Appellant,
v. No. 97-6261
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1325)
KENNETH L. SPEARS; LOLA FAYE (Western District of Oklahoma) DENTON,
Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Thelma Patterson was sued in bankruptcy court by Ken Spears, the trustee of her daughter's bankruptcy estate, and by Washita State Bank, one of her daughter's creditors. The bankruptcy court issued its final order, determining, inter alia, that Native Elm, a mobile home park that Ms. Patterson claimed to own, was her daughter's corporate alter ego and therefore part of the bankruptcy estate. Patterson then appealed to the District Court for the Western District of

*

The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Oklahoma. The district court affirmed several elements of the order below, but reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court's determination of Native Elm's alter ego status. Patterson now appeals the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court.

We must dismiss Patterson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For appellate jurisdiction to lie, the district court must have entered a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d); In re Buckner, 66 F.3d 263, 265 (10th Cir. 1995). It has not done so.

The district court determined that the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect legal standard to determine whether Native Elm was the daughter's alter ego, and reversed and remanded for "consideration of whether [Patterson's daughter] used Native Elm as part of a design or scheme to perpetrate a fraud." Appellant's App. at 74. "A district court order reversing the bankruptcy court and remanding for significant further proceedings is not final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)." Buckner, 66 F.3d at 265. The proceedings on remand, involving complex determinations of fact, are more than "mere "˜ministerial' computations involving little judicial discretion," and therefore constitute "significant further proceedings." Id. (quoting Rubner & Kutner, P.C. v. United States Trustee (In re Lederman Enters., Inc.), 997 F.2d 1321, 1323 (10th Cir. 1993)). Hence, no final, appealable order has yet been entered, and we are without jurisdiction. [End Page 2] DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge

[End Page 3]

Statistics

This case has been viewed 120 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?