Hewlett v. Elder

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Patricia Hewlett’s appeal from a bankruptcy court turnover order as untimely. The court held that a later turnover order concerning another party did not restart the appeal period because it did not alter Hewlett’s legal rights or obligations, and that the ten-day deadline under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a) was jurisdictional.

Holdings

1. A later bankruptcy court order restarts the appeal period only if it disturbs or revises legal rights and obligations previously settled with finality; an order concerning another party's property turnover did not restart Hewlett's appeal period because it did not affect her rights or obligations.
2. Because Hewlett filed her notice of appeal more than ten days after the bankruptcy court's order requiring her turnover of property, the district court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a later bankruptcy court order concerning another party's turnover of property restarted the time for Hewlett to appeal the earlier order requiring her own turnover.
2. Whether Hewlett's appeal was a collateral appeal rather than a direct appeal subject to Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a).
3. Whether the district court properly dismissed Hewlett's bankruptcy appeal as untimely.

Disposition

affirmed