Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Puerto Rico v. Vázquez, 471 B.R. 752

BBVA appeals from Fee Order and Surreply Order denying extension of time; BBVA also appeals Reconsideration Order denying motion to amend judgment.
Debtor filed a discharge-denial complaint under §727(a)(7) alleging insider-related acts by Debtor in J&B Enterprises; J&B’s spa equipment loan to BBVA and its later abandonment by the trustee created the factual basis.
J&B’s chapter 7 case was filed in 2005, equipment abandoned in 2006, and the case closed that year.
Debtor moved to dismiss the complaint on January 4, 2011; the court granted the motion and ordered Debtor to file a motion stating attorney’s fees and costs.
Debtor filed a Fee Motion on March 24, 2011; BBVA opposed, Debtor replied, BBVA sought a surreply extension, and the court initially denied the extension while granting the Fee Motion; the court later issued a detailed Opinion and Order authorizing sanctions and setting a 20-day payment deadline.
BBVA filed a Motion to Amend Judgment on September 14, 2011; the bankruptcy court denied reconsideration in the Reconsideration Order (November 4, 2011); BBVA filed notices of appeal on November 18, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Surreply and Fee Orders are timely on appeal	BBVA argues Rule 7052 tolling and subsequent motions extend the appeal window.	Debtor contends only the first postjudgment motion tolls the time for appeal under controlling precedents.	Untimely; Surreply and Fee Orders are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the Reconsideration Order properly denied reconsideration	BBVA contends reconsideration was warranted due to arguments raised in the surreply and new grounds.	Debtor argues BBVA could have raised those arguments earlier; no manifest error shown.	No abuse of discretion; Reconsideration Order affirmed.
Standard and scope of reconsideration and whether BBVA could raise new arguments	BBVA claims it needed the surreply to present grounds for manifest error of law or fact.	BBVA had prior opportunities to raise bad-faith arguments; Rule 59(e) cannot be used to add new arguments.	Court properly denied reconsideration; cannot use 59(e) to relitigate issues already urged or could have been urged earlier.

Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1997) (second postjudgment motions toll only to the extent of the underlying judgment; not to revive earlier issues)
In re Colombo, 257 B.R. 368 (1st Cir. BAP 2001) (only the first postjudgment motion tolls appeal period in successive motions)
In re Perry Hollow Mgmt. Co., Inc., 297 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2002) (mandatory and jurisdictional deadlines for notices of appeal; successive motions interplay)
In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC, 316 B.R. 406 (1st Cir. BAP 2004) (mandatory appeal deadlines; untimeliness defeats jurisdiction)
Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes (second citation), 118 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1997) (principle on tolling and reconsideration)