In re Sobczak-Slomczewski
826 F.3d 429
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Debtor Robert Sobczak‑Slomczewski, former president of Dells Hospitality, directed a $677,000 transfer to a company he controlled; federal court later found conversion and embezzlement.
- He filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois; WDH, LLC (holder of the hotel loan) sued in adversary proceeding to declare the $677,000 nondischargeable.
- The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to WDH on August 5, 2014, concluding the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6) based on prior federal-court findings.
- Sobczak‑Slomczewski filed a notice of appeal on August 20, 2014 — 15 days after entry of the bankruptcy order; WDH moved to dismiss as untimely.
- The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the 14‑day deadline in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) is jurisdictional because 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (c)(2) ties Rule 8002’s timing to the statutory grant of jurisdiction.
- Sobczak‑Slomczewski argued Rule 8002(a) is a claim‑processing rule (not jurisdictional) under Kontrick and Bowles and that late receipt of the order justified relief; the courts found no equitable exception and he did not seek a timely extension under Rule 8002(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 14‑day deadline in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) is jurisdictional | Rule 8002(a) is a court‑promulgated, claim‑processing rule and thus not jurisdictional under Kontrick/Bowles | The 14‑day limit is tied to the statutory grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 158 and therefore is jurisdictional | The court held Rule 8002(a)’s 14‑day limit is jurisdictional because § 158 makes the timeliness requirement part of the statutory grant of jurisdiction |
| Whether equitable relief can excuse a late notice of appeal | Late receipt of the order should excuse the late filing; equitable considerations apply | There are no equitable exceptions to a jurisdictional deadline; relief must be sought under Rule 8002(d)(1) and timely | The court held equitable excuses unavailable; because no timely extension was sought, district court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (statutory time limits for appeals are jurisdictional)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (court‑promulgated procedural time limits are generally not jurisdictional absent statutory command)
- In re Berman‑Smith, 737 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 2013) (Rule 8002(a)’s 14‑day deadline is jurisdictional because § 158 ties the rule’s timing to statutory jurisdiction)