LaTasha Tennial v. REI Nation, 978 F.3d 1022

Tennial filed Chapter 13 after her mortgage company foreclosed; the filing triggered an automatic stay of post-foreclosure actions.
REI Nation bought the home and moved the bankruptcy court to terminate the automatic stay.
Bankruptcy court entered an order terminating the stay on September 12, 2019; Tennial’s attorney received electronic notice that day and the court mailed Tennial a copy on September 14.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a)(1) requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days (here, by Sept. 26); Tennial filed her notice on Oct. 9 and stated she did not receive the order until Sept. 26.
The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Tennial appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 8002(a)(1)’s 14‑day appeal deadline is jurisdictional	Rule 8002 is jurisdictional; timely filing is a jurisdictional prerequisite	Rule 8002 is mandatory but not jurisdictional; it is a rules‑process deadline	The deadline is not jurisdictional under Supreme Court precedents, but is mandatory
Whether late receipt of mailed order excused late filing	Tennial: she did not receive the order until Sept. 26, so late filing should be excused	REI: counsel received timely electronic notice; Tennial’s late receipt does not excuse the late appeal	Not excused — counsel had timely notice; Tennial’s explanation did not excuse untimeliness
Whether Tennial’s notice constituted a timely motion for extension under Rule 8002(d)	Tennial: her explanation should operate as a motion to extend time	REI: even if treated as a motion, Rule 8002(d) prohibits extensions for appeals from orders granting relief from an automatic stay	Rule 8002(d)(2)(A) bars extensions for appeals from orders granting relief from automatic stay; extension unavailable

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (clear‑statement rule: Congress must clearly state when a requirement is jurisdictional)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (rule‑based bankruptcy deadlines are not necessarily jurisdictional)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (a rule that implements a statutory appeal deadline is jurisdictional)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (rule‑based deadlines are nonjurisdictional unless they implement a statutory time prescription)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005) (criminal‑rule time limit to move for new trial is nonjurisdictional)
In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 2011) (held Rule 8002 deadline jurisdictional)
In re Berman‑Smith, 737 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 2013) (held Rule 8002 deadline jurisdictional)
In re Latture, 605 F.3d 830 (10th Cir. 2010) (held Rule 8002 deadline jurisdictional)
In re Sobczak‑Slomczewski, 826 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Rule 8002 deadline jurisdictional)