Sheedy v. Bankowski (In Re Sheedy)
875 F.3d 740
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Laura M. Sheedy filed a Chapter 13 petition in 2010; after five years the trustee moved to dismiss and the bankruptcy court granted dismissal on October 20, 2015.
- Trustee filed a Final Report on December 8, 2015; Sheedy objected, the bankruptcy court overruled the objection, and entered its order on March 10, 2016.
- The 14-day deadline to file a notice of appeal ran from March 11 to March 25, 2016; Sheedy did not file an appeal or an extension motion by March 25.
- On March 28, 2016 the bankruptcy court closed the case; later that same day Sheedy filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(d)(1)(B), asserting excusable neglect.
- Sheedy’s counsel explained the one-business-day delay by citing his commitments as a church music director during religious holidays; trustees objected, arguing the dates were known in advance and the notice was simple to file.
- The bankruptcy court denied the motion (adopting trustees’ objections); the district court affirmed, and the First Circuit likewise affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a one-business-day late motion to extend the appeal period showed "excusable neglect" under Rule 8002(d)(1)(B) | Sheedy: counsel’s inadvertent oversight due to unique, annual religious-holiday duties made the short delay excusable | Trustees: counsel knew the holiday schedule in advance, the notice was simple, and inadvertence is insufficient | Court held: no excusable neglect; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (sets four-factor equitable test for "excusable neglect")
- In re Power Recovery Sys., Inc., 950 F.2d 798 (1st Cir. 1991) (appellate deference to bankruptcy court’s excusable-neglect determinations)
- Graphic Commc’ns Int’l Union, Local 12-N v. Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., 270 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (courts will not override lower court absent exceptional justification)
- Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers of Am. v. Massachusetts, 377 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s grant of excusable neglect in different factual context)
- Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch. Dep’t, 322 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2003) (attorneys must organize work to meet deadlines)
- Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2005) (failure to provide valid reason precludes relief despite other favorable factors)