Theresa Marshall v. Mark McCarty, 613 B.R. 458

Background

Debtor Theresa Marshall filed a Chapter 13 petition on May 3, 2018; the case was dismissed on September 4, 2019.
Chapter 13 Trustee filed a Final Report and Account on October 28, 2019 summarizing receipts, disbursements, creditors, and exempt value.
Marshall filed an Objection to the Trustee’s Final Report and a hearing was set for December 4, 2019.
Marshall failed to appear at the December 4 hearing; the bankruptcy court overruled her objection for failure to prosecute and entered an order that day.
Marshall appealed on December 9, 2019, naming both the October 28 Final Report and the December 4 order in her Notice of Appeal.
The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because Marshall was not a “person aggrieved” (no standing) and dismissed the appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Trustee’s Final Report (Oct. 28) is separately appealable	Marshall appealed the Final Report along with the bankruptcy court order	Final Report is not a final order; not appealable	Appeal as to the Final Report dismissed for lack of appealability
Whether Marshall may raise new substantive grounds on appeal (2016 strict-compliance dismissal; credit counseling)	Marshall contends she should have been dismissed earlier for noncompliance or failure to complete credit counseling	These issues were not raised below or in the bankruptcy-court objection and thus are waived on appeal	New issues raised first on appeal are ordinarily not considered; no exceptional circumstances shown
Whether Marshall has standing as a “person aggrieved” to challenge the order overruling her objection	Marshall disputed certain entries in the Final Report (exempt value; amounts listed for creditor ECMC; alleged illegal transfer of loans)	Marshall failed to show any pecuniary harm or that the order diminished her property, increased burdens, or impaired rights	Marshall did not demonstrate a direct, adverse pecuniary effect; thus she lacks standing and the court lacks jurisdiction
Whether allegations about ECMC (claim not litigated/res judicata; creditor status; amounts) warrant reversal or relief	Marshall asserts ECMC’s claim was not litigated and should be barred; challenges creditor entries and related amounts	Marshall provided no explanation why a hearing was necessary, no factual or legal detail, and did not tie errors to pecuniary harm	Court declined relief: assertions were undeveloped and not shown to affect Marshall pecuniarily

Key Cases Cited

Belew v. Rucker (In re Belew), 608 B.R. 206 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2019) (appellate court has independent duty to examine jurisdiction)
In re Peoples, 764 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2014) (defines "person aggrieved" as party directly and adversely affected pecuniarily)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., 45 F.3d 737 (3d Cir. 1995) (explains the limited scope of the “person aggrieved” doctrine)
In re Hansmeier, 558 B.R. 299 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2016) (issues raised first on appeal ordinarily not considered)
Kelley v. Crunk, 713 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1983) (exception to forfeiture on appeal only for exceptional cases to prevent plain miscarriage of justice)
Opportunity Fin., LLC v. Kelley, 822 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2016) (party aggrieved when order diminishes property, increases burdens, or impairs rights)
In re Marlar, 267 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2001) (further discussion of who qualifies as party aggrieved)