Wilkins v. Menchaca (In Re Wilkins), 587 B.R. 97

Background

Debtor Yavaughnie Wilkins filed a single, untimely notice of appeal from three bankruptcy-court orders: conversion to chapter 7, sale of real estate, and turnover/writ of possession.
The BAP requested explanation for the deficient (late) appeal; Wilkins moved for an extension under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(d)(1)(B) asserting excusable neglect.
Chapter 7 Trustee Menchaca and Schreiber Family Trust (SFT) opposed dismissal relief and argued the Rule 8002 deadlines were jurisdictional and Wilkins’ request was untimely.
The Panel sua sponte asked for briefing on whether Rule 8002(a)’s 14‑day appeal deadline is jurisdictional after the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services.
The Panel analyzed statutory incorporation (28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2)), Ninth Circuit precedent treating Rule 8002(a) as jurisdictional, and Hamer’s jurisdictional/claim‑processing framework.
The Panel concluded Rule 8002(a)’s 14‑day deadline is jurisdictional as incorporated into § 158(c)(2), and Wilkins’ extension request was both untimely and insufficient; the appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 14‑day appeal deadline in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2), is jurisdictional or a waivable claim‑processing rule	Wilkins argued Hamer compels treating similar rule limits as non‑jurisdictional (claim‑processing), so extension/forgiveness principles should apply	Trustee and SFT argued § 158(c)(2) incorporates Rule 8002 into statute and Ninth Circuit precedent treats the rule as jurisdictional, so the Panel lacks jurisdiction over late appeals	The Panel held the 14‑day deadline is jurisdictional as incorporated into § 158(c)(2) and dismissed the untimely appeals
Whether the Panel may equitably excuse noncompliance with Rule 8002(a)	Wilkins sought extension under Rule 8002(d)(1)(B) for excusable neglect	Trustee and SFT opposed, noting Wilkins’ extension motion itself was filed past Rule 8002(d)’s 21‑day extension‑motion window and promptly objected	The Panel found Wilkins’ extension request untimely under Rule 8002(d) and denied relief; equitable exceptions were not available because the deadline is jurisdictional
Whether Hamer altered the Ninth Circuit’s longstanding treatment of bankruptcy appeal deadlines	Wilkins relied on Hamer to argue FRAP‑style limits are generally claim‑processing rules	Opponents argued Hamer does not address § 158(c)(2)’s statutory incorporation and Ninth Circuit precedent remains controlling	The Panel concluded Hamer did not change the outcome here because § 158(c)(2) creates a statutory, built‑in timeliness condition and Ninth Circuit precedent treats Rule 8002(a) as jurisdictional
Whether the Panel can retain jurisdiction despite harshness of result	Wilkins urged flexible, policy‑based approach to avoid dismissal	Trustee and SFT urged strict enforcement to preserve finality and bankruptcy administration interests	The Panel acknowledged harshness but enforced the jurisdictional rule and dismissed the appeals

Key Cases Cited

Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishes statutory jurisdictional time bars from rule‑based claim‑processing limits)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (bankruptcy rules/statutes may contain jurisdictional "built‑in" time constraints)
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (courts lack authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional filing deadlines)
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (filing a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (timely filing for appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional)
In re Mouradick, 13 F.3d 326 (9th Cir. 1994) (Bankruptcy Rule 8002 is jurisdictional in Ninth Circuit)
In re Souza, 795 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1986) (untimely notice of appeal from bankruptcy court is jurisdictional)
Ozenne v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In re Ozenne), 841 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming Ninth Circuit's treatment of Rule 8002 as mandatory and jurisdictional)