Unpublished Disposition, 843 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 843 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1988)

In re CHENEY-SCOTTSDALE CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, Debtor.Ralph W. THOMAS and Carolee A. Thomas, a/k/a Coralee A.Thomas, husband and wife; Mel Clayton and Vivian H.Clayton, husband and wife; and Charles Speros and Lyn D.Speros, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.CHENEY-SCOTTSDALE CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation,Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1817.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 17, 1988.Decided March 28, 1988.

Before SNEED, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Debtor in bankruptcy seeks to have his appeal from a summary judgment by the bankruptcy court heard by the district court that dismissed debtor's appeal as untimely. We reverse the district court's dismissal and remand to the district court for a hearing on the merits of debtor's appeal.

We shall not comment extensively on the facts. Suffice it to say, debtor's appeal to the district court was filed "within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from." Bankruptcy Rule 8002. It was not filed within 10 days of the date the bankruptcy judge finally acted on the summary judgment. Time of appeal, however, commences with the "date of entry." See Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6 (9th Cir. 1981).

Debtor argues alternatively that inasmuch as the bankruptcy court never filed a separate document of judgment as required by Bankruptcy Rule 9021, his appeal therefrom cannot be untimely. See United States v. Indrelunas 411 U.S. 216, 221-22 (1973); Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978). We need not address this contention. Whatever force it might have in a proper situation, it is clear that in this case it should not preclude our holding that the debtor's appeal was timely. To permit it to do so would amount to insisting that the direct route to a hearing on the merits be foresworn in favor of a more circuitous one.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.