PMF Enterprises, Inc. v. Southcrest Bank

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant PMF Enterprises, Inc.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-12931

Date Filed: 06/10/2016

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12931
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:14-cv-00339-MTT; 1:10-bkc-50309-JPS

In re: PMF ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Debtor.
___________________________________________________
PMF ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTHCREST BANK,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(June 10, 2016)

Case: 15-12931

Date Filed: 06/10/2016

Page: 2 of 2

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant PMF Enterprises, Inc. (“PMF”) appeals the district court’s
judgment affirming a bankruptcy court order overruling PMF’s objection to a proof
of claim filed by Appellee SouthCrest Bank (“SouthCrest”). After carefully
reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s judgment
based on the district court’s well-reasoned order filed on June 1, 2015.1
AFFIRMED.

1

SouthCrest also raises a challenge to our jurisdiction to hear PMF’s appeal. We have
recognized that our jurisdiction “in bankruptcy proceedings is limited to final decisions of the
district court.” Guy v. Dzikowski (In re Atlas), 210 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2000); see 28
U.S.C. § 158(d). Because “[a] bankruptcy involves an aggregation of individual controversies,”
an order in a bankruptcy case “may be immediately appealed if [it] finally dispose[s] of discrete
disputes within the larger case.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1692 (2015). We
conclude that the bankruptcy court’s order overruling PMF’s objection was a final decision. It,
in effect, allowed SouthCrest’s proof of claim in the amount filed and left no unresolved dispute
about the merits of SouthCrest’s claim. See, e.g., Linton v. Grow, 183 B.R. 838, 839 (S.D. Ind.
1995) (recognizing that order overruling objection to claim “resolved the issue of whether [the]
claim was accepted” and thus “was a final appealable order”); Allen v. Geneva Steel Co. (In re
Geneva Steel Co.), 260 B.R. 517 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2001) (“An order on an objection to a claim is
a final order . . . .”).
2