Steele v. Heard

Filing 8

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Supplement/Amend Record and Issues on Appeal. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 12/5/2012. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ONEITA STEELE,
Appellant,
v.
DWAYNE LAROY HEARD,
Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 12-0707-WS-C

ORDER
This bankruptcy appeal comes before the Court on appellant’s Motion to Supplement/
Amend Record and Issues on Appeal (doc. 6). Appellee has filed an Objection (doc. 7) to the
Motion.
The only authority cited by appellant for her Motion to supplement the record and revise
her statement of issues on appeal is Rule 8006, Fed.R.Bankr.P. But nothing in Rule 8006
provides for supplementation of the record or amendment of the issues on appeal in this manner;
moreover, Rule 8006 sets a strict deadline for designation of the record and statement of issues to
be filed within 14 days after filing of the notice of appeal. Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal
way back on September 10, 2012, and an Amended Notice of Appeal on September 24, 2012.
As such, her 14-day window for designating the record and issues on appeal expired many weeks
ago, yet appellant seeks to amend the issues and supplement the record practically on the eve of
her deadline for filing her principal brief on appeal. She identifies no rule or case law that would
permit her to do so.
Persuasive case authorities have declined to allow the kind of untimely
supplementation/amendment that appellant seeks here. See, e.g., In re Vencor Inc., 2004 WL
843283, *2 (3rd Cir. Apr. 21, 2004) (explaining that Rule 8006 has “no provision for a
‘Corrected’ Designation” and that “the appellant is only permitted to file an additional
designation if the appellee has filed a cross appeal,” such that where no such cross appeal
existed, “Appellants were not permitted to file the Corrected Designation of Record and

Clarification of Issues on Appeal”); In re Schmitz, 436 B.R. 110, 112 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2010)
(recognizing that Rule 8006 does not provide for litigant to edit the statement of issues in the
absence of a cross-appeal, and further noting that appellee “has not pointed to caselaw
supporting its ability to edit the statement of issues in the absence of a cross-appeal, and I find
none”).
For all of the foregoing reasons, appellant’s Motion to Supplement/Amend Record and
Issues on Appeal (doc. 6) is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 2012.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-