In re: William S. Dennen

Filing 7

ORDER Denying Waiver from the United States Bankruptcy Court (dkals, )

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Howard R. Tallman
)
)
) Case No. 15-18255 HRT
)
) Chapter 7
)

In re:
WILLIAM STUART DENNEN,
Debtor.

ORDER DENYING WAIVER
This case comes before the Court on Debtor’s Motion to Waive Filing Fee of $298.00 for
Appeal of 8-27-15 and 8-31-15 Orders of the Court1 (docket #35) (the “Motion”).
The Court has always taken a liberal approach to the waiver of appeal fees where the applicant
makes a cognizable claim of financial hardship. Even though such waivers impose a cost and a
burden upon the judicial system the Court gives great weight to the interest of insuring that legal
issues receive a full and fair hearing.
Financial hardship is not the sole consideration. The Court cannot waive an appeal filing fee
unless it can find that the appeal has been filed in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); In re
Ravida, 296 B.R. 278, 282 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2003). In this case, the Court finds that Debtor’s appeal
has not been filed in good faith. Debtor’s appeal is frivolous on its face. The order that the Debtor
seeks to appeal relates solely to the time-frame for filing responses to pending motions and
prosecution of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case generally. The order is interlocutory and is not
appealable absent leave of the district court. Debtor is seeking to appeal no legal issues of substance
and the Court doubts that leave to appeal the interlocutory order will be granted. Because the Court
finds the Debtor’s appeal has been filed in bad faith, Debtor’s Motion must be denied. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Debtor’s Motion to Waive Filing Fee of $298.00 for Appeal of 8-27-15 and
8-31-15 Orders of the Court (docket #35) is DENIED.

21st
Dated this _____ day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____ __ _ __
____ _________
_____ ___ ___________________
_
_
_______________________________
Ho
Howard R. Tallman, Judge
Howard Ta
Tallman,
United States Bankruptcy Court

1

The Court presumes the dates appearing in the caption of Debtor’s Motion are a
typographical error. Debtor filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Court’s Order on Motions for
Extension (docket #25), dated September 14, 2015.