Williams

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING Bankruptcy Appeal Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re:
LOUISE MARIE WILLIAMS,

Debtors(s).

HON. MARCI BETH MCIVOR
United States Bankruptcy Judge
CASE NUMBER: 13-14970
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

_________________________________
LOUISE MARIE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff(s),
v.

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER,
CITY OF DETROIT WATER & SEWERAGE
DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF DETROIT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant(s).
/
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL
Louise Marie Williams appeals Bankruptcy Judge Marci Beth McIvor’s conclusion of
law that certain property taxes are entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(8)(b).
Wayne County Treasurer and City of Detroit Water & Sewerage (collectively
“Defendants”) argue that Williams’ appeal is premature; they ask the Court to dismiss Williams’
interlocutory appeal. Alternatively, Defendants say that the Bankruptcy Judge did not err; if a
tax is not a penalty, it is entitled to priority status.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants are estopped from challenging this Court’s
jurisdiction because they conceded below that “Plaintiff’s appeal may have a material impact on

1

the feasibility of Plaintiff’s proposed Chapter 13 Plan, regardless of how this Court rules on the
issue of the value of Plaintiff’s business premises . . . .” Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, Doc. 13 at 1.
Defendants are correct. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1), there is a right to appeal only a
final judgment, order or decree. An order is final if it disposes of the case. Midland Asphalt
Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (a final order “ends the litigation on the merits
and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment”). All other orders are
interlocutory appeals. In order to appeal an interlocutory order, a party must first obtain
permission from the appellate court. 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(3). To request this permission, she
must file a notice of appeal with a motion for leave to appeal explaining why an interlocutory
appeal should be granted. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001 (b), 8003(a). Appealing either a final order or
an interlocutory order requires that notice of appeal be filed within 14 days of the date of entry of
the order being appealed. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a).
This is an interlocutory appeal and bankruptcy rules require that Plaintiff requests
consent from the Court to proceed on this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(3). No request was made
for interlocutory review.
Even if Plaintiff had filed a motion requesting interlocutory review, it would be denied.
“An interlocutory appeal of a Bankruptcy Court decision may be appropriate if (1) the decision
involves a controlling question of law, (2) as to which there is substantial ground for difference
of opinion, (3) and immediate appeal of the decision may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.” Am. Specialty Cars Holding, LLC v. Official Comm. of Unsecured
Creditors of ASC Inc.(In re ASC Inc.), 386 B.R. 187, 191 ( E.D. Mich. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1292(b))).
Neither prong is satisfied. After filing a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Williams filed an
2

Adversary Complaint, alleging that unpaid taxes are not entitled to priority status and
challenging the value of the property that secures her unpaid taxes. No final order has been
entered on that complaint, nor has the Bankruptcy Court ruled on the value of the property.
The value of the property is disputed by the parties: Defendants say the value exceeds the
lien, Plaintiff argues that it does not. Undisputedly, the tax lien is secured to the value of the
property. If the value of the property exceeds the lien, then the Bankruptcy Court’s finding
would have no impact on the outcome of the case.
Further, Defendants argue -- and the Bankruptcy Judge warned -- that Plaintiff’s
anticipated plan may not be confirmed because of her multiple filings and unsuccessful
executions.
Finally, Plaintiff submits other law, that she concedes: (1) was not argued below, but (2)
controls the outcome of this dispute.
Together, these reasons demonstrate that the issue disputed now is not controlling.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s appeal.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 5, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 5, 2014.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

3