Patterson v. Spears ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 3 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
THELMA PATTERSON,
Appellant,
v. No. 97-6261
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1325)
KENNETH L. SPEARS; LOLA FAYE (Western District of Oklahoma)
DENTON,
Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Thelma Patterson was sued in bankruptcy court by Ken Spears, the trustee
of her daughter’s bankruptcy estate, and by Washita State Bank, one of her
daughter’s creditors. The bankruptcy court issued its final order, determining,
inter alia, that Native Elm, a mobile home park that Ms. Patterson claimed to
own, was her daughter’s corporate alter ego and therefore part of the bankruptcy
estate. Patterson then appealed to the District Court for the Western District of
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;
nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th
Cir. R. 36.3.
Oklahoma. The district court affirmed several elements of the order below, but
reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court’s determination of Native Elm’s alter
ego status. Patterson now appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
bankruptcy court.
We must dismiss Patterson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For appellate
jurisdiction to lie, the district court must have entered a final order. See 28
U.S.C. § 158(d); In re Buckner, 66 F.3d 263, 265 (10th Cir. 1995). It has not
done so.
The district court determined that the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect
legal standard to determine whether Native Elm was the daughter’s alter ego, and
reversed and remanded for “consideration of whether [Patterson’s daughter] used
Native Elm as part of a design or scheme to perpetrate a fraud.” Appellant’s App.
at 74. “A district court order reversing the bankruptcy court and remanding for
significant further proceedings is not final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. §
158(d).” Buckner, 66 F.3d at 265. The proceedings on remand, involving
complex determinations of fact, are more than “mere ‘ministerial’ computations
involving little judicial discretion,” and therefore constitute “significant further
proceedings.” Id. (quoting Rubner & Kutner, P.C. v. United States Trustee (In re
Lederman Enters., Inc.), 997 F.2d 1321, 1323 (10th Cir. 1993)). Hence, no final,
appealable order has yet been entered, and we are without jurisdiction.
-2-
DISMISSED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-