Ramona Moix-McNutt v. David D. Coop ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •            United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-6075EALR
    In re Ramona Moix-McNutt,                   *
    *
    Debtor.                          *
    *
    *
    Ramona Moix-McNutt,                                 *
    *        Appeal from the United
    Appellant,               *      States Bankruptcy Court
    *        for the Eastern District
    v.                                    *   of Arkansas.
    *
    *
    David D. Coop,1                         *
    *
    Appellee.                        *
    Submitted: November 7, 1997
    Filed: December 23, 1997
    Before KRESSEL, WILLIAM A. HILL and SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judges.
    KRESSEL, Bankruptcy Judge.
    1
    Coop, the trustee in this case, is the nominal appellee only. He did not participate in the
    recusal proceedings in the bankruptcy court or on appeal.
    1
    The debtor, Ramona Moix-McNutt, appeals another interlocutory order
    of the bankruptcy court,2 this one denying her motion for recusal.                        Given
    the unique circumstances of a recusal order, we grant leave to appeal and
    affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Ramona Moix-McNutt filed her Chapter 13 petition on January 2, 1997.
    On June 26, 1997, the court held a consolidated hearing on objections to
    confirmation, motions for relief from the stay and a motion to dismiss or
    convert.      During her examination by the parties’ attorneys, the court
    occasionally questioned Moix-McNutt regarding her income and ability to
    fund a plan.      On July 17, 1997, the court entered an order directing Moix-
    McNutt to convert her case to Chapter 11 and directing Moix-McNutt’s
    husband to join the petition, or face conversion to Chapter 7.3                       Alleging
    gender bias, Moix-McNutt then moved for recusal pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 455
    (a).     The court denied the motion.            Moix-McNutt appeals.4
    2
    The Honorable James G. Mixon, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    3
    Moix-McNutt failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s July 17 order. Accordingly,
    by order dated November 26, 1997, the court converted Moix-McNutt’s case to Chapter 7.
    4
    Moix-McNutt separately appealed the bankruptcy court’s July 17 order. Finding that the
    court’s order was not final, we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Moix-McNutt v.
    Coop (In re Moix-McNutt), 
    212 B.R. 953
    , 954 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997) (“A bankruptcy court’s
    order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan without dismissing the case is not a final order
    for purposes of appeal.”).
    2
    DISCUSSION
    
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(1) confers jurisdiction on bankruptcy appellate
    panels to hear appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees. . . .”
    (emphasis added).      However, it is well-established that the denial of a
    recusal motion is not a final order.            See United States v. Brakke, 
    813 F.2d 912
    , 913 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding that magistrate’s denial of recusal
    motion was “not immediately reviewable” as a final order); Liddell v. Board
    of   Educ.,   
    677 F.2d 626
    ,   643    (8th    Cir.   1982)   (“A   district   judge’s
    determination ‘not to disqualify himself is reviewable by appeal only from
    a final judgment in the cause in which the motion for disqualification was
    filed.’”) (quoting Scarrella v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan, 
    536 F.2d 1207
    ,
    1210 (8th Cir. 1976)).
    A majority of courts treat recusal orders as interlocutory.                   See
    Seidel v. Durkin (In re Goodwin), 
    194 B.R. 214
    , 221 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996)
    (“An order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory.”); Nichols v.
    Alley, 
    71 F.3d 347
    , 350 (10th Cir. 1995) (same);                Lopez v. Behles (In re
    Amer. Ready Mix, Inc.), 
    14 F.3d 1497
    , 1499 (10th Cir. 1994) (same); Stewart
    Enters., Inc. v.
    3
    Horton (In re Horton), 
    621 F.2d 968
    , 970 (9th Cir. 1980); cf. Brakke, 
    813 F.2d at 913
     (dismissing appeal from order denying recusal for lack of
    jurisdiction); Liddell, 
    677 F.2d at 643
     (construing appeal from order
    denying recusal as a petition for mandamus).
    With    limited      exceptions,       courts     of    appeals     enjoy    appellate
    jurisdiction only over final decisions of the district courts:                     “The courts
    of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final
    decisions of the district courts. . . .”                      
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     (emphasis
    added).5    By contrast, this court is authorized to hear appeals from final
    orders, a small list of interlocutory orders enumerated in 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(2) and, in its discretion, other interlocutory orders.                       
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(3) (conferring jurisdiction to hear appeals “with leave of the
    court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees. . . .”).
    Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (a)(3), parties who wish to challenge an
    interlocutory order must seek leave from the court by filing a motion for
    leave to appeal.         Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a).             This is the ordinary and
    expected procedure.         However, courts occasionally
    5
    Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    , the courts of appeals may hear appeals from a limited class of
    interlocutory orders. However, the interlocutory order at issue in this case--the order denying
    the debtor’s motion for recusal--is not among the class of enumerated orders over which the
    courts of appeals have jurisdiction.
    4
    construe notices of appeal as motions for leave to appeal.                          Indeed, the
    Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure expressly permit this treatment:                          “If
    a required motion for leave to appeal is not filed, but a notice of appeal
    is timely filed, the . . . bankruptcy appellate panel may grant leave to
    appeal or direct that a motion for leave to appeal be filed.”                             Fed. R.
    Bankr. P. 8003(c); see Seidel, 
    194 B.R. at 221
     (“We find it appropriate to
    treat the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal. . . .”);
    Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 
    190 B.R. 875
    , 882 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)
    (holding that Bankruptcy Appellate Panel could treat the notice of appeal
    as a motion for leave to appeal).                 Because of the cloud created by the
    motion over all past and future proceedings in her case, we treat Moix-
    McNutt’s notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal.
    Therefore, we next decide whether or not to grant Moix-McNutt leave
    to appeal.6      While we would ordinarily deny the appellant
    6
    When deciding whether to grant leave to appeal, it is sometimes helpful to apply the
    standards which govern the certification of interlocutory appeals to the circuit courts. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b). See Lam v. Connelly Group, L.P. (In re Nat. Metalcraft Corp.), 
    211 B.R. 905
    , 907
    (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997) (holding that the standard established in § 1292 is “generally applied in
    bankruptcy appeals.”) (emphasis added). Under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b), courts of appeals enjoy
    jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals only when the order “involves a controlling question of law
    as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and . . . an immediate appeal from
    the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . .” The decision to
    grant leave to appeal is purely discretionary. Given our broad jurisdiction over interlocutory
    orders, we are not constrained to follow the standards established for the courts of appeals.
    5
    leave to appeal, we are persuaded that the unique procedural posture of
    this case warrants immediate judicial review.                     If we postpone appellate
    review until the entry of a final order, we risk tainting the entire course
    of judicial proceedings.7          Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy,
    we grant Moix-McNutt leave to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order.
    The standard of review on appeal from a recusal order is abuse of
    discretion.       See Hale v. Carlson (In re Hale), 
    980 F.2d 1176
    , 1178 (8th
    Cir. 1992).        Since judicial impartiality is presumed, a party seeking
    recusal bears a heavy burden.            Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Tosco Corp., 
    686 F.2d 1291
    , 1300 (8th Cir. 1982).             The movant must identify specific behaviors
    which reasonably suggest judicial bias.                 
    Id. at 1301
    .
    As the basis for recusal, Moix-McNutt argues that the bankruptcy
    court used language which demonstrates gender bias.                     In her motion, Moix-
    McNutt accuses the court of referring to her as “just a housewife” and
    “just a babysitter” during the course of the hearing.                       As the bankruptcy
    court pointed out in its thorough
    7
    For example, if we await the entry of a final order before determining that the bankruptcy
    court engaged in judicial bias, we may be required to vacate all orders entered after Moix-
    McNutt’s motion for recusal. See New York City Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Hart, 
    796 F.2d 976
    , 979
    (7th Cir. 1986) (“[O]rders rendered after the filing of the motion must be vacated . . . if the
    motion ultimately is granted.”). We would rather undo a few stitches at the outset than unravel
    the entire garment.
    6
    order, and as we have confirmed from our own review of the transcript, that
    accusation is false.
    While Moix-McNutt once described herself as a “babysitter slash
    nanny,” the court never referred to her as a babysitter.                       The bankruptcy
    court did refer to the debtor as a housewife on several occasions, but
    never as “just a housewife.”
    We first observe that there is nothing insulting or demeaning in
    being identified as a housewife.            The job of housewife is an important and
    respected profession, and being a housewife is no reason for embarrassment,
    nor is being referred to as one an insult.
    We concede that any word, when considered in the appropriate context,
    can be intended as an insult.              Here, however, the bankruptcy court was
    merely trying to determine whether the debtor’s filing without her husband
    was appropriate in light of their respective incomes and joint property
    ownership.8      While the correctness of the court’s determination in this
    regard is not at issue in this appeal, it is a perfectly appropriate area
    of
    8
    To be eligible for Chapter 13, an individual must have regular income or file a joint case
    with a spouse that has regular income. 
    11 U.S.C. § 109
    (e). To confirm a Chapter 13 plan, the
    court must determine that the debtor will be able to make all payments under the plan and to
    comply with the plan. 
    11 U.S.C. § 1325
    (a)(6). The plan must also be proposed in good faith. 
    11 U.S.C. § 1325
    (a)(3).
    7
    inquiry.   It is in this context that the court (and others) used the term
    “housewife” at the hearing.   For, while the position of housewife has great
    value, it rarely generates income.   In sum, we have examined Moix-McNutt’s
    accusations of bias and find them to be false or without merit.
    CONCLUSION
    While we grant Moix-McNutt leave to appeal, we conclude that the
    bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moix-McNutt’s
    motion to recuse.   Therefore, we AFFIRM.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL FOR
    THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    8