RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17b0007p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN RE: SHANE M. HAFFEY, dba Sandlin Farms, ┐ Debtor. │ ___________________________________________ │ │ SHANE HAFFEY, > Nos. 15-8018/8027 Appellant, │ │ v. │ │ SAMUEL K. CROCKER, United States Trustee; │ DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, │ Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. No. 14-50824—Gregory R. Schaaf, Judge. Argued: August 22, 2017 Decided and Filed: November 28, 2017 Before: HUMPHREY, OPPERMAN and PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Heather McKeever, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Rohrscheib, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee Samuel K. Crocker. Edmund S. Sauer, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee Deutsche Bank. ON BRIEF: Heather McKeever, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Carrie Ann Rohrscheib, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee Samuel K. Crocker. Edmund S. Sauer, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee Deutsche Bank. Nos. 15-8018/8027 In re Haffey Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ C. KATHRYN PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Debtor Shane Haffey (“Debtor”), appeals the dismissal of his chapter 12 bankruptcy case. He asserts that he was denied due process when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed his case following an expedited hearing. Assistant United States Trustee John Daugherty (“Trustee”), and creditor Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”) assert that dismissal was appropriate given that the case had been pending over a year, Debtor was not profitable, Debtor was unable to propose a confirmable plan, and Debtor had engaged in dilatory tactics. For the reasons stated below, the Panel AFFIRMS. ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Whether the Bankruptcy Court violated the Debtor’s due process rights by holding a hearing on June 2, 2015, on issues that had been scheduled to be heard on June 25, 2015, without giving Debtor adequate notice and opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred by dismissing the chapter 12 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1208? JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit (“BAP”) has jurisdiction to decide this appeal. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has authorized appeals to the Panel, and neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(6), (c)(1). A final order of the bankruptcy court may be appealed as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The Bankruptcy Court’s order dismissing the Debtor’s case is a final, appealable order. In re Anderson, 397 B.R. 363, 365 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008). The question whether a bankruptcy court has committed a due process violation is reviewed under a de novo standard. See In re Royal Manor Mgmt., Inc., 525 B.R. 338, 346 Nos. 15-8018/8027 In re Haffey Page 3 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2015), aff'd sub nom., Grossman v. Wehrle (In re Royal Manor Mgmt., Inc.), 652 F. App’x. 330 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals