New Split on Bankruptcy’s Appeal Deadline


October 29, 2020
By Bryan Lammon

In In re Tennial, the Sixth Circuit held that bankruptcy’s 14-day deadline for filing an appeal is not jurisdictional. In doing so, the court split with every other court of appeals to address this issue. The Supreme Court has drawn a fairly clear line between deadlines found in statutes—which are jurisdictional—and those found only in rules of procedure—which aren’t. Bankruptcy’s appeal deadline is a bit of a hybrid. It comes partially from a statute—28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2)—and partially from a rule—Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. The statutory part has led other courts to conclude that the 14-day deadline is jurisdictional. But the Sixth Circuit explained that the statute merely says that appeals must be filed within a time specified by the Bankruptcy Rules. The actual 14-day deadline comes only from those rules. The court accordingly concluded that the bankruptcy appeal deadline is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.

The Jurisdictional/Non-Jurisdictional Project

For some time now, the Supreme Court has tried to clean up the law on which procedural rules are truly jurisdictional. A jurisdictional rule comes with several consequences: failure to comply with the rule cannot be waived or forfeited, courts cannot create equitable exceptions to the rule, and courts must raise non-compliance with the rule on their own. But not all procedural rules are jurisdictional. Some are instead claim-processing rules. Courts must still enforce claim-processing rules when a party raises them. But claim-processing rules can be waived or forfeited.

Appeal deadlines have received particular jurisdictional scrutiny. And the Supreme Court has drawn a fairly clear line between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional appeal deadlines: those found in statutes are jurisdictional, while those found only in rules of procedure are not.

So, for example, in Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court held that the 14-day limit on reopening the time to file a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Although found in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), that 14-day limit comes from 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c). In contrast, Rule 4(a)(5)(C)’s 30-day limit for extending the time to file an appeal is not jurisdictional. That deadline comes only from the rules. So the Court held in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago that the deadline was a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule. Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for petitioning to appeal a class-certification decision is not jurisdictional; the time limit comes only from the rule.

Bankruptcy’s Hybrid Appeal Deadline

Bankruptcy has a unique appeal deadline. A statute—28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2)—gives the district court’s jurisdiction to review bankruptcy decisions and requires that appeals be filed within the time set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. Rule 8002(a)(1), in turn, sets a 14-day limit. Bankruptcy’s appeal deadline is thus a hybrid appeal deadline—part statute, part rule.

Even after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bowles and Hamer, courts have treated bankruptcy’s appeal deadline as jurisdictional. The Tenth Circuit was the first court of appeals to do so after Hamer. (Two bankruptcy appellate panels had reached this same conclusion before the Tenth Circuit.) The Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion last month. The First Circuit has noted that Hamer might warrant revisiting its decisions on the jurisdictional nature of Rule 8002(a)(1), though the court saved that issue for another day.

The Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Tennial

The Untimely Appeal

Tennial involved an appeal from an order lifting an automatic bankruptcy stay. Simplifying a bit, the debtor in Tennial filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which automatically stayed a foreclosure action against her home. The bankruptcy court later lifted the automatic stay. The debtor then waited about a month to appeal that decision to the district court.

Given bankruptcy’s 14-day deadline for appealing, the debtor’s notice of appeal was about two weeks late. The mortgage company accordingly asked the district court to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The district court agreed, and the debtor sought further review in the Sixth Circuit.

Non-Jurisdictional, but Still Late

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the appeal was untimely. But before doing so, the court addressed the jurisdictionality of bankruptcy’s appeal deadline. And the court concluded that the deadline was not jurisdictional. It gave two reasons for that holding.

First, the statute did not clearly state a jurisdictional limit. The Supreme Court said in Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. that “Congress must ‘clearly state[]’ that the requirement implicates the judiciary’s subject matter jurisdiction—its ‘statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case’—before the federal courts will treat the requirement as a non-waivable and non-forfeitable jurisdictional imperative.” The Sixth Circuit concluded that nothing in § 158(c)(2) indicates any Congressional intent to create a jurisdictional deadline, much less a clear intent.

Second, the actual time limit comes from a rule of procedure, not a statute. Given the Supreme Court’s distinction between deadlines found in statutes and those found only in rules of procedure, “[a] bankruptcy appellate deadline is not jurisdictional when Congress did not create it.” Bankruptcy’s actual time limit comes from Rule 8002(a)(1). Granted, § 158(c)(2) refers to an appeal deadline. But that actual deadline isn’t in the statute. So Congress didn’t set the deadline; the Supreme Court did (via the rulemaking process).

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that it was alone in its non-jurisdictional treatment of bankruptcy’s appeal deadline. But the court was convinced that its reading was the correct one.

The Sixth Circuit accordingly concluded that bankruptcy’s 14-day appeal deadline is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule. But that didn’t mean that the court could excuse noncompliance. The deadline was still mandatory, and the appellee in Tennial had invoked the debtor’s failure to comply with the deadline. The district court was accordingly correct in dismissing the appeal as untimely.

In re Tennial, 2020 WL 6304352 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.

Learn More Contact

Related Posts


In Malek v. Feigenbaum, the Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The court went on to hold that although Rule 4 is a claims-processing rule, it is a mandatory one that is not subject […]

Continue reading....

In Harrow v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court held that the 60-day deadline for appealing decisions from the Merit System Protection Board is not jurisdictional. It’s a solid decision. It also raises questions about how Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) applies to the equitable tolling of administrative appeals.

Continue reading....

In In re Al Zawawi, the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court order recognizing a foreign proceeding is final and thus appealable.

Continue reading....

When an action involves multiple claims, appeals normally must wait until the district court has resolved all of claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is one exception to this general rule. It permits a district court to enter a partial judgment on the resolution of some (but not all) claims in an action. That […]

Continue reading....

Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases can be tricky. The rules governing finality are different. And there’s an an extra tier of intermediate appellate review, with cases first going to a district court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel before they can reach the courts of appeals. Litigants can skip this extra tier of review and proceed straight […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.

Continue reading....

In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]

Continue reading....

I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]

Continue reading....

Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]

Continue reading....

Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.

Continue reading....