Avoidance action; FedRBankrP 7001(a); 11 USC §§ 544-553; Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases; “Final decisions”; 28 USC §§ 1291 & 158(d)(1); Interlocutory orders; Jurisdiction under § 1292, § 158(d)(2), or FedRCivP 54(b)

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of plaintiffs-creditors’ summary judgment motion in their action against defendant-Max Salas (the debtor’s father) to avoid transfers and recover property. Plaintiffs were the parents of two tenants who died in a fire on a property the debtor (Len) owned. They sued both Len and Max for wrongful death and were awarded multimillion-dollar verdicts. Both Max and Len filed for bankruptcy. In Max’s case, the bankruptcy court ruled that he “was entitled to the unlimited homestead exemption over the property, finding” he had both the legal and beneficial interests in it. The trustee in Len’s case then sold his estate’s interest in the trustee’s avoidance and recovery rights as to the property. Plaintiffs purchased that interest at auction. They then sued Max to avoid transfers and recover property. The bankruptcy court denied their motion for summary judgment and granted Max summary judgment only on the fraudulent conveyance claim. The district court granted plaintiffs leave to file an interlocutory appeal, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling, and remanded to the bankruptcy court. It did not certify the issue for appeal or designate the order as final. Although plaintiffs’ appeal was timely, “the parties did not seek to certify the appeal before this court.” The court explained that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s ruling under either § 1291 or § 158(d)(1), which give appeals courts jurisdiction over “final decisions.” When the district court remanded the case to the bankruptcy court, several claims remained. Thus, the order was not final under § 1291. And § 158(d)(1) did not support jurisdiction where the district court’s order “did not conclusively resolve plaintiffs’ adversary proceeding.” The court also considered provisions granting jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders (§ 1292, § 158(d)(2), and Rule 54(b)) but none of them conferred jurisdiction either where they all required certification. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.