Is an order granting or denying a homestead exemption a final, appealable order in the wake of Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 191 L. Ed. 2d 621, 83 U.S.L.W. 4288 (2015)?
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Bullard did not undermine the circuit’s existing precedent and ruled that an order upholding a homestead exemption is appealable automatically.
In Bullard, the Supreme Court held that an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan was not a final, appealable order. The high court held that an order is final only if it “alters the status quo and fixes the rights and obligations of the parties.” Id. at 1692.
In the case before the Ninth Circuit, the bankruptcy court had upheld the debtor’s claimed homestead exemption under California law. The district court affirmed.
In an opinion on April 13, Circuit Judge Daly Hawkins said that the Ninth and other circuits have held that orders granting or denying exemptions are final and thus automatically appealable. He concluded that Bullard was not “so fundamentally inconsistent with our existing case law as to require a different result.” He also said that the circuit’s existing authority was not “clearly irreconcilable” with Bullard.
Pre-Bullard, the Ninth Circuit held that bankruptcy court orders are appealable as of right if they resolve or seriously affect substantive rights and finally determine a discrete issue. The circuit’s previous standard, Judge Hawkins said, “is ‘generally consistent with Bullard.’”
Judge Hawkins’ decision is therefore significant because it signals there will be no general reexamination of appealability in the Ninth Circuit.
After resolving the circuit’s jurisdiction, Judge Hawkins reversed the bankruptcy court for not having determined whether the debtor intended to continue residing in the property, one of the elements of a California homestead exemption.