## Facts

- Louis Bullard filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and proposed a repayment plan addressing Blue Hills Bank’s mortgage claim.
- Blue Hills Bank objected to the plan’s treatment of its mortgage.
- The bankruptcy court sustained the objection, denied confirmation, and ordered Bullard to submit a revised plan within 30 days.
- Bullard appealed; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded the denial was not final but granted interlocutory review and affirmed on the merits.
- Bullard appealed again; the First Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the bankruptcy court’s denial was not final because Bullard could propose another plan.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 plan, while allowing the debtor to propose an amended plan, is a “final” order appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the First Circuit.
- An order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan is not final, and thus not appealable as of right, when the debtor remains free to propose another plan.
- Finality for this confirmation process occurs at plan confirmation or case dismissal (and potentially similar case-ending events), not at a denial with leave to amend.
- Interlocutory review remains available under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) in appropriate cases.

## Legal Principles

- In bankruptcy, “final” orders include those that finally resolve a discrete dispute within the larger case, but not every adverse ruling in an ongoing process qualifies as final.
- The relevant “proceeding” for finality analysis in Chapter 13 plan litigation is the overall process of obtaining an approved plan, not each individual plan proposal.
- Denial of confirmation with leave to amend generally does not alter the status quo or fix parties’ rights and obligations; confirmation or dismissal does.
- Treating each plan submission as a separate, immediately appealable proceeding would fragment appellate review and create delay and inefficiency inconsistent with finality requirements.
- Statutory structure supports treating confirmation, not denial, as the key event for finality in plan-confirmation matters.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a bankruptcy court’s denial of Chapter 13 plan confirmation is not a final, appealable order when the debtor may still submit a new plan; appellate jurisdiction as of right attaches at confirmation or dismissal, with discretionary interlocutory review available for interim rulings.


Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015)