US Attorneys > USAM > Title 4 > Civil Resource Manual
prev | next

191.

Termination of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

1.Generally
2.Post-confirmation jurisdiction
3.Effect of Appeal On Court's Jurisdiction

1.   Generally.

Bankruptcy jurisdiction normally ends once the estate is settled and 
property transferred.  Free-Tan Corp. v. 49-50 Assocs. (In re Liberty 
Music and Video, Inc.), 50 B.R. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).  Dismissal of a 
bankruptcy case normally results in dismissal of related adversary 
proceedings, but court has discretion to retain jurisdiction.  Porges v. 
Gruntal & Co. (In re Porges), 44 F.3d 159, 162-63 (2d Cir. 1995) 
(although the "general rule favors dismissal" of adversary proceedings when 
the underlying bankruptcy case is terminated, this is not "automatic"); 
Fid. & Dep. Co. of Md. v. Morris (In re Morris), 950 F.2d 1531, 1534 
(11th Cir. 1992) (same); In re Davison, 186 B.R. 741, 742-43 (Bankr. 
N.D. Fla. 1995) ("actions that depend upon the existence of the bankruptcy" 
-- here an action to recover preferential transfers --  must be dismissed 
when the bankruptcy case is dismissed); Roddam v. Metro Loans, Inc. (In 
re Roddam), 193 B.R. 971 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1996) (ordinarily, dismissal 
of bankruptcy case will result in dismissal of all pending adversary 
proceedings but considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness 

may permit proceeding to continue); In re Hanks, 182 B.R. 930 (Bankr. 

N.D. Ga. 1995) (court lacks jurisdiction to enforce settlement which 
required dismissal of case; after dismissal, enforcement of the settlement 
was a contract claim to be disposed of under applicable state law).

      
2. Post-confirmation jurisdiction.  
      
After confirming a plan, bankruptcy courts should exercise jurisdiction only 

over controversies involving interpretation and enforcement of the plan.  
Compare Lacy v. FDIC (In re Lacy), 183 B.R. 890, 894 (Bankr. 
D. Colo. 1995) (court has no post-confirmation jurisdiction over property 
already returned to the debtor), H & L Developers, Inc. v. ARVIDA/JMB 
Partners (In re H & L Dev., Inc.), 178 B.R. 71, 75-76 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 
1994) ("once a plan has been confirmed, the court's jurisdiction begins to 
weaken;" complaint which raises non-bankruptcy causes of action and does not 

seek to "interpret, implement or enforce" the plan must be dismissed), 
Omega Corp. v. IRS (In re Omega Corp.), 173 B.R. 830 (Bankr. D. Conn. 

1994) (court retains jurisdiction post- confirmation only over "matters 
involving the execution, implementation, or interpretation of the plan's 
provisions, and to disputes requiring the application of bankruptcy law"), 
and A.R.E. Mfg. Co. v. United States (In re A.R.E. Mfg. Co.), 
138 B.R. 996 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992) ("Bankruptcy courts should exercise 
postconfirmation jurisdiction only for compelling reasons.") with 
Bernstein v. Donaldson (In re Insulfoams, Inc.), 184 B.R. 694 (Bankr. 

W.D. Pa. 1995), aff'd, 104 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 1997), and MAI 

Sys. Corp. v. C.U. Techs., Inc. (In re MAI Sys. Corp.), 178 B.R. 50, 52 
(Bankr. D. Del. 1995) (both holding that court's post- confirmation 
jurisdiction is as broad as it is pre-confirmation; it extends to "any 
proceeding that conceivably could affect the debtor's ability to consummate 
the confirmed plan").

Bankruptcy jurisdiction is conferred by statute and cannot be conferred by a 

plan.  New Horizon of NY LLC v. Jacobs, 231 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2000), 

cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2192 (2001).  Compare Holly's, 
Inc. v. City of Kenwood (In re Holly's, Inc.), 172 B.R. 545, 554-557 
(Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1994) (jurisdiction unchanged by confirmation but 
reservation of jurisdiction in plan meaningless), aff'd, 178 B.R. 711 

(W.D. Mich. 1995) with  Kalamazoo Realty Venture L.P. v. 
Blockbuster Entm't Corp., 249 B.R. 879 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (reservation of 
jurisdiction in plan did not give bankruptcy court more than "related to" 
jurisdiction and did not prevent concurrent jurisdiction of a district 
court), Dutch Masters Meats, Inc. v. IRS (In re Dutch Masters Meats, 
Inc.), 182 B.R. 405, 408 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1995) (bankruptcy jurisdiction 

generally ceases upon confirmation, but plan may reserve jurisdiction over 
certain matters), and Scotland Guard Servs. v. Autoridad de 
Energia Electrica (In re Scotland Guard Servs.), 179 B.R. 764, 768-69 
(Bankr. D.P.R. 1993) (post-confirmation is "limited" and "[w]hether or not 
the court retains jurisdiction, and to what extent, depends upon the 
provisions of the confirmation order;" however, court notes that it cannot 
obtain jurisdiction "by inserting a provision in the plan").

See Boco Enters., Inc. v. Saastopankkien Keskus-Osake- Pankki (In 
re Boco Enters., Inc.), 204 B.R. 407 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997) (judicial 
economy, convenience to parties, fairness, and comity guide courts in 
determining whether to exercise jurisdiction of "related to" proceeding 
after case dismissed); accord Doddy v. Oxy USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 

448 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Chapman v. Currie Motors, Inc., 
65 F.3d 78 (7th Cir. 1995).


      
3. Effect of Appeal On Court's Jurisdiction.

"The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance 
-- 
it confers jurisdiction on the [appellate court] and divests the [trial 
court] of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the 
appeal."  Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 
(1982) (per curiam).
  
Appeal from an order does not deprive bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over 
all aspects of the case.  In re Strawberry Square Assocs., 152 B.R. 
699 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1993).  The court retains jurisdiction when (1) the 
matter is not related to the issues involved in the appeal; (2) the order 
appealed is not appealable or is clearly frivolous; and (3) the court's 
action would aid in the appeal.  Bryant v. Smith (In re Bryant), 175 
B.R. 9, 11-12 (W.D. Va. 1994).  Although the filing of an appeal divests the 

lower court of its control over matters on appeal, the court retains 
jurisdiction to implement or enforce the order or judgment but not to expand 

upon or alter it.  DiCola v. Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n 
(In re Prudential Lines, Inc.), 170 B.R. 222, 243-44 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), 
appeal dismissed, 59 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 1995); accord NLRB 
v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585 (6th Cir. 1987) (bankruptcy 
court may enforce or implement (as opposed to alter) a judgment despite 
filing of appeal); NBD Bank v. Fletcher (In re Fletcher), 176 B.R. 
445, 446 n.1 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1995) (rendering a written opinion after a 
party filed a notice of appeal is permissible as an aid to the appellate 
court's review). 
            
Filing of a notice of appeal deprives the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction 
to enter orders that would affect or modify any issue or matter on appeal.  
Bialac v. Harsh Inv. Co. (In re Bialac), 694 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 
1982); Hyman v. Iowa State Bank (In re Health Care Prods.), 169 B.R. 
753, 755 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (filing notice of appeal from appealable order 
divests lower court of jurisdiction over issues related to the appeal; 
bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to strike affidavit following grant of 
summary judgment on turnover complaint and opponent's filing of notice of 
appeal); In re Neuman, 67 B.R. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (no jurisdiction to 

modify appealed order); In re Maurice, 179 B.R. 881 (Bankr. N.D. 
Ill.) (bankruptcy court lacks authority to provide guidance or modify order 
pending appeal), aff'd 69 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 1995); In re 
Commodore Corp., 87 B.R. 62 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1987) (no jurisdiction to 
"do anything that impacts on any issues or matters on appeal").  But 
see In re Allen-Main Assocs. L.P., 243 B.R. 606, 609 (D. Conn. 
1998) (appeal of dismissal order did not deprive lower court of jurisdiction 

over alleged debtor's claim for attorney fees).