In Re: Nestor
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-04242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Nestor v. Lynx Asset Services, Judge Failla dismissed Marianne Nestor’s bankruptcy appeal without prejudice because she filed it too late.
Marianne Nestor’s appeal against Lynx Asset Services, LLC; the District Court did not review the bankruptcy order’s merits.
What happened
In Nestor v. Lynx Asset Services, Marianne Nestor appealed a bankruptcy judge’s order fixing and allowing Lynx Asset Services, LLC’s secured claim. Nestor was not the bankruptcy debtor but was an interested party in her sister Peggy Nestor’s Chapter 11 proceedings. She represented herself.
The district court ordered Nestor to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it. Bankruptcy appeals generally must be filed within 14 days after the challenged order is entered. Nestor filed her appeal more than two months after the February 14, 2025 order, and her request for reconsideration was also not filed within the time required to extend the appeal deadline. She also had not requested an extension from the bankruptcy court.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the court lacked authority to hear the appeal and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also terminated pending motions, canceled remaining dates, closed the case, and directed the clerk to mail Nestor a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- In Re: Nestor · No. 1:25-cv-04242
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Marianne Nestor, representing herself, appealed from a February 14, 2025 decision by United States Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Wiles. That decision fixed and allowed the secured claim of Lynx Asset Services, LLC in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving Peggy Nestor. Marianne Nestor was not herself the debtor but was an interested party who had intermittently claimed to share ownership of certain real property with Peggy Nestor.
Nestor filed a request in the Bankruptcy Court on March 10, 2025, asking it to revisit some prior rulings, including the order at issue. The Bankruptcy Court denied that request on April 11, 2025. Nestor filed her notice of appeal on April 18, 2025, and the appeal was opened in the District Court on May 20, 2025.
Jurisdiction and Filing Deadline
The District Court issued an order requiring Nestor to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the matter. After reviewing her written response, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 generally requires a bankruptcy appeal to be filed with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days after the challenged judgment, order, or decree is entered. The court explained that this deadline is jurisdictional for appeals heard by a district court. The filing date is the date the clerk receives the notice, not the date it is mailed.
Certain timely motions for reconsideration or other relief can extend the appeal deadline. But the court found that Nestor’s March 10 request was not filed within the required 14-day period and therefore did not extend the deadline. The court also explained that a party may request an extension from the Bankruptcy Court within the time allowed by the rules, or within 21 days afterward by showing excusable neglect. Excusable neglect considers factors including prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, and good faith, with the reason for the delay receiving the most weight.
Court’s Analysis
The court found no indication in the Bankruptcy Court docket or Nestor’s notice of appeal that she had requested an extension. Her response also did not state that she had moved in the Bankruptcy Court for an extension. Although she cited being locked out of her residence, an inability to file electronically, receiving notices by mail, and her status as a self-represented litigant, the court found that she did not allege a delay in receiving the relevant bankruptcy order or show circumstances sufficient to establish excusable neglect. The court stated that self-represented status alone does not establish excusable neglect.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Nestor did not timely file her notice of appeal, either initially or through an extension obtained from the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, close the case, and mail the order to Nestor at her address of record.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.