US · rules

D.D.C. DCt.LBR 8018.1-1

Appeals in Which the Bankruptcy Judge Lacked Authority to Issue the Judgment or Order That Is on Appeal

activein force · 2026-09-01 – presentact-effective-date

(a) PRESERVING THE CONTENTION THAT BANKRUPTCY JUDGE LACKED

AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER THAT IS ON

APPEAL.

If:

(1) the Bankruptcy Court has issued a judgment or order deciding a proceeding;

(2) an appellant contends that the Bankruptcy Court lacked authority to issue

the judgment or order deciding the proceeding; and

(3) the appellant wishes to preserve that contention,

then, unless otherwise ordered by the District Court, the appellant must both appeal the

Bankruptcy Court’s order or judgment (to obtain an order vacating the order or judgment

as unauthorized) and separately file in the Bankruptcy Court objections under Bankruptcy

Rule 9033 to the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as though

they were proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

(b) APPELLEE’S DUTY TO RESPOND TO THE BANKRUPTCY RULE

9033 OBJECTIONS.

If an appellant files Bankruptcy Rule 9033 objections under paragraph (a) of this Rule,

then unless otherwise ordered by the District Court, the appellee must, within the

deadline set by Bankruptcy Rule 9033, respond to the Bankruptcy Rule 9033 objections

as though the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were proposed

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

9033 OBJECTIONS FILED UNDER THIS RULE

When an appellant files Bankruptcy Rule 9033 objections under paragraph (a) of this

Rule, DCt.LBR 9033-1 applies to the objections as though the Bankruptcy Court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law were proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

(d) DISTRICT COURT’S DISPOSITION OF APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

THAT BANKRUPTCY JUDGE LACKED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE

JUDGMENT OR ORDER THAT IS ON APPEAL.

If the District Court agrees with the appellant’s contention that the Bankruptcy Court

lacked authority to decide the proceeding, it may treat the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of

fact and conclusions of law as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and it

may proceed to make a de novo review under Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d).

History

COMMENT TO DCt.LBR 8018.1-1. This rule addresses filing Bankruptcy Rule 9033 objections when the Bankruptcy Court entered a judgment or order deciding a proceeding but lacked authority to decide the proceeding, either because the proceeding was a non-core proceeding or because it fell within that subset of core proceedings that, under Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. 2165 (2014), may not be decided by a bankruptcy judge. Many other district courts follow a similar approach. See, e.g., Amended Standing Order of Reference, No. M10-468 (S.D.N.Y.).

Provenance

Source: www.dcd.uscourts.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-18
Edition: fed-district-2026-09-18
Content hash: 4eff8947dff1841816299fc3e779dd660980fe8f7ee7870c5019b9c183d5c3b6

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs