In a recent ruling, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal from Lorenzo Luciano Lopez concerning his bankruptcy case. The decision, issued on October 20, 2026, revolves around the sequence of court orders related to Lopez's bankruptcy filing and the actions taken by the Chapter 13 trustee, Lon A. Jenkins, and Auntie Tut Trust. This ruling affects Lopez directly, as it upholds the bankruptcy court's previous decisions, including the dismissal of his bankruptcy petition and the granting of stay relief to Auntie Tut Trust.
The case, docket number 26-4021, highlights significant issues in bankruptcy law, particularly regarding the automatic stay provisions and the rights of debtors during bankruptcy proceedings. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of proper procedural steps in appealing bankruptcy court orders.
Lopez's appeal stemmed from a complex series of events involving his attempts to avoid foreclosure on a property tied to a secured promissory note executed by Jonathan Darger, who was not a party in this case. Darger had repeatedly filed for bankruptcy to delay foreclosure proceedings initiated by Auntie Tut Trust, which led to a pattern of filings that the bankruptcy court ultimately sought to address.
In July 2013, Darger executed a secured promissory note with Auntie Tut Trust, securing payments against his real property in Herriman, Utah. After multiple defaults on payments, Auntie Tut Trust scheduled a foreclosure sale for January 30, 2024. To avoid foreclosure, Darger and Lopez devised a scheme where Darger would file for bankruptcy just before a scheduled foreclosure sale, triggering an automatic stay that would halt the proceedings.
This strategy continued until Lopez filed for bankruptcy on December 30, 2024, the day after Auntie Tut Trust filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay. Lopez's subsequent actions included filing an ex parte motion to dismiss his bankruptcy petition, which he argued should have required the court to dismiss his case immediately.
However, the bankruptcy court first granted Auntie Tut Trust's motion for relief from the automatic stay, allowing the foreclosure process to continue. The court then dismissed Lopez's bankruptcy case, imposing a 180-day restriction on any future bankruptcy filings by Lopez. This sequence of events led to Lopez's appeal, where he contested the validity of the Stay Relief Order and the dismissal of his case.
The Tenth Circuit ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review Lopez's appeal because he did not properly appeal the Stay Relief Order to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The court noted, "Lopez needed to also file a timely notice of appeal from the BAP’s Stay Relief Order. He failed to do so and thereby waived any right to appeal that order to this court." This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in the appeals process.
The court further explained that even if Lopez's motion for voluntary dismissal was valid, it would not have barred the bankruptcy court from issuing the Stay Relief Order. The ruling stated, "Even if we agreed that § 1307(b) required the bankruptcy court to dismiss the case immediately, the bankruptcy court would have retained jurisdiction over Auntie Tut’s motion for relief from stay as a core proceeding." This indicates that bankruptcy courts maintain certain powers even after a case is dismissed.
The impact of this decision extends beyond Lopez, as it clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries within bankruptcy appeals. It reinforces the need for debtors and their counsel to be vigilant in following procedural rules to preserve their rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The ruling also serves as a reminder to all parties involved in bankruptcy cases about the importance of timely appeals and the consequences of failing to adhere to procedural requirements.
Looking forward, Lopez's options for appeal are limited. The court's dismissal of his appeal indicates that he cannot challenge the Stay Relief Order or the dismissal of his bankruptcy case further in the Tenth Circuit. There are no indications in the court filing regarding any related cases pending that might impact this ruling.
In summary, the Tenth Circuit's ruling in Lopez v. Jenkins reinforces the procedural rigor required in bankruptcy appeals and highlights the consequences of failing to properly navigate the appeals process. This case serves as an important reminder for debtors and their legal representatives to remain diligent in their compliance with the law.