Fox v. Weiner: Eleventh Circuit Reinforces Strict Adherence to Bankruptcy-Appellate Deadlines and Record-Designation Requirements

1. Introduction

In Calvin David Fox v. Robin R. Weiner, No. 24-10423 (11th Cir. July 14, 2025) (non-published), the Eleventh Circuit confronted a procedural tangle arising out of a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated but defective attempts to appeal bankruptcy-court orders. The debtor, Calvin David Fox (“Fox”), lost his employment, defaulted on his Chapter 13 plan payments, and—after dismissal of his bankruptcy case—embarked on a protracted, largely pro se effort to revive the case and to challenge multiple post-dismissal rulings. The primary defendant–appellee was Robin R. Weiner, the standing Chapter 13 trustee for the Southern District of Florida.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision does not announce an entirely new doctrine; however, it crystallizes a critical procedural principle: appellate courts will strictly enforce the timeliness and record-designation mandates of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 and 8009 (and corresponding local rules), even when a debtor appears pro se. The ruling underscores that failure to observe these prerequisites will almost invariably doom an appeal, and post-hoc allegations of clerk misconduct, unsupported by evidence, will not resurrect a defective appeal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, which had in turn affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of Fox’s appeals.
The panel held that:
- Fox’s notices of appeal from two bankruptcy orders were untimely under Rule 8002(a).
- Fox’s appeal as to two later orders was properly dismissed under Rule 8009(a)(1) and local rules because he failed to file (i) a designation of the record and (ii) a statement of issues.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fox’s Rule 59(e)–style motion for reconsideration, which was deemed “frivolous.”
Fox’s novel allegation—raised for the first time on reconsideration—that a clerk literally tore up his filings was unsupported and could not provide relief.
Consequently, none of the bankruptcy-court orders were disturbed, and Fox’s Chapter 13 case remains dismissed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Although unpublished, the opinion draws upon several binding Eleventh-Circuit precedents to frame the standard of review and clarify what constitutes clear error:

In re Stanford, 17 F.4th 116 (11th Cir. 2021) — Reiterates that appellate courts review a bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The panel quoted this case for its articulation of the review standard.
In re Feshbach, 974 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2020) — Offers the definition of “clear error”; cited to explain that a finding is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred.

Beyond these opinions, the court relied heavily on black-letter procedural rules:

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (14-day deadline to file a notice of appeal).
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1) (14-day deadline to file the designation of the record and statement of issues).
Bankr. S.D. Fla. R. 8002-1 & 8009-1 and S.D. Fla. Loc. R. 87.4(c) — Local rules mandating dismissal if Rules 8002 or 8009 are violated.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Untimely Notices of Appeal
Two bankruptcy orders were entered on 11 October 2023; Fox did not file his notice of appeal until 26 October 2023—one day late. Rule 8002(a)’s 14-day period is jurisdictional. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court lacked authority to extend the deadline absent a timely motion under Rule 8002(d), which Fox never filed.
Failure to Designate the Record / State Issues
For the remaining two orders (entered 12 October 2023), Fox’s notice of appeal was timely, but he ignored Rule 8009(a)(1). Local Rule 8009-1(A) directs the bankruptcy court to “dismiss the appeal” in such circumstances. The Eleventh Circuit endorsed this automatic-dismissal framework.
Motion for Reconsideration Deemed Frivolous
Fox’s Rule 59(e)–style motion in district court rested on the sensational claim that a clerk destroyed his filings. Apart from Fox’s assertion, no evidence supported the allegation. Because a Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to present arguments that could have been raised earlier, the district court’s summary denial was within its discretion.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

Procedural Vigilance — The decision stresses that litigants—represented or not—must strictly heed appellate deadlines in bankruptcy matters; equitable doctrines (excusable neglect, extraordinary circumstances) will rarely override the explicit text of Rule 8002.
Local-Rule Enforcement — By endorsing the Southern District of Florida’s automatic-dismissal rule, the Eleventh Circuit signaled approval of similar local provisions nationwide, giving bankruptcy courts a swift mechanism to police non-compliant appeals.
Pro Se Limitations — The court obliquely reaffirmed that a debtor represented by counsel may not file pro se motions, and—even once counsel withdraws—a litigant must still satisfy all procedural prerequisites; leniency is limited.
Factual Allegations on Appeal — Unsupported narrative assertions (e.g., clerk misconduct) will not carry weight on appeal absent corroborating evidence such as affidavits, transcripts, or contemporaneous objections.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy — A reorganization framework allowing individuals with regular income to propose a 3- to 5-year repayment plan; dismissal returns creditors to pre-petition rights.
Notice of Appeal (Rule 8002) — The document that triggers appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases. It must be filed within 14 days unless the court extends the period under strict criteria.
Designation of the Record & Statement of Issues (Rule 8009) — A list of docket entries, transcripts, and a concise enumeration of the legal questions the appellant intends to raise; required to give the appellate court a working record.
Standard of Review —
- De novo: the appellate court affords no deference to lower-court legal rulings.
- Clear error: high deference to factual findings; reversal only if the appellate court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Paperless Order — An order entered electronically on the docket without a separately scanned PDF; common in many federal courts.
Pro Se — Representing oneself without an attorney.

5. Conclusion

Fox v. Weiner may be non-precedential and unpublished, but its message resonates loudly in bankruptcy practice: deadlines and procedural rules matter. The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that:

Rule 8002’s 14-day deadline to appeal is jurisdictional and unforgiving.
Rule 8009’s record-designation mandate is equally critical; non-compliance authorizes dismissal under local rules.
Unsubstantiated factual claims raised belatedly will not rescue an otherwise procedurally-barred appeal.

Practitioners and pro se litigants alike should treat this decision as a cautionary tale: meticulous adherence to the Bankruptcy Rules and local procedures is essential. The ruling bolsters the judiciary’s commitment to procedural regularity and serves as a clear reminder that appellate rights can be—and often are—lost by the simple oversight of missing a deadline or failing to file mandatory documents.