NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

Nos. 22-1056 & 22-1057 _______________

IN RE: JOHN MICHAEL WALSH; ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH, Debtors/Appellants _______________

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH

_______________

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

ROSEMARY JOANNE WALSH; JOHN MICHAEL WALSH

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Nos. 2:20-cv-20220 & 2:20-cv-20215) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on April 25, 2023

Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 28, 2023) _______________

OPINION* _______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

John and Rosemary Walsh filed jointly for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Fidelity National Ti-

tle Insurance Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company then filed adversary pro-

ceedings against them. The bankruptcy court struck the Walshes’ answers and entered de-

fault judgments for both Fidelity and Chicago on November 19, 2020. Fourteen days later,

the Walshes moved for more time to file their notices of appeal. On December 22, thirty-

three days after entry of the judgment—well past the fourteen-day deadline to appeal—

they filed their notices of appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). Almost a month later, the

bankruptcy court denied their motions to extend time. The Walshes never appealed the

denial of those extension motions. If they had done so, we could have considered whether

they had good reason for their delay.

Instead, after that denial, they moved the District Court for more time to file their no-

tices of appeal, regurgitating the extension motions they had made below. The District

Court denied those motions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to appeal.

It was right. Under our precedent, the fourteen-day deadline to appeal a bankruptcy-court

judgment is jurisdictional. In re Caterbone,

(3d Cir. 2011). The Walshes

try to distinguish Caterbone because they had moved for extensions, but that distinction

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. 2 makes no difference. They do not ask us to reconsider Caterbone, so we decline to do so.

Cf. In re Tennial,

(6th Cir. 2020) (Sutton, J.). In any event, the

Walshes offer no good reason for failing to appeal within fourteen days and failing to ap-

peal the denial of their extension motions. We thus affirm the District Court’s dismissal for

lack of jurisdiction.

3