Don Juravin v. Bella Collina Property Owners Association, Inc.

── Don Juravin v. Bella Collina Property Owners Association, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12181 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12181 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ In re: DON KARL JURAVIN, Debtor. ___________________________________ DON KARL JURAVIN, ANNA JURAVIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus BELLA COLLINA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DENNIS KENNEDY, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cv-00597-GAP ____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-12181 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12181 PER CURIAM: Don Karl and Anna Juravin, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s final judgment and granting in part Defendant-Appellee Bella Collina Property Owner Association, Inc.’s (“BCPOA”) motion to supple- ment a vexatious litigant injunction. We asked the parties to ad- dress whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the bank- ruptcy court’s final judgment because the Juravins had relied on a then-vacated administrative order to email their notice of appeal to the bankruptcy court for filing. In their joint response, BCPOA and Defendant-Appellee Chapter 7 trustee Dennis Kennedy argue that this Court lacks ju- risdiction to review the Juravins’ appeal. They contend that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority by providing the Juravins with an unsolicited extension of time to comply with the jurisdic- tional deadline to appeal based on changed filing procedures. Don Karl Juravin disagrees, contending that this Court should equitably toll his deadline for filing a notice of appeal in bankruptcy court because the changed filing procedures constituted extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from filing on time. The district court lacked jurisdiction over the Juravins’ ap- peal from the bankruptcy court because a notice of appeal was never filed in compliance with the applicable rules. The bank- ruptcy court entered its final judgment on October 1, 2024, so the Juravins were required to file a notice of appeal by October 15, in a manner—by paper or by electronic transmission through USCA11 Case: 25-12181 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-12181 Opinion of the Court 3 CM/ECF—allowed by the court’s local rules. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1); Bankr. M.D. Fla. R. 5005- 1(b), 9001-1(d). The Juravins, however, emailed the notice of ap- peal to the bankruptcy court on October 14, relying on a COVID- era administrative order that, as of September 3, 2024, the bank- ruptcy court had vacated. Despite learning as early as October 31 that they had not complied with the bankruptcy court’s procedural rules, the Juravins did not file a motion for an extension of the ap- peal deadline based on excusable neglect, for which they ha