Michigan Department of Health and Human Services v. Gibbs

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
PRESENT: 	HONORABLE SCOTT W. DALES
Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge
Plaintiff Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (the "Plaintiff") filed a
complaint against debtor-defendant Anthony J. Gibbs (the "Defendant"). When the Defendant did
not respond to the complaint, the Clerk entered his default and Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of
default judgment (ECF No. 6, the "Motion"). 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (applicable to this proceeding
under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055). The court reviewed the Motion and held a hearing to consider it
on November 6, 2025, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Counsel for the Plaintiff appeared; the Defendant
did not.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court instructed Plaintiff's counsel to submit (1) a
proposed order granting the Motion; and (2) a proposed judgment, declaratory in nature, granting
the relief requested in the complaint. Perhaps misunderstanding the court's instructions, counsel
In re:
ANTHONY J. GIBBS,
Debtor.
____________________________________/
Case No. 23-02509-swd
Hon. Scott W. Dales
Chapter 7
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY J. GIBBS,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
Adversary Pro. No. 25-80043
Case:25-80043-swd Doc #:13 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

instead filed a second motion for default judgment (ECF No. 11, the "Second Motion"), and
uploaded a revised judgment to the e-Order signing program.
The court asked counsel to prepare an order granting the original Motion, together with a
separate (revised) declaratory judgment to comply with the separate document rule of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58(a), applicable here under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058. See generally Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis,
435 U.S. 381, 385 (1978) ("The separate-document requirement was thus intended to avoid the
inequities that were inherent when a party appealed from a document or docket entry that appeared
to be a final judgment of the district court only to have the appellate court announce later that an
earlier document or entry had been the judgment and dismiss the appeal as untimely."); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58, Advisory Committee Notes, 1963 Amendment ("it has become a matter of doubt
whether the purported entry of judgment was effective, starting the time running for post-verdict
motions and for the purpose of appeal...The amended rule eliminates these uncertainties by
requiring that there be a judgment set out on a separate document—distinct from any opinion or
memorandum—which provides the basis for the entry of judgment."). The judgment, therefore,
must be separate from the reasons granting it—reasons reflected in the order granting the Motion.
The court endeavors to comply strictly with the separate document rule to trigger the
fourteen-day appeal period for its judgments upon entry, rather than postpone effective entry for
one hundred and fifty days – a delay that kicks in when a separate document is required but not
entered. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (appeal period is fourteen days from entry of judgment); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58(c) (postponing entry of judgment for one hundred fifty days when court fails to enter
separate document if required).
Here, as the court noted on the record, Plaintiff properly served the summons and
complaint; the well-pleaded allegations support a right to relief; the Defendant failed to answer the
Case:25-80043-swd Doc #:13 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

complaint (as the Clerk noted), thereby admitting the well-pleaded allegations; and, therefore, the
court should enter a declaratory judgment in Plaintiff's favor. 	Accordingly, the court will grant
the original Motion as proper and deny the Second Motion as unnecessary. It will also sign and
enter the revised judgment—the separate document—that Plaintiff's counsel previously uploaded
to the e-Order program.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 6) is
GRANTED and the Second Motion (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum of
Decision and Order pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022 and LBR 5005-4 upon James Alan
Ziehmer, Esq., and Anthony J. Gibbs.
END OF ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 12, 2025
Case:25-80043-swd Doc #:13 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3