MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is a creditor’s appeal from an Order, Dkt. No. 5-11 (“Reconsideration Order”), and Memorandum-Decision and Order, Dkt. No. 5-20 (“Remand MDO”), issued by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York, the Honorable Robert E. Littlefield, Jr., presiding (“Bankruptcy Court”). See Dkt. Nos. 1 (“Notice of Appeal”), 7 (“Appellant’s Brief”) (collectively, “Appeal”). Appellant Endurance American Insurance Company is a creditor in the underlying bankruptcy action. In re DiStefano, No. 16-10694-1 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.) (“DiStefano I” or “Bankruptcy Action”). Appellee Stanley Lawrence DiStefano, Jr., is the sole debtor in the Bankruptcy Action. The parties have appeared before the Court twice in relation to this Bankruptcy Action. First, in 2020, this Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that Appellee’s condominium property in Hawaii (the “TBE Property”) was not exempt from the bankruptcy estate. See Dkt. No. 5-3 (“Exemption MDO”) at 19;1 DiStefano v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-1258 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) (Kahn, J.) (“DiStefano II”), Dkt. No. 14 (“Exemption Appeal MDO”) at 12-13.2 Second, in 2021, the Court heard Appellant’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to reconsider, amend, or vacate the Bankruptcy Court’s general discharge order. See Dkt. Nos. 5-7 (“Reconsideration Motion”), 5-6 (“Discharge Order”); Endurance Am. Ins. Co. v. DiStefano, No. 20-CV-203 (N.D.N.Y. 2021) (Kahn, J.) (“DiStefano III”). The Court ultimately remanded that appeal to the Bankruptcy Court with a mandate to determine whether Appellant’s Reconsideration Motion was ripe. See Dkt. No. 5-14 (“Reconsideration Appeal MDO”) at 5-6. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Reconsideration Motion was ripe for review, upholding the Reconsideration Order. See Remand MDO at 7. Appellant filed this Appeal following entry of the Remand MDO. For a second time, Appellant requests that the Court reverse the Reconsideration Order on its merits and direct the Bankruptcy Court to grant its Reconsideration Motion. In particular, Appellant seeks to have this Court either (1) amend the Discharge Order to clarify that the Discharge Order itself does not render the TBE Property exempt from process in the instant bankruptcy, or (2) vacate and temporarily defer the Discharge Order until the TBE Property is liquidated. As a third alternative, Appellant asserts that the Discharge Order should be declared void based on a jurisdictional defect. See Appellant’s Br. at 12 n.4; Dkt. No. 11 at 8 n.3. Appellee has filed a brief in opposition to the Appeal. Dkt. No. 8 (“Appellee’s Brief”). Appellant has filed a reply to Appellee’s Brief. Dkt. No. 11 (“Appellant’s Reply”). For the reasons that follow, Endurance American Insurance Company’s Appeal is dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Underlying Bankruptcy and Exemption Dispute 1. Bankruptcy Action and the TBE Property Appellee served as managing member for Green Island Construction Group, LLC (“Green Island”), which used performance bonds provided by Appellant to fund construction projects. See Exemption Appeal MDO at 2. As security for the repayment of these bonds, Appellee, his wife Christi Lynn DiStefano, and other relatives executed an indemnity agreement with Appellant on or about September 22, 2011. See DiStefano II, Dkt. No. 3-19 24; see also id., Ex. E (“Indemnity Agreement”). Per the Indemnity Agreement, these signatories agreed to be personally, jointly, and severally liable for any payments which Green Island, as principal, might have owed to Appellant. See Indemnity Agreement at 1, 3. Before the Indemnity Agreement was signed, Appellee disclosed to Appellant that he and his wife owned a condominium property in Hawaii. See Exemption Appeal MDO at 3. Appellee and his wife owned this property as a tenancy by the entirety. See DiStefano II, Dkt. No. 3-19, Ex. D. Prior to the Bankruptcy Action, Appellant initiated an action in New York Supreme Court against Green Island, Appellee, his wife, and other indemnitors. See Dkt. No. 4-1 at 6-7. This litigation resulted in several orders between January 12, 2015, and April 24, 2015. See id. at 34-53. Appellant asserts that these orders granted them judgment liens securing the amount of $859,474.09 against all real and personal property of the indemnitors. See id. at 6-8. The Bankruptcy Action began on April 20, 2016, when Janice DiStefano filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against Appellee. See DiStefano I, Dkt. No. 1. Appellant asserted a claim in the amount of $1,769,317.00, partially secured in the amount of $859,474.09, making them Appellee’s largest creditor. See Dkt. No. 4-1 at 2; Appellant’s Br. at 9. 2. Denial of the TBE Property Exemption On May 15, 2018, Appellee filed an amended Schedule C with the Bankruptcy Court that claimed, for the first time, that the TBE Property was exempt from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to “11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(B) and Haw. Rev. Stat. §509-2″ for “100 percent of [its] fair market value, up to any applicable statutory limit.” Dkt. No. 4-5 at 2. Appellant objected to this exemption claim. See DiStefano I, Dkt. Nos. 247, 262, 273, 280, 286, 305. The Bankruptcy Court sustained Appellant’s objection on September 30, 2019. See Exemption MDO at 19. As is relevant here, the Bankruptcy Court held that Hawaiian state law governed Appellee’s exemption claim under 11 U.S.C. §522(b)(3)(B). Id. at 11-12. Under controlling Hawaiian law, tenancies-by-the-entirety are exempt from process by a creditor of only one spouse during the spouses’ joint ownership; however, such property is not exempt by virtue of the entireties co-tenancy if there has been a “joint action of the spouses” that renders the spouses jointly liable to the creditor. Id. at 13-14 (citing Sawada v. Endo, 57 Haw. 608, 614, 617 (1977)). The Bankruptcy Court held that joint execution of the Indemnity Agreement by Appellee and his wife was a joint action sufficient to allow Appellant to hypothetically issue process against the TBE Property. See id. at 15-16. The Bankruptcy Court therefore held that the TBE Property was not exempted from the bankruptcy estate. See id. at 19. On October 10, 2019, Appellee appealed the Exemption MDO to this Court. See Dkt. No. 5-4. Appellee raised two issues in this appeal. See Exemption Appeal MDO at 5-6. First, Appellee argued that the Bankruptcy Court had erred in holding that execution of the Indemnity Agreement was sufficient “joint action” under Sawada to render the TBE Property not exempt from process. Id.; see also DiStefano II, Dkt. No. 9 at 17-23. Second, Appellee argued that the Discharge Order, which the Bankruptcy Court had entered during the pendency of his appeal from the Exemption MDO, had eliminated the joint liability underlying Appellant’s claim to the TBE Property; thus, Appellee argued that Appellant’s objection to the exemption should be dismissed. See Exemption Appeal MDO at 6; see also DiStefano II, Dkt. No. 9 at 23-26. As to the first argument, the Court agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that the execution of the Indemnity Agreement was sufficient to render the TBE Property non-exempt. See Exemption Appeal MDO at 10-12 (“While Hawaii law does not expressly address the question of whether, when spouses agree to joint and several liability under an indemnity agreement, they satisfy Sawada’s joint action requirement, what case law there is indicates that they do.”). The Court found the Appellee could not raise the second argument on appeal, as it had not been raised before the Bankruptcy Court. See id. at 19-20. This Court thus affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that the TBE Property was not exempt from the Bankruptcy Action, and remanded the matter back to the Bankruptcy Court. See id. B. Discharge Order, Reconsideration Motion, and Appeal 1. Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration On November 26, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Discharge Order, and no party objected. See Appellant’s Br. at 1. This Discharge Order was issued during Appellee’s appeal of the Exemption MDO. See id. at 12 n.4. On December 10, 2019, Appellant filed a motion to reconsider or amend the Discharge Order. Recons. Mot. at 1. Appellant primarily sought two forms of relief in its motion. First, they asked the Bankruptcy Court to “amend the Discharge Order to clarify that it does not in any way, and should not be construed to, render the [TBE Property] immune from process as to [Appellant's] claim, and the Discharge Order should further make clear that the Trustee’s and [Appellant's] rights to proceed against the Property are preserved.” Recons. Mot. 17. Second, in the alternative, Appellant has asked “that the Discharge Order be vacated and the discharge be deferred as to [Appellant]” pending liquidation of the TBE Property. Recons. Mot. 18; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. at 6-7 (clarifying that Appellant was not seeking to “permanently revoke or deny the [Appellee's] discharge,” but rather that it “sought merely to amend the Discharge Order for a single, limited purpose: to clarify the scope and extent of the [Appellee's] discharge and thus foreclose the [Appellee] and his wife from asserting…that the [Appellee's] interest in the [TBE Property] has been wrested…back into the hands of the [Appellee].”). Appellant raised three arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration. First, Appellant noted that FRBP 9023 permits motions to alter or amend a judgment under the standard set by FRCP 59. See Recons. Mot.
20-21. Appellant argues that this standard is met because “it would be manifestly unjust if the Discharge Order were possibly construed to impact…Trustee’s and [Appellant's] rights as to the Property.” Id. 21. Second, Appellant argued that relief was warranted under FRBP 9024, which allows relief from a final order under the standard set by FRCP 60. See id.
