The district court correctly held that the bankruptcy court’s order satisfied those requirements. As noted above, the bankruptcy court’s order assigned to Baum the estates’ right to sue various individuals and to avoid various transactions. On its face, that order “finally determine[d] the discrete issue to which it is addressed.” See, e.g., Frontier Properties, 979 F.2d at 1363. Baum nevertheless argues that the decision is not “final,” because the bankruptcy court retains some control over the assigned assets. We are not persuaded. The bankruptcy court retains control only over monetary matters if Baum prevails in litigation or avoids a transaction. For example, the bankruptcy court can determine the appropriate amount of attorney fees and costs, if disp 1, 583 n. 1 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). AVOIDANCE POWERS A. Standard of Review The
holding that a property right that comes into existence by court action such as a judgment lien does not relate back to some earlier date to destroy the priority of a federal tax lien holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that a judgment resolving the question of the priority of the federal tax lien   constitutes a final and appealable order over which we have jurisdiction holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment