Keywords:
proof of claim .
procedure .
No Seventh Circuit cases in database on this topic
The court struck the creditor's proof of claim because it contained personally identifying information (12-digit account number). Using a full account number (without properly redacting it to the last four digits to protect privacy) violated Bankruptcy Rule 9037(a). The court limited public access to the claim, but allowed the creditor to re-file it with redacted information only.
The court overruled the debtor's objection to a proof of claim.
Specifically, the court found that an adjustable rate loan was not an adhesion contract and that its terms were not substantively unconscionable.
The court overruled the debtor's objection to the creditor's proof of claim.
The court described this decision by saying, "The debtor's amended plan clearly indicates the debtor's intent to cure the pre-petition arrears on the mortgage according to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 1322(b)(5). The principle that the terms of the mortgage note or contract are reinstated when a debtor elects to cure pursuant to Section 1322(b)(5) is well-established within the Third Circuit."
Court sustained debtor's objection to creditor's claim because of creditor's lack of documentation. The court said, "Whatever it's reasons, [creditor] ignored the written requests from Debtor's counsel for evidence establishing [creditor's] standing, and did not respond to the Debtor's Objection to Claim #2. Therefore, [creditor] has failed to present evidence necessary to demonstrate that it is either the servicer, note and mortgage holder, or assignee such that it has standing to bring Claim #2."
Although the court sustained the debtor's objection to the proof of claim, it denied the debtor's request for attorney's fees and costs.
Here, the debtor objected to reimbursing a secured creditor for the legal fees for filing a proof of claim. The court agreed, and found that filing the proof of claim could have been done by the creditor's clerical staff (not their attorney).
"The filing of a secured proof of claim in consumer cases is presumptively a ministerial function, and the expense of getting such a document filed is not chargeable to the debtor. However, if the creditor shows that preparing the proof of claim involved complex issues that could not be presented without professional services, the Court may allow reasonable fees."
"Controlling case law explains that the bankruptcy court is not to use the benefit of hindsight when considering the imposition of Rule 9011(b) sanctions... Furthermore, although B-Line eventually discovered that it did not have enough information to prevail over the Wingerters' objection, this does not affect a Rule 9011(b) sanctions analysis Rule 9011 does not impose a continuing obligation on a creditor to obtain more information or revaluate its position as the case develops."
An IRS proof of claim was admitted after the deadline for filing proofs of claim since this new claim was related to proofs which the IRS had filed before the deadline.
AmEx and Ecast claims did not break out late fees and penalties so they could not receive distributions as general unsecured claims in Chapter 7 case.
The debtor originally objected successfully (and obtained a default order from the court) to the creditor's proof of claim. Later, however, the court set aside this default order as having been improperly entered, because the creditor was not properly served with the original objection.
A creditor had a claim against the debtor in the form of a court judgment. The court ordered the creditor to change its original proof of claim, removing claims that were unsecured and not based on the judgment.
The court held that the creditor had filed their proof of claim too late, but that the debtor did owe the creditor (attorney's fees from an attorney used before this bankruptcy proceeding). Because of this, the creditor's claim could survive the bankruptcy entirely.
The proof of claim was untimely because of improper notice. Though the court did not discharge the claim, the creditor could not get any distributions from the plan.
In its proof of claim, the lender stated that it would recover missed pre-petition payments by increasing the post-petition mortgage payments. The court held that this statement did not violate the automatic stay.
FDCPA is not intended to provide a remedy for claims filed in a bankruptcy proceeding
Although the creditor filed a valid proof of claim in a timely manner, the creditor was not allowed to amend it after plan confirmation.
The court struck the creditor's proof of claim because it contained personally identifying information (12-digit account number). Using a full account number (without properly redacting it to the last four digits to protect privacy) violated Bankruptcy Rule 9037(a). The court limited public access to the claim, but allowed the creditor to re-file it with redacted information only.
Creditor was liable for disclosing identifying information in proof of claim.
Specifically, the court found it had the authority (under Section 105) to compensate the debtors for losses resulting from creditor's violation of federal law and Rule 9037. This rule should have prevented the medical services provider-creditor from filing a proof of claim which disclosed the debtor's personally identifiable information (name,SSN , DOB , account numbers, and health information).
The court overruled the debtor's objection to a proof of claim.
Specifically, the court found that an adjustable rate loan was not an adhesion contract and that its terms were not substantively unconscionable.
The court overruled the debtor's objection to the creditor's proof of claim.
The court described this decision by saying, "The debtor's amended plan clearly indicates the debtor's intent to cure the pre-petition arrears on the mortgage according to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 1322(b)(5). The principle that the terms of the mortgage note or contract are reinstated when a debtor elects to cure pursuant to Section 1322(b)(5) is well-established within the Third Circuit."
Court sustained debtor's objection to creditor's claim because of creditor's lack of documentation. The court said, "Whatever it's reasons, [creditor] ignored the written requests from Debtor's counsel for evidence establishing [creditor's] standing, and did not respond to the Debtor's Objection to Claim #2. Therefore, [creditor] has failed to present evidence necessary to demonstrate that it is either the servicer, note and mortgage holder, or assignee such that it has standing to bring Claim #2."
Although the court sustained the debtor's objection to the proof of claim, it denied the debtor's request for attorney's fees and costs.
Here, the debtor objected to reimbursing a secured creditor for the legal fees for filing a proof of claim. The court agreed, and found that filing the proof of claim could have been done by the creditor's clerical staff (not their attorney).
"The filing of a secured proof of claim in consumer cases is presumptively a ministerial function, and the expense of getting such a document filed is not chargeable to the debtor. However, if the creditor shows that preparing the proof of claim involved complex issues that could not be presented without professional services, the Court may allow reasonable fees."
"Controlling case law explains that the bankruptcy court is not to use the benefit of hindsight when considering the imposition of Rule 9011(b) sanctions... Furthermore, although B-Line eventually discovered that it did not have enough information to prevail over the Wingerters' objection, this does not affect a Rule 9011(b) sanctions analysis Rule 9011 does not impose a continuing obligation on a creditor to obtain more information or revaluate its position as the case develops."
An IRS proof of claim was admitted after the deadline for filing proofs of claim since this new claim was related to proofs which the IRS had filed before the deadline.
AmEx and Ecast claims did not break out late fees and penalties so they could not receive distributions as general unsecured claims in Chapter 7 case.
The debtor originally objected successfully (and obtained a default order from the court) to the creditor's proof of claim. Later, however, the court set aside this default order as having been improperly entered, because the creditor was not properly served with the original objection.
A creditor had a claim against the debtor in the form of a court judgment. The court ordered the creditor to change its original proof of claim, removing claims that were unsecured and not based on the judgment.
The court held that the creditor had filed their proof of claim too late, but that the debtor did owe the creditor (attorney's fees from an attorney used before this bankruptcy proceeding). Because of this, the creditor's claim could survive the bankruptcy entirely.
The proof of claim was untimely because of improper notice. Though the court did not discharge the claim, the creditor could not get any distributions from the plan.
In its proof of claim, the lender stated that it would recover missed pre-petition payments by increasing the post-petition mortgage payments. The court held that this statement did not violate the automatic stay.
FDCPA is not intended to provide a remedy for claims filed in a bankruptcy proceeding
Although the creditor filed a valid proof of claim in a timely manner, the creditor was not allowed to amend it after plan confirmation.
All Cases A to Z