Cite as: Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 135.3, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
This section will be available soon, discussing the documentation and assignment of claims in Chapter 13 cases. There has been an explosion of recent decisions addressing the sufficiency of documentation filed with proofs of claims and whether insufficient documentation is a basis for objection to allowance of the claim. Section 502(b) provides the statutory grounds for claims objections.1 Reported cases disagree whether lack of documentation falls within a § 502(b) ground for disallowance.2 Bankruptcy Rule 3001 describes the procedural requirements for a proof of claim, and reported cases differ whether the Rule provides a basis for disallowance when the claim lacks sufficient documentation. These issues often arise when claims have been transferred or assigned from one creditor to another. Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e) sets out the procedures for transfer of claims. This section will analyze the transfer and assignment of claims and the problems that arise when claims are transferred without proper accompanying documentation.
1 See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007, discussed in § 287.1 [ Timing, Procedure and Evidence Presumption ] § 135.1 Timing, Procedure and Evidence Presumption, for claims objection procedure.
2 See cases summarized under § 135.1 Timing, Procedure and Evidence Presumption and § 135.3 Documentation and Assigned Claims.
In re Wingerter, 594 F.3d 931, 937, 940, 941, 946 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (Gilman, Siler, Rogers) (Warranties from prior claim holder and some independent investigation insulate B-Line from liability for filing purchased claim that was eventually withdrawn because supporting documentation could not be produced. Appeal was not moot even though bankruptcy court did not award monetary sanctions because bankruptcy court had determined that creditor engaged in sanctionable conduct by filing proof of claim for assigned debt without making reasonable prefiling inquiry required by Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b)(3). "[W]ith a repeat litigant like B-Line, whose core business practices have been held to be sanctionable, there are serious, harmful consequences." Although B-Line filed proof of claim without attempting to acquire original documents, B-Line had received representations or warranties from prior owner that claim was valid and enforceable. Purchase agreement stated that seller had made reasonable efforts in accordance with industry standards to determine that account was valid. B-Line did not violate Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b) when it relied on warranties from its seller and when it conducted additional review of its own. "Specifically, it reviewed all of the account information for obvious flaws, such as an invalid address or Social Security number. B-Line also compared the account information that it received from Covenant with the electronic records of the bankruptcy court, looking for discrepancies. And it conducted a search of various electronic databases to determine whether Mr. Wingerter had previously filed for bankruptcy. Only after going through this additional review did B-Line buy the claim from Covenant. B-Line then repeated its research after buying the claim and conducted further checks—ascertaining whether the bankruptcy case had been dismissed or converted to a different type of case, or whether the date for filing proofs of claim had passed. The company filed its proof of claim only at the conclusion of this lengthy evaluation. With this combined research process, the warranties between B-Line and Covenant, and the highly reliable track record between them, B-Line clearly made a reasonable inquiry into the claim as required by Rule 9011(b). . . . The bankruptcy court's conclusion that B-Line committed sanctionable conduct is therefore unwarranted." Although B-Line ultimately withdrew its proof of claim, "after being unable to find the supporting documentation . . .the end result is irrelevant to a Rule 9011(b) determination. Controlling caselaw 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. . . . Admittedly, as the bankruptcy court stressed, B-Line's proof of claim was submitted on an incomplete Form 10. This deficiency violated Rule 3001(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which requires that a proof of claim based on a writing include a copy of that writing. The ramifications of this type of violation are well-established, however, and do not result in sanctions." Bankruptcy court abused its discretion in determining that B-Line had violated Rule 9011(b). Dissenting Judge Rogers would hold that appeal was moot in absence of monetary sanctions, since bankruptcy court's ruling was only "unfavorable dictum," leading to lack of standing to appeal.).
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lane (In re Lane), 589 B.R. 399, 407–11 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2018) (Brand, Spraker, Taylor) (Distinguishing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Paez, Bybee, Callahan), default disallowance of first mortgage claim based on lack of standing to enforce the note was a substantive decision for purposes of lien voidance under § 506(d) but unlike Blendheim, debtor never disputed that he owed someone and disallowance of BONY’s claim did not include any finding or holding that the debt was not enforceable by someone else. Debtor did not serve any other entity and the underlying lien was still enforceable by that other lienholder notwithstanding disallowance of BONY’s claim in the Chapter 13 case. Bankruptcy court should not have voided lien under § 506(d) and should not have awarded debtor fees under California’s reciprocal attorney fee statute. Lane scheduled Bank of America as holding the first-position mortgage on the debtor’s residence. BONY filed proof of claim for the first-position lien. The debtor objected arguing that BONY failed to establish that it was the entity entitled to enforce the debt. BONY failed to oppose the claim objection and a default order was entered disallowing the claim. Lane made no payments on the first lien during a five-year Chapter 13 case and BONY never moved for relief from stay. After plan completion and discharge, BONY moved for reconsideration of disallowance of its claim. The bankruptcy court denied that motion and sustained the debtor’s adversary proceeding with a judgment voiding the first deed of trust under § 506(d). “[T]he question of whether standing is a substantive or procedural objection has been addressed by only a few courts. However, those courts are unanimous in stating that it is a substantive objection under § 502(b)(1), which provides that a claim may be disallowed to the extent it is unenforceable against a debtor under any applicable law, including state law. . . . [A] challenge to a claimant’s standing is a substantive objection under § 502(b)(1), and not merely a procedural one, because it goes directly to the claimant’s ability to enforce the debt. . . . Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that lack of standing is a substantive objection under § 502(b)(1). And it matters not that the Claim Disallowance Order was entered as a result of BONY’s default. . . . This is where we part company with the bankruptcy court’s decision. We conclude that Blendheim is not applicable . . . because the bankruptcy court never adjudicated the validity of the first-position lien and the underlying note in the Claim Disallowance Order. . . . Implicit in Blendheim’s analysis is a conclusion that § 506(d) should apply only when a claim disallowance addresses the merits of the underlying debt. . . . The bankruptcy court never judged the first-position lien to be invalid in substance, only that BONY lacked standing to enforce it. . . . [T]he ‘true’ lienholder never subjected itself to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by filing a proof of claim; nor was this never-filed claim deemed disallowed. . . . In the Lien Avoidance action, Lane served only BONY and asked the court to avoid BONY’s first-position lien. . . . Lane failed to notice the proper lienholder of his intent to avoid the lien under § 506(d), and the bankruptcy court violated an unknown party’s due process rights by expunging its deed of trust without notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).
Shoemake v. SN Servicing Corp., 586 B.R. 741, 742–45 (M.D. Tenn. July 12, 2018) (Crenshaw) (Disallowance of mortgage servicer’s proof of claim because the claim was filed by an entity that was not identified or connected to the loan by any of the attachments was a “procedural” disallowance tantamount to the failure of the actual mortgagee to file a proof of claim, and as a result, the lien was unaffected by disallowance and can be collected by successor servicer after completion of payments and discharge without violating automatic stay, confirmed plan or discharge injunction. Section 506(d) was not implicated because the mortgage claim was not disallowed on the merits and the real mortgage holder never filed a proof of claim
Kohout v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-1372, 2017 WL 3995588, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017) (Suddaby) (Stretching to distinguish HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Paez, Bybee, Callahan), § 506(d) does not void lien of Nationstar when proof of claim was disallowed because prior servicer did not respond to debtor’s objection. Debtor conceded that mortgage is valid and perfected. Debtor’s objection failed to state a ground under § 502 other than lack of documentation. “[A]s the Bankruptcy Court noted, ‘the plain language of § 506(d) appears to support Debtors’ argument when read literally and in isolation[.]’ . . . [T]he Ninth Circuit’s decision in Blendheim provides persuasive support for Debtors’ position. However, the Court agrees for the reasons stated by the Bankruptcy Court that Blendheim is sufficiently distinguishable from the present case because the creditor in Blendheim clearly slept on its rights and there was a substantive challenge to the creditor’s proof of claim. . . . [I]n the present case, the Bankruptcy Court did not make a determination regarding the merits of Nationstar’s Proof of Claim. . . . [T]he Bankruptcy Court disallowed Nationstar’s claim based upon its failure to respond to Debtors’ objection rather than relying on one of the specific provisions under § 502(b). . . . The Court notes that it does not condone a creditor’s failure to respond to a debtors’ objection after the creditor has filed a timely proof of claim. . . . Indeed, it is only because no determination was made as to the validity of Nationstar’s lien and the fact that Debtors conceded that Nationstar holds a valid perfected mortgage lien that Nationstar does not now face the same consequences as the creditor in Blendheim.”), aff'g 560 B.R. 399 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) (Davis) (Distinguishing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Paez, Bybee, Callahan), § 506(d) does not void lien of mortgagee that failed to oppose claim objection when basis of objection was missing documentation required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001; “procedural default” is not sufficient notwithstanding that creditor filed proof of claim that was disallowed. Debtor objected to assigned proof of claim on two grounds: that the claim failed to include supporting documentation required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(d); and that the arrearage amount was overstated. Objection was properly served and an order disallowing the claim was entered that stated “no opposition was filed and no hearing was held.” Four years later, after discharge, new servicer began foreclosure. “Debtors’ argument is based on a straightforward textual reading of § 506(d) . . . . Nationstar directs the Court’s attention to a line of cases handed down by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits wherein the circuit courts respectively concluded that bankruptcy courts may not use § 506(d) to void liens of creditors whose underlying claims have been disallowed on the sole basis that their proofs of claim were untimely filed. . . . [W]hen a proof of claim fails to comply with the requirements of FRBP 3001(c), the claim will not be considered prima facie proof as to its validity or amount. . . . A secured creditor is not required to file a proof of claim and its failure to do so will not result in the loss of its lien rights . . . . If, however, a secured creditor elects to file a proof of claim, the debtor may substantively challenge such claim under § 502. . . . Debtors did not cite to a specific provision of § 502(b) in their claim objection and they concede that they could not have done so because Nationstar is a proper mortgagee with respect to the Property. . . . In . . . Blendheim . . . HSBC’s secured claim and resultant lien . . . were likely defeatable on substantive grounds because of the alleged forgery and lack of a valid promissory note. . . . Nationstar did not repeatedly ignore court directives . . . . As such, the Court views Nationstar’s inaction in the face of the claim objection as deliberate in reliance on the longstanding rule that a creditor can ignore the claims allowance process and later pursue its in rem rights . . . . This Court is not persuaded that either the bankruptcy court or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got it right. While the plain language of § 506(d) appears to support Debtors’ argument when read literally and in isolation, this Court . . . rejects the proposition that disallowing a claim, on whatever ground, automatically voids the lien that secures it. . . . Where, as here, the Court does not examine the substance of a creditor’s claim or make a merit-based determination, it would be illogical and contrary to longstanding bankruptcy jurisprudence to deprive such creditor of its contractual in rem rights. . . . Debtors admit that Nationstar is a legitimate mortgagee under state law with a properly perfected security interest in their Property. . . . [Section] 506(d) may not be used as a vehicle to void a secured creditor’s lien where the Court disallows the secured creditor’s claim purely on procedural grounds.”).
Fiorella v. American Infosource, LP (In re Fiorella), No. 14-3255 (JBS), 2014 WL 6687317, at *2-*4 (D.N.J. Nov. 26, 2014) (Simandle) (Unopposed claim objection was appropriately rejected by bankruptcy court—notwithstanding unrebutted testimony that the debtor never received notice that City Bank had assigned its credit card claim to Midland Funding; unopposed appeal was rejected because district court "found in the record" sufficient evidence to link Midland's claim to a Citibank credit card that was scheduled by the debtor. "Effective December 1, 2012, an amendment to Rule 3001(c) explicitly identified the filing requirements for open-ended or revolving consumer credit agreements. . . . Rule 3001 now 'requires only disclosure of the identities of the original creditor and the entity that transferred the account to the claimant.' . . . Debtor's argument that she was unaware of the assignment of her credit card debt does not invalidate the assignment from Citibank to Midland, nor does it provide a basis to expunge [Midland's] claim. . . . [T]here is sufficient information in the record to link [Midland's] proof of claim with the debt indicated in Debtor's schedules.").
In re Abad, No. 12-60016-CIV-MARRA, 2013 WL 12358428 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2013) (Marra) (Given lack of clear authority in district with respect to allowance of claims that are not in compliance with documentation requirements, bankruptcy court abused discretion by sanctioning debtor’s attorneys for filing “meritless” objections to proofs of claim that lacked documentation.).
In re Armstrong, 487 B.R. 764, 771 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2012) (Clark) (Debtor's counsel sanctioned $500 for Rule 9011(b)(1) and (b)(3) violation when counsel objected to allowance of each scheduled claim, alleging noncompliance with Rule 3001. "[A]ll credit card debts [were scheduled] as 'disputed' to justify his later objections. . . . [H]e lulled creditors into complacency by filing a plan that provided for payment to all these creditors, which resulted in no objections to the plan being filed. Then he objected to every single proof of claim on the sole grounds of 'insufficient' documentation, without any evidence, or even any belief, that the debt was not owed or that a substantive defense under Texas law existed. If he had a good defense to these claims under Texas law, there would be no need to file bankruptcy. Although given ample opportunity . . . at two hearings, debtor set out no proper purpose for these actions. Attempting to manipulate the bankruptcy process is an improper purpose under 9011 and, grounds for sanctions.").
Mayeres v. eCAST Settlement Corp., No. 11-6394 (AET), 2012 WL 494983 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2012) (unpublished) (Thompson) (eCAST overcame debtor's rebuttal of prima facie validity based on insufficient documentation. Detailed account statements mailed to debtor's home address, reflecting continuing transactions and payments, indicated that debtor was aware of two assigned accounts.).
In re Lytell, No. 11-2473, 2012 WL 253111 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2012) (unpublished) (Lemmon) (Objection to proof of claim for lack of documentation should not have been rejected because, under Louisiana Civil Code, party demanding performance of contractual obligation must produce evidence of written contract.).
Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc. v. McDermott, 426 B.R. 267, 275, 281 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2010) (Lioi) (Record did not support sanction that would require mortgage lender to attach worksheet to future proofs of claims, itemizing all charges. Evidence demonstrated inaccurate proof of claim and objection to confirmation in present case, but did not support finding that Countrywide had engaged in deceptive practices in other cases. Bankruptcy court improperly relied on law review articles and reported bankruptcy decisions from other districts. Bankruptcy court may not sua sponte issue Rule 9011 sanctions without first issuing show cause required by Rule. "No matter how one describes the improper conduct of Countrywide, either as the filing of two improper documents in a single bankruptcy case or as the 'parade of errors' identified by both the bankruptcy court and the UST, one cannot escape the fact that these are the only errors supported by the record in this case. In other words, although the record evidence shows that there were many errors made by Countrywide with respect to O'Neal's mortgage which eventually led to its filing of two documents in her bankruptcy case which were not supported by the real facts, neither the liability phase transcript nor the remedy phase transcript supplies any evidence of similar errors in any other bankruptcy case." Bankruptcy court was addressing "'sloppy participation of Countrywide in many chapter 13 cases across the country.'" "This Court has no doubt, after reading the entire record, that the bankruptcy judge is genuinely frustrated with what she perceives as a systemic problem in the entire mortgage servicing industry. However, this was an adversary proceeding and, in that context, sanctions must be supportable by the record evidence and imposed with 'restraint and discretion.'").
Zepeda Funez v. DLJ Mortg. Capital Inc. (In re Zepeda Funez), No. 17-00107, 2018 WL 4945690 (Bankr. D.P.R. Oct. 10, 2018) (Tester) (Debtor’s adversary proceeding stated plausible claim that disallowance of mortgagee’s claim in prior bankruptcy will support voiding of subsequent servicer’s lien under § 506(d).).
Roman v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Roman), No. 14-00255 (ESL), 2018 WL 4801933, at *9–*10 (Bankr. D.P.R. Oct. 2, 2018) (Lamoutte) (Distinguishing HSBC Bank USA, National Ass’n v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015) (Paez, Bybee, Callahan), successful “procedural” disallowance of mortgagee’s claim did not void its lien under § 506(d). Trustee’s objection that mortgagee had failed to provide evidence of endorsement of note to demonstrate that mortgagee had right to payments under Chapter 13 plan was a procedural objection that did not implicate § 506(d) or Blendheim. “[T]he Plaintiff makes no substantive challenge to Citi’s claim. The Plaintiff’s exclusive allegation is that the First Case disallowance of the proof of claim was on the merits and requests the court an ‘automatic’ application of section 506(d). Plaintiff is not challenging the perfection of the lien. . . . [T]he record is void of any action that may suggest a substantive challenge . . . . In fact, Citi has provided evidence of a perfected lien. . . . Citi’s lien passes through the First bankruptcy case unaffected as its validity was never challenged. Consequently, the plain text analysis of section 506(d) suggested by the debtor/plaintiff is not appropriate.”).
In re Koola, No. 18-01373-JW, 2018 WL 4850375 (Bankr. D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2018) (Waites) (Ditech has standing to file claim in Chapter 13 case based on chain of assignments that would be sufficient under South Carolina law to give it standing to foreclose notwithstanding discharge of personal liability in prior Chapter 7 case and notwithstanding affidavit that original mortgage note was lost by law firm for prior servicer.).
In re Jones, No. 18-00360, 2018 WL 4689096 (Bankr. D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018) (unpublished) (Teel) (Deutsche Bank has standing to object to confirmation based on attachments to proof of claim notwithstanding that actual assignment of debt is not attached given that Deutsche Bank is trustee for mortgage pool that holds the debt.).
In re Porter, No. 17-00678, 2018 WL 4443191, at *1–*2 (Bankr. D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2018) (unpublished) (Teel) (Although evidence of assignment of claim is not necessarily required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(1) read in light of Rule 3001(e), when debtor contests assignee’s right to payment court orders assignee to amend its claim to show proof of assignment. “Failure to comply with Rule 3001(c)(1) is not one of the specified grounds under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) for disallowing a claim. . . . BB & T did not attach to its amended proof of claim any writing whereby the judgment was assigned to it. However, the claim is based on the judgment, and assignment of the claim is arguably a different matter. The pertinent rule regarding transferred claims is Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(e), which requires a transferee of a claim to attach evidence of the transfer if the transfer occurred after a proof of claim was filed, and sets forth no such requirement if the transfer, as here, occurred before any proof of claim was filed. Rule 3001(c)(1), when read in light of Rule 3001(e), arguably does not require a transferee of a claim to include with the proof of claim evidence of the assignment if no prior proof of claim has been filed. However, the decisions are split on the issue.”).
Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P. v. Harrington (In re Cushman), 589 B.R. 469, 475, 482–99 (Bankr. D. Me. June 29, 2018) (Fagone) (In declaratory action brought by Resurgent against U.S. trustee: prior practice of having a single agent sign thousands of proofs of claim that were not reviewed by the signing agent did not comport with instructions on Official Form 10 and failed to satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a)
In re Napier, No. 17-71557, 2018 WL 2717042, at *2–*4 (Bankr. W.D. Va. May 23, 2018) (Black) (Objections to claims of Portfolio Recovery Associates are overruled when PRA filed sufficient documents to satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3), giving rise to prima facie validity, and debtors’ only objection is that PRA did not attach proof of its purchase of the claims. PRA attached power of attorney and a short-form bill of sale and the filed claims aligned perfectly with claims listed in schedules. “[E]ffective December 1, 2012, Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) was amended to add new paragraph (3) . . . . [T]he account summaries that PRA attached to the original claim contain all of the information required by Rule 3001(c)(3), rendering the claims presumptively valid under Rule 3001(f) and shifting the burden to the Debtors to object to the claims. . . . PRA has filed both a power of attorney and short form Bill of Sale. It has further fully complied with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3), which given the nature of the debt, is all that rule requires.”).
In re Vega, No. 15-34014, 2017 WL 2954762 at *2
In re Norris, 568 B.R. 363, 364
In re Sheedy, 567 B.R. 597, 598 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Apr. 18, 2017) (Lynch) (Failure to file supporting documentation is not by itself a basis for disallowance of a claim. “[I]f a party raises a substantive objection to the proof of claim, at a subsequent hearing, a proof of claim lacking proper documentation is not entitled to the presumption of validity and amount, and to subject the claimant to the evidentiary sanction of being barred from presenting documents at a subsequent evidentiary hearing on a disputed claim. . . . But a failure to attach sufficient documentation is not a basis for disallowance of a claim.”).
In re Juarez, No. 16-40560-JDP, 2017 WL 1169529, at *6–*8 (Bankr. D. Idaho Mar. 28, 2017) (Pappas) (Although affidavit from Midland Credit employee with respect to ownership of credit card debt to Synchrony Bank was not admissible under Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Midland’s proof of claim satisfied relaxed standard for open-end credit lenders in Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) and was entitled to prima facie validity. “[A] creditor’s compliance with the requirements of Rule 3001(c)(3) establishes an evidentiary presumption of that proof of claim is valid. . . . Rule 3001(c)(3) negates any requirement that a claimant comply with Rule 300(c)(1) . . . . [T]he Court declines to conclude that the Debtors’ objection to the Midland Funding POC . . . was tantamount to a request for a copy of the writing as referenced in Rule 3001(c)(3)(B). . . . [T]he [Midland] POC is entitled to presumptive validity as to both amount and validity under Rule 3001(f). . . . The notes to Rule 3001[(c)(3)] suggest the amendment was, at least in part, designed to accommodate debtors in exactly this situation, where their credit card or other revolving debt has been sold to another entity, and the debtor does not recognize the creditor filing the proof of claim for that debt. Debtors’ option was to properly request that Midland Funding provide the supporting documentation showing its authority to enforce the debt. If Midland Funding were then to decline or fail to do so, evidence of that fact could be offered to overcome the presumptive validity of the proof of claim.”).
Maddux v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. for Midland Funding, LLC, 567 B.R. 489, 494
McClain v. Midland Funding, LLC (In re McClain), No. AP 16-80100-HB, 2016 WL 6783248 (Bankr. D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2016) (Burris) (Complaint survives motion to dismiss that alleges Midland Funding, LLC, routinely filed proofs of claims in Chapter 13 cases that falsely stated no interest, fees or expenses were included. Remaining for trial: whether such claims violated Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) and whether a remedy is available under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(D).).
In re Rodriguez, 555 B.R. 871, 874 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2016) (Mark) (“[T]his Court will not tolerate attempts to obtain orders disallowing . . . claims if the only basis for the objection is lack of documentation.”).
Hanson v. Antio, LLC (In re Hanson), 526 B.R. 916, 919 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2015) (Glenn) (Assignee of claim did not violate FDCPA when it filed a nondeceptive proof of claim without first giving notice of assignment as required under FDCPA. "Sending a notice under the FDCPA directly to a debtor who has filed a bankruptcy case may constitute an act to recover a debt that violates the automatic stay[.]").
In re Sischo, No. DG 10-08600, 2014 WL 3908627, at *1 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 30, 2014) (Dales) (Funds returned to trustee by BAC with notation "service released to: Ocwen" are property treated as unclaimed funds under § 347 and Bankruptcy Rule 3011; claim objection was not proper procedure to force BAC or Ocwen to record a transfer of claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e).).
In re Walston, No. G10-24902-REB, 2014 WL 2086834, at *3 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2014) (Brizendine) (Challenge to assignment of credit card claims failed when debtor failed to produce any "probative evidence tending to place the claims in dispute or otherwise contradict an allegation essential" to claimant's rights. Creditor's failure to produce original agreement was not fatal; terms were adequately provided by affidavit of one with knowledge of the handling of the transactions.), aff'd, No. 14-14593, 2015 WL 3462325 (11th Cir. June 2, 2015) (Hull, Rosenbaum, Pryor).).
In re Hill, No. 13-50707, 2014 WL 801517, at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2014) (Wise) (Noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) does not defeat prima facie validity of claim if creditor otherwise provides evidence of validity and amount of claim. "Debtor has not requested a copy of the writing as allowed by Rule 3001(c)(3)(B); instead she filed the objections in an attempt to disallow the claims with no factual basis other than the 'lack of documents,' subsequently characterized as 'lack of standing.' . . . The requirements of amended Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) replaced the requirement of attaching the original contract unless the documents are requested from the claimant pursuant to Rule 3001(c)(3)(B). . . . 'An allegation of lack of documentation is not a valid objection even if the Debtors re-characterize it as an objection to standing. A valid objection to standing must raise a factual dispute about who is the holder of the claim. The Debtors must allege that, to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, either (a) they owe someone else or (b) they do not owe the obligation at all. . . .' . . . Debtor's objections appear to be attempts to prevent legitimate claims from being paid, and to create costs and time consuming difficulties for creditors in having to prove their claims in ways not required by the Bankruptcy Rules.").
In re Choudhuri, No. 13-30873DM, 2013 WL 6818482 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 25, 2013) (Montali) (Summary judgment denied when assignee of note failed to produce original note or schedules that listed loans transferred.).
In re Hilton, No. 12-61102, 2013 WL 6229100, at *5-*10 & *10 (Bankr. W.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2013) (Connelly) (Claim filed without documentation is not entitled to prima facie validity; however, document defect alone is insufficient to defeat claim. "[O]bjecting party must have some other legally sufficient grounds for challenging the claim[.] . . . [D]ebtors' objection that called into question the legal sufficiency of the claim [due to creditor's failure to foreclose property or liquidate other collateral] shifted the burden to the claimant to prove the validity and amount of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence." Claimant failed to introduce any evidence in support of the validity or amount of its claim, or even if there would be a deficiency once all collateral was liquidated. "Without at least some evidence as to the methodology used . . . to estimate the claim, the value of the inventory collateral, or the actual existence of a deficiency, . . . [creditor] has not carried its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the validity and amount of its unsecured deficiency claim. . . . [D]eficiency claim fails and any amended claim for a deficiency resulting from this debt . . . is . . . barred.").
In re Berardi, No. 12-35856/JHW, 2013 WL 6096227 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2013) (unpublished) (Wizmur) (Proof of claim filed by assignee of credit card account constituted prima facie evidence of validity and amount of claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3). Claimant disclosed name of the entity from whom it had purchased the account; name of the entity to whom the debt was owed at time of last transaction; date of the last transaction; date of the last payment; charge-off date; statement of principal, interest, fees and costs charged to the account; last four digits of account number and debtor's social security number; and date the account was opened. Debtors' challenge to enforceability of assignment was unsupported by any evidence, and debtor failed to request copy of assignment contract in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(3)(B).).
In re Nussman, 501 B.R. 297, 302-03 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2013) (Humrickhouse) (North Carolina Collection Agency Act "pleading requirement" that debt buyer attach specific documentation to any complaint to collect debt was not applicable law that would render debt buyer's proof of claim unenforceable under § 502(b). Filing proof of claim was not an effort to "collect" a debt within the meaning of the state law. "'[I]f filing a proof of claim constituted a "collection" activity, then filing proofs of claim under § 502(b) would be fundamentally at odds with language in § 362(a)(6) providing that the filing of a petition "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title."'").
In re Dunlap, No. 12-30710 HRT, 2013 WL 5497047, at *1, *2 (Bankr. D. Colo. Oct. 3, 2013) (Tallman) ("[Bankruptcy] Rule 3001(c)(2)(D) does not permit the Court to disallow a proof of claim based solely on a creditor's failure to comply with Rule 3001(c)." "Appropriate relief" for creditor's noncompliance may include reasonable expenses and attorney fees. "The rule states two requirements for an award of fees. First the fees incurred by the Debtor must have been 'caused' by the failure to provide documentation. That requires that the Court must find a causation nexus between the Creditor's failure to adequately document its claim and the fees incurred. Second, the rule requires that fees and expenses awarded must be 'reasonable.' . . . Where the greatest potential benefit of the attorney's labors is less than $.50, the Court finds that any attorney fees incurred in such an enterprise are unreasonable as a matter of law.").
In re Edwards, No. 09-31469, 2013 WL 4816509, at *9 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Sept. 10, 2013) (Norton) (There is no deadline for filing notice of a claim transfer. "The deadline for filing proofs of claim does not set a deadline for parties to assign or transfer their claims. Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 3001(e), governing transfers, specifically contemplates that claims may be transferred before or after a proof of claim is filed, and sets out specific procedures in each circumstance[ ]. . . . [T]here is no deadline for filing a notice of transfer once it has been executed.").
In re Everett, No. 10-19457-FJB, 2013 WL 3757283 (Bankr. D. Mass. July 15, 2013) (Bailey) (Mortgage holder's timely filed proof of claim included attachments that satisfied Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f) and was prima facie evidence of validity; debtor did not rebut presumption.).
In re Young, No. 12-14308, 2013 WL 3299251, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. July 1, 2013) (Rucker) (Although servicer did not attach power of attorney or written evidence of transfer or agency, B-Line, LLC v. Wingerter (In re Wingerter), 594 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (Siler, Gilman, Rogers), indicated that lack of documentation alone was not valid ground for claim disallowance. "A valid objection to standing must raise a factual dispute about who is the holder of the claim.").
In re Goeller, No. 12-17123-RGM, 2013 WL 3064594, at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Va. June 19, 2013) (Mayer) (Noncompliance with informational requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 3001, including missing documentation, is not ground for disallowance. "Substantive objections on the merits of a claim, such as an incorrect calculation of the claim, that the claim is not owed or that payments have not been credited, are favored over objections to technical or procedural defects.").
In re Tanner, No. BR 12-01429, 2013 WL 2318848 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa May 28, 2013) (Kilburg) (Arrearage and secured claim reduced based on prebankruptcy loan modification that current holder failed to honor.).
In re Gorman, 495 B.R. 823 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 23, 2013) (Rucker) (Objection to claim not sufficient based solely on failure to provide supporting documents. Debtors given opportunity to amend to state § 502(b) grounds.). Accord In re Rodgers, No. 11-16578, 2013 WL 2404000 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2013) (Rucker); In re Lepard, No. 12-14219, 2013 WL 2404009 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2013) (Rucker); In re Lepard, No. 12-14219, 2013 WL 2404016 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2013) (Rucker); In re Wheeler, No. 12-12454, 2013 WL 2404003 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2013) (Rucker).).
In re Crutchfield, 492 B.R. 60 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Apr. 26, 2013) (Walker) (Although credit card proofs of claim and objections were filed prior to effective date of amended Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c), each disputed proof of claim sufficiently complied with new Rule to enjoy presumption of prima facie validity. Debtor's lack of awareness of assignments or unfamiliarity with assignees did not rebut presumption when scheduled claims were substantially identical to proofs of claim that identified original creditors.).
Tarantola v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (In re Tarantola), 491 B.R. 111 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2013) (Hollowell) (Loan servicer failed to establish agency relationship sufficient for standing to file proof of claim.).
In re Umstead, 490 B.R. 186, 195 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2013) (Frank) (Assignee's proof of claim did not provide identity of entity to whom debt was owed at time of last transaction, but claim did contain information required by Rule 3001(c)—entitling claim to prima facie evidentiary status. Debtor failed to introduce evidence disputing validity or amount of claim. "After the 2012 amendment, the focus of the claimant's obligation under the rule has shifted from the attachment of documents to the disclosure of particular information regarding the credit card account that the drafters of the Rule deemed most pertinent in the assessment by the debtor (or trustee) of the validity or proper amount of the claim.").
In re Tipton, No. 12-60158-13, 2013 WL 141141 (Bankr. D. Mont. Jan. 11, 2013) (Kirscher) (Debtor did not overcome prima facie validity of assignee's proof of claim when note had been endorsed, making it negotiable instrument under Montana law; assignment of mortgage note carried security with it.).
In re Owens, No. 11-31241, 2013 WL 49805 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Jan. 3, 2013) (Williams) (Payday loan claim was disallowed for lack of documentation.).
In re Lafferty, No. 11-27292/JHW, 2012 WL 6645729 (Bankr. D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2012) (Wizmur) (Amended proof of claim provided evidentiary support for assignment, enforceable under state law; motion to expunge eCast proof of claim denied.).
In re Stanley, 514 B.R. 27 (Bankr. D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2012) (Markell) (Failure to include endorsement page of assigned note with proof of claim not fatal when page was included with related motion for relief from stay.).
In re Richter, 478 B.R. 30, 48, 42 (Bankr. D. Colo. Aug. 29, 2012) (Romero) (Objection that assignee of credit card claim did not attach proof of standing is substantive objection under § 502 because creditor bears state law burden of proving its right to payment; after amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3001, failure of assignee to respond to objection bars claimant from introducing evidence of the assignment at hearing. Construing In re Reynolds, 470 B.R. 138 (Bankr. D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012) (Tallman), "a challenge to the standing of a claimant is a substantive objection under § 502(b)(1), which provides a claim may be disallowed to the extent the claim is unenforceable against a debtor under any applicable law, including state law." If claimant does not establish it is owner of claim, with right to payment, claim is unenforceable under state law. Creditor not timely responding to disallowance motion was prohibited from participating in evidentiary hearing. Under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e)(1), it was "counterintuitive" for assignee to have "less of a burden to establish its claim than a direct creditor."), reconsideration denied by 481 B.R. 680 (Bankr. D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2012) (Romero).).
In re Koch, No. BK11-40529-TJM, 2012 WL 1945611, at *2 (Bankr. D. Neb. May 30, 2012) (Mahoney) (Mortgagee failed to prove lost note for claim purposes. Under Nebraska law, to recover on lost, destroyed or stolen instruments, plaintiff must prove elements of claim by clear and convincing evidence. Wells Fargo given another opportunity to prove that at some point in time it was in lawful possession of note that was lost. "Copies of documents in the loan or mortgage file obtained contemporaneously with the purchase of the note may be helpful, if testified to by a competent witness who is not simply signing a form. Detailed evidence of a purchase agreement and the date of such agreement would also be helpful.").
In re Kaid, 472 B.R. 1 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. May 29, 2012) (Shefferly) (Assignment of mortgage note did not prevent assignor from filing proof of claim based on debtor's guaranty when assignment expressly excluded guaranty. Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred bankruptcy court from reviewing prepetition state court judgment on guaranty. Lender's claim on guaranty must be reduced by payments made by assignee and by amount assignee credit bid to acquire property at foreclosure.).
In re Tucker, No. 11-32756, 2012 WL 1918528 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. May 25, 2012) (Grandy) (Bankruptcy Rule 3001(d) applies to creditors claiming security interest in property, not to nonconsensual statutory lienholder. Internal Revenue Service did not violate Rule 3001(d) by failure to attach documents supporting tax lien.).
In re Walker, No. 11-37572-H3-13, 2012 WL 1804764 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 17, 2012) (Paul) (Documents attached to assignee's proof of claim did not identify accounts; debtor rebutted prima facie validity of claims.).
Ruth v. LVNV Funding, Inc. (In re Ruth), 473 B.R. 152, 167 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2012) (Bohm) (Although claimant failed to comply with documentation requirements in Bankruptcy Rule 3001, objection filed 16 months after claim was allowed under local rule is too late to disallow claim or reconsider allowance. "Creditors should not be permitted to deliberately file woefully deficient proofs of claim in the hope that the debtor will not object . . . . [I]t is still incumbent on all debtors . . . to timely file objections to proofs of claim pursuant to the Local Rules.").
In re Foy, 469 B.R. 209, 214 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2012) (Coleman) (Claim objection sustained because assignment of credit card accounts did not include prepetition judgment. Under Pennsylvania law, "it is well established that upon entry of a judgment the contractual relationship between the parties that gave rise to the debt merges into the judgment." Absent assignment of judgment, assignees did not establish right to collect.).
Ahmadi v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Ahmadi), 467 B.R. 782 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2012) (Opel) (Proof of claim without sufficient documentation to evidence perfection was not entitled to prima facie validity.).
Kain v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon (In re Kain), No. 10-80047-HB, 2012 WL 1098465 (Bankr. D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2012) (Burris) (Subsequent to filing proof of claim, Bank of New York Mellon supplemented documentation with production of original note endorsed in blank, giving bank standing to enforce mortgage. South Carolina recognizes that assignment of note carries with it assignment of mortgage.), aff'd, No. 7:12-cv-02031-JMC, 2013 WL 1115597 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2013) (Childs).).
In re Alessi, No. 11-25686 (MBK), 2012 WL 1072214, at *2 (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012) (unpublished) (Kaplan) (Debtor failed to rebut prima facie validity of proofs of claim when creditors timely filed proofs of claim and provided documentation in support. Amounts due each creditor substantially matched scheduled claims. Under In re Allegheny International, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173 (3d Cir. Jan. 21, 1992) (Hutchinson, Cowen, Seitz), debtor "can only overcome the prima facie validity by producing sufficient evidence to negate any essential part of the claim." Section 502(b) was exclusive grounds for claim disallowance, rather than Bankruptcy Rule 3001. Debtor did not allege § 502(b) grounds.).
In re Taranto, No. 10-76041-ast, 2012 WL 1066300 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012) (Trust) (eCast complied with Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and Official Form No. 10, constituting prima facie evidence of validity and amount of claims. Evidence of assignment did not require specific prior account number. Debtors' affidavits that they had no dealings with eCast and did not owe eCast rebutted presumption, shifting burden to eCast. Applying New York law, eCast failed to produce sufficient documentation that assignment created right to payment of some credit card accounts. On other claim, eCast established assignment of specific account, creating legal right to payment.).
Washington v. Saxon Mortg. Servs. (In re Washington), 469 B.R. 587 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2012) (Fitzgerald) (Applying Correia v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In re Correia), 452 B.R. 319 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. June 30, 2011) (Haines, Votolato, Deasy), debtor was not party to pooling and servicing agreement and lacked standing to challenge validity of mortgage assignments; but debtor did have standing to object to claim based on failure to comply with Uniform Commercial Code. Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented challenge to proof of claim when state court foreclosure judgment had been entered in favor of Deutsche Bank. Ruling by bankruptcy court that bank was not creditor or had no claim would invalidate foreclosure judgment.).
In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 287 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2012) (Frank) (Bank of New York Mellon had authority to file proof of claim on behalf of securitized trust when bank had right to enforce note under Pennsylvania UCC. Debtor lacked standing to object to proof of claim on ground that assignment was defective for failure to comply with pooling and servicing agreement. Note was negotiable instrument, and bank had "right to payment that is an allowable bankruptcy claim, regardless of whether [bank] is the party ultimately entitled to the economic benefit of the Debtor's repayment of the Note.").
In re Goldston, No. 11-32999-H3-13, 2012 WL 11056 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012) (Paul) (Mortgage creditor complied with local rule requiring that proof of claim contain loan history, starting from at least one month prior to date on which any current default commenced. Except for undocumented $530 in advances, claim was allowed.).
In re Wells, 463 B.R. 320 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2011) (Frank) (Debtor did not rebut prima facie validity of claim, except that lender failed to sufficiently document effect of interest rate changes on arrearage amount, reducing arrearage claim accordingly. Debtor had property insurance in place for part of period covered by proof of claim, reducing claim for forced placed insurance. Legal fees were substantially allowed as reasonable.).
In re Obasi, No. 10-10494 (SHL), 2011 WL 6336153, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011) (Lane) (Attorney and law firm filing claim proof of claim not supported by documentation violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011 by not properly reviewing claim. One attorney allowed another to use ECF password, and attorney whose name was signed to proof of claim did not personally review claim before filing. Notwithstanding rule violation, U.S. trustee did not provide attorney or law firm with safe harbor opportunity under Rule 9011(c), preventing sanctions.).
In re Robinson, No. 07-02146-8-JRL, 2011 WL 5854905 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2011) (Leonard) (Under North Carolina law, holder of negotiable instrument has right to enforce note; assignee filing proof of claim under note endorsed in blank could also enforce deed of trust, since deed of trust followed note.).
In re Gauthier, 459 B.R. 526 (Bankr. D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2011) (Hoffman) (Objection to assignee's proof of claim sustained in absence of evidence that claim had been properly assigned.).
In re MacFarland, 462 B.R. 857, 880, 880-81 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2011) (Olson) (Section 502(b) provides exclusive grounds for disallowing claims and failure to attach writing is not among them; failure to attach sufficient documentation may deprive claim of prima facie validity, but "[t]he burden of proof is on the objecting party to provide evidence surpassing the evidence set forth in the claim." In multiple cases, debtors' counsel were sanctioned under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 for objecting to claims filed in amounts same as scheduled. "The cases addressed by this sanctions order present essentially baseless claims objections which appear to be shotgun attempts to object to everything and 'see what sticks.' Requiring creditors to attach documentation in response to frivolous claims objections increases abuse in litigation. . . . If there is not substantive objection to the claim, the creditor should not be required to provide further documentation because it serves no purpose other than to decrease the likelihood that a valid claim against the estate will be disallowed on specious grounds. . . . The instant cases present objections to claims for debts which were scheduled in amounts substantially identical to (or greater than) the claimed amounts. All of the relevant debts were scheduled as neither contingent, no unliquidated, nor disputed." Sanction was 31 days' suspension from practice, with some attorneys receiving consecutive suspensions for repeated violations.).
In re Neals, 459 B.R. 612 (Oct. 6, 2011) (Waites) (Servicer overcame objection that claim lacked supporting documentation by presenting original promissory note at hearing, with endorsement in blank. Confirmed plan requiring debtors to make direct payments to servicer to cure arrearage and maintain mortgage bound debtors, preventing them from contesting servicer's authority as party in interest.).
In re Davis, No. 09-42865, 2011 WL 10483434 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) (Rhoades) (Insufficient documentation is not basis for claim disallowance; counsel fined $500 for violating Rule 9011(b) by scheduling all credit card claims as disputed. Counsel offered no evidence of substantive claim objections.), aff'd, 487 B.R. 764 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2012) (Clark).).
In re Smoak, 461 B.R. 510, 518 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2011) (Humphrey) (Bank with physical possession of note endorsed in blank was real party in interest, with standing to file proof of claim. Under Ohio law, negotiable instrument holder has right to enforce note and mortgage. Debtors had no basis to question transfers under Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) or mortgage assignment, since they "need not be concerned with who the owner of the Note is, but only that the payments are being delivered to a person with the right to enforce the Note." Even if debtors had standing, noncompliance with PSA would not affect enforcement rights of holder, citing Official Comment 2 to U.C.C. § 1-102.).
In re Hasley, No. BK 09-42011-TLS, 2011 WL 4479776 (Bankr. D. Neb. Sept. 27, 2011) (Saladino) (As assignee of Chase credit card accounts, eCast failed to rebut debtor's testimony that accounts were not valid. eCast filed proofs of claim without documentation other than monthly billing statements. Debtor testified that he had never had credit card account with Chase and had not used other assigned account since paying it off in 2002. Accounts were scheduled as disputed only because they appeared on credit report.).
Turner v. American Express Centurion Bank (In re Turner), No. 11-1092, 2011 WL 4352158 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2011) (Rucker) (Failure to provide supporting documentation with proof of claim forfeited prima facie presumption of validity but did not create cause of action for damages.).
Poteet v. eCAST Settlement Corp. (In re Poteet), No. 11-1081, 2011 WL 3626696 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2011) (Cook) (Filing proofs of claim without supporting documentation did not violate automatic stay, Rule 3001(c) or Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Citing Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 545 F.3d 348, 356 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2008) (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), filing proof of claim did not violate automatic stay. Rule 3001(c) does not provide private right of action, citing B-Line, LLC v. Wingerter (In re Wingerter), 594 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (Siler, Gilman, Rogers). Filing proof of claim is not basis for Federal Debt Collection Practices Act cause of action, citing Simmons v. Roundup Funding, LLC, 622 F.3d 93, 95-96 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2010) (Jacobs, Winter, McLaughlin).).
In re Braughton, No. 10-41742-H3-13, 2011 WL 2945828 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. July 21, 2011) (Paul) (Claim time-barred under state law is disallowed in hands of successor in interest.).
Allen v. Wells Fargo, N.A. (In re Allen), No. 10-1786 HRT, 2011 WL 2940645 (Bankr. D. Colo. July 18, 2011) (Tallman) (Wells Fargo was proper party in interest to enforce note that was never part of securitized transaction. Wells Fargo came into possession of note and enforcement right through acquisition of Wachovia Mortgage.).
In re DeShetler, 453 B.R. 295 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio July 12, 2011) (Humphrey) (U.S. trustee can conduct Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination concerning standing of assignee to file mortgage proof of claim; scope limited to note and chain of assignment of note and mortgage. U.S. trustee had authority to monitor claims process under 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3) and had standing to raise and be heard on Title 11 issues. Opinion collects decisions on U.S. trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 authority. Wells Fargo did not establish standing to file proof of claim by merely attaching copy of promissory note.).
In re Pursley, 451 B.R. 213, 223, 231-232, 232-234 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. June 20, 2011) (Laney) (Proofs of claims filed by assignees of credit card debts provided sufficient documentation for prima facie evidentiary validity, but debtors rebutted with objections that assignees were not known or not owed any money; rebuttal shifted burden of persuasion, and assignees failed to prove assignments. Modifying In re Stephens, 443 B.R. 225 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2010) (Laney), court extensively reviewed conflicting case law on documentation of assigned proofs of claim and writings required under Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and Official Form 10. Some courts require documentation of credit card agreement itself, while others look to individual transactions forming credit card debt. Still others require both credit card agreement and evidence of individual transactions. Sufficiency of summary documentation was reviewed, citing apparent majority requiring some "breakdown of charges." Case authority is split with respect to whether objection may rely solely on noncompliance with Rule 3001 or must plead § 502(b) ground. Only circuit court of appeals addressing issue, Caplan v. B-Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. July 14, 2009) (Tacha, Tymkovich, Gorsuch), held that lack of documentation itself could be sufficient for disallowance. "'[I]t is a substantive objection if a party claims not to owe money to another party; that goes directly to the validity of the claim. It is not enough 'that the debtor owes someone money; the issue is whether the debtor (and hence the bankruptcy estate) owes it to the party filing the proof of claim.'" Under procedure adopted, "debtor needs to object and offer evidence sufficient to rebut the evidence offered by the claimant, and the objector's evidence must negate at least one allegation that is essential to the claim. If the objecting party succeeds, the burden then shifts to the claimant (assuming the claimant has the burden under state law) to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. . . . An allegation essential to any claim is that the claimant is the proper party in interest; regarding assignments, one essential allegation is that the claimant can prove its assignment under state law. . . . Debtors are at a substantial disadvantage in knowledge when it comes to assignments, especially in the context of consumer debt. There is not much evidence a debtor can produce to prove no assignment has taken place or that the claimant is not the real party in interest—the task for a debtor is essentially to prove a negative. One of the hazards of being an anonymous purchaser of mass consumer debt is that the people you try to collect from have no idea who you are or why you are demanding money from them. . . . The Court wants to end this opinion on a certain note. The Court will not shy from its concern that assignees are filing claims for debts they cannot prove in state court. As stated several times in this opinion already, bankruptcy is not a shortcut for claims unprovable elsewhere. Debtors seeking out claims that cannot be proved in state court is a legitimate undertaking. This would not be an issue if assignees of mass consumer debt had a better track record in proving their claims when the burden of proof is on them. The Court, and debtors' attorneys, would not be so initially doubtful if it had not seen so many assignees who could not produce documents showing they could actually prove their claims. The Court understands that a business like eCAST will often be in the position of having purchased debt from another entity and then having to decide whether it is cost effective to actually pursue a particular claim, with the act of producing documents themselves oftentimes costing too much. However, '[t]he fact that a party's business practices make it difficult to produce evidence to prove its case does not permit courts to ignore evidentiary rules in deciding a disputed matter.' [In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799, 810 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2004) (Bonapfel).]").
Miller v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. (In re Miller), No. 1:10-ap-00385, 2011 WL 2358208 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. June 8, 2011) (France) (Assignment to Americredit of installment sales agreement between debtor and automobile seller sufficiently supported its allowed proof of claim. Debtor's complaint to avoid Americredit's lien raised same arguments as prior objection to proof of claim which had been overruled.).
Bailey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (In re Bailey), No. 10-96570-JB, 2011 WL 2971907 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. May 24, 2011) (Bihary) (Neither U.S. Bank nor its servicer was entitled to receive payments under confirmed plan when U.S. Bank failed to prove transfer or assignment of note or security deed from original lender. Objection to claim was sustained; however, disallowance of claim did not mean that no entity was entitled to receive payments or enforce security deed.).
In re Davis, No. 09-42865, 2011 WL 1302222, at *13-*14 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2011) (Rhoades) (Affluent debtor committed fraud on court by proposing to pay unsecured creditors 100% but then objecting to virtually all proofs of claim. "She intended to seek disallowance of every single unsecured claim that might be filed in her case when she filed her plan. This intent is evidenced by the fact that she had previously listed the claims of all of her unsecured creditors as 'disputed' in her Schedule F. If all of these claims had been disallowed, as she originally requested, then she could have sought a discharge after her attorneys were paid in full (i.e., approximately one month after confirmation). . . . The debtor failed to articulate any substantive grounds for disallowance of any of the disputed claims under § 502(b)." Objections were based on lack of documentation with hope that creditors would not respond and that court would not review. All proofs of claim were sufficiently documented. Debtor's counsel had ethical obligation to investigate before filing objections. Further hearing was set to determine whether counsel violated Rule 9011(b), and if so, what sanctions would be appropriate. Court sua sponte vacated confirmation order.).
In re Burrow, No. 3:09-bk-18876, 2011 WL 1103354 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Mar. 22, 2011) (Evan) (Endorsed note and recorded assignment established standing to file proof of claim.).
In re Waters, No. A10-00388-DMD, 2011 WL 5508657 (Bankr. D. Alaska Mar. 15, 2011) (MacDonald) (Citing Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 21 L. Ed. 313 (Dec. 1872), deed of trust follows note and mortgage was secured claim. Alaska did not require assignment of deed of trust to be recorded. Nothing prohibits postpetition transfer of claim. Deutsche Bank established standing as party in interest by possession of mortgage note with attached endorsement.).
In re Parker, No. 09-09335-8-SWH, 2011 WL 862723 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Mar. 9, 2011) (Humrickhouse) (Claim of eCast Settlement Corp., assignee of Chase Bank, was allowed after eCast amended proof of claim to document assignment and account balance. Debtor scheduled undisputed debt to Chase in same amount as claim. Debtor objected to claim as unenforceable under North Carolina Consumer Protection Act, but claim satisfied all statutory requirements for ownership and amount of debt.).
In re Starr, No. 10-40001-TOM-13, 2011 WL 482829 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2011) (unpublished) (Mitchell) (Amended proof of claim satisfied requirements under Bankruptcy Rules with respect to documentation of assigned credit card debt. Sustaining debtor's objection would make no difference in amount that would be distributed to unsecured creditors pro rata under confirmed pot plan.).
Monk v. LSI Title Co. of Or., LLC (In re Monk), No. 10-6067-fra, 2011 WL 212831, at *4 (Bankr. D. Or. Jan. 21, 2011) (Alley) (Complaint alleging violation of discharge injunction by mortgage creditor survives motion to dismiss. Litton's claim was disallowed on trustee's objection when Litton failed to respond to request for documentation of security interest and perfection. After claim was disallowed, debtors completed plan and received discharge. Case was closed, then reopened for debtors' adversary proceeding to determine whether Litton's foreclosure violated discharge injunction. "Because [the claim] was 'disallowed,' it was not an 'allowed secured claim,' and the related lien was void pursuant to § 506(d). Defendant's claim was not of the type described in § 506(d)(1), and its claim was disallowed for reasons other than its failure to file a proof of claim. Thus, when the discharge order was entered in Debtors' case, Defendant held a 'disallowed' claim and a void lien. . . . The debt was disallowed under section 502 and, as provided by § 1328(a), it was discharged. A 'debt' is defined at § 101(12) as 'liability on a claim.' A 'claim' is defined as a 'right to payment . . . .' § 101(5)(A). Once the claim was disallowed, [Defendant] no longer had a right to payment and thus no longer had a 'claim' or a 'debt.' As it no longer possessed a 'debt,' it follows that it did not have a 'debt[ ] provided for under section 1322(b)(5),' and cannot use § 1328(a)(1) to except its nonexistent debt from discharge.").
In re Saffron, No. 10-09180, 2010 WL 5606730 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Dec. 26, 2010) (Dales) (Sheriff's deed attached to proof of claim was not sufficient documentation to raise presumption of validity or amount of interest, fees or costs claimed in connection with a foreclosure sale under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f); former spouse's claim that debtor was responsible for loss of tools was not proven.).
In re Willis, No. 10-75584-MGD, 2010 WL 5463066, at *4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2010) (Diehl) (Lack of documentation and missing evidence of assignment did not disallow claim. Failure to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) and (f) deprived claim of prima facie validity but was not ground for disallowance under § 502(b). Debt was scheduled, providing record support for proof of claim filed by assignee of original creditor and shifting burden to debtor. "The Court does not want to discourage zealous advocacy in the representation of debtors, but the procedural basis for Debtors' Objection is troubling to the Court given the sworn statements included in Debtors' Schedule F and Statement of Financial Affairs. While the proof of claim lacks exacting legal documents evidencing an assignment of the original Wells Fargo account, Debtors' own schedules include Zenith Acquisition, North Star's law firm in the state court action, and an acknowledgment of a pending suit with North Star as plaintiff. Procedural rules should neither trump Debtors' good faith requirement, § 1325(a)(3), nor counsel's judgment as guided by Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Regardless of whether Respondent benefitted [sic] from Rule 3001(f)'s presumption of validity in amount, Debtors' Objection provides no proper basis to warrant sustaining the Objection.").
Wilson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Wilson), 442 B.R. 10, 19 (Bankr. D. Mass. Nov. 30, 2010) (Bailey) (Assignment to Deutsche Bank was not rendered invalid by alleged defects in pooling or service agreement; proof of claim properly identified Bank as claimant, and debtor was bound by agreement with respect to amount of prepetition arrearage. Debtor did not present cause for accounting by bank. Only justification for accounting was possibility that Bank diverted funds for purposes other than intended use of payments. "This is mere speculation, in light of which the request for accounting appears to be nothing more than what the defendants contend it is: a fishing expedition.").
In re Johnson, No. 10-01239-dd, 2010 WL 4809104 (Bankr. D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2010) (Duncan) (Proof of claim with attached copy of certificate of title and sales contract was sufficient to shift burden to debtor to rebut presumption of validity. However, creditor must provide additional detail supporting amount of claim within 15 days, since debtor had raised sufficient questions about increase in proof of claim from one filed in previously dismissed Chapter 13 case.).
Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Kemp), 440 B.R. 624 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2010) (Wizmur) (Mortgage note that had not been properly endorsed to transferee and that was not in transferee's possession could not support proof of claim under New Jersey UCC. Note was negotiable instrument and was unenforceable when it had not been properly endorsed to transferee.).
In re Dewberry, No. 10-60155-WLH, 2010 WL 4882016 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2010) (unpublished) (Hagenau) (Debtor failed to rebut prima facie validity of proof of claim that attached security deed and assignment, which appeared to be properly executed.).
In re O'Brien, 440 B.R. 645, 666, 664, 665 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2010) (Frank) (To satisfy Rule 3001(c) and enjoy prima facie validity, proof of claim filed by assignee of credit card debt must have attached written assignment or set forth summary of assignment. "[C]ompliance with Rule 3001(f) is not the sole vehicle for a proof of claim to achieve prima facie status. . . . [T]he issue may be distilled down to a single inquiry: Does the proof of claim provide sufficient indicia of the claim's validity and amount (despite its nonconformance with Rule 3001) to justify imposing the burden (and expense) of responding with contrary evidence? If not, the debtor's objection, standing alone, may support disallowance." Whether nonconforming proof of claim shifts burden of production to objecting party requires case-by-case consideration of factors such as whether debtor scheduled debt in approximate amount as proof of claim. Although this debt was scheduled in amount correlating to proof of claim, there was nothing in record to support assignee status of claimant. Majority of courts hold that failure to comply with Rule 3001 is not itself ground for disallowance of claim, based on four rationales: (1) plain language of § 502(b) does not include failure of Rule compliance as ground for disallowance; (2) contrary rule would undermine bankruptcy system, permitting debtors to invoke technical grounds to defeat claims that are otherwise valid; (3) historically, proof of claim has been treated as "if it were a verified complaint or a deposition[;]" and (4) overall purpose and functioning of claims resolution process "is designed to achieve the fair and inexpensive resolution of claims objections through a summary procedure that mirrors, but does not slavishly conform to, the formalities of conventional civil litigation.").
In re O'Brien, 440 B.R. 654 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2010) (Frank) (Proof of claim lacked evidence of assignment for purposes of Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) and did not have prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f); failure to comply with Rule 3001 was not ground for disallowance, but nonconforming proof of claim shifted burden to claimant and when claimant failed to present evidence to support claim, it was disallowed. Debtors scheduled debt in amount relating to proof of claim, but nothing in record supported claimant's assignee status.).
In re Castaneda, No. 10-91750-D-13G, 2010 WL 9498474 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2010) (Bardwil) (Lack of documentation prevents claim from having presumption of prima facie validity but is not a basis for disallowance.).
Gulley v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Gulley), 436 B.R. 878, 893 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2010) (Jernigan) (Countrywide Home Loans, as servicer for JP Morgan, had standing to file proof of claim and was not required to prove agency on behalf of JP Morgan. Agreeing with In re Leverett, 378 B.R. 793, 798-99 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2007) (Rhoades), claimant complying with Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and Form 10 may rest on its proof of claim and will prevail unless objecting party produces contrary evidence of equal or greater probative force. If objector comes forward with probative evidence, "then whichever party would have the burden of proof respecting assertion of the claim outside of bankruptcy, bears the burden in the contested matter from that point forward.").
In re Bareford, No. 09-61072, 2010 WL 3528604, at *2 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2010) (unpublished) (Dalis) (Official Form 10 requires creditor to attach redacted copies of documents supporting claim and existence of debt, but summary may be sufficient; it is not necessary to attach original credit card agreement to satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 3001. "First, the underlying credit card agreement does not create debt; it is the actual use of the credit card that creates the obligation to repay . . . . Second, requiring a creditor to attach a voluminous original credit card agreement, along with any subsequent amendments, would be unduly burdensome 'to both the creditor and those that have to review the claims for their validity, including the Chapter 13 Trustee and [the] debtor's attorney.'").
Feinberg v. Bank of New York (In re Feinberg), 442 B.R. 215 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2010) (Morris) (Assignee established standing to file proof of claim and enforce rights under note and mortgage by producing original note and mortgage. Failure to attach documentation of assignment robbed proof of claim of prima facie validity, but defect under Bankruptcy Rule 3001 was curable, merely shifting burden of proof to bank.).
In re Chaney, No. 09-64630, 2010 WL 2925083 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio July 19, 2010) (unpublished) (Kendig) (Objections to claims based on insufficient documentation are overruled when debtors identified claimants and debts in schedules and superficial objections were intended only to reduce claims while increasing surplus from personal injury settlement that was funding plan.).
In re Robinson, No. 09-42543-JJR-13, 2010 WL 1743264 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Apr. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (Robinson) (Debtor's counsel may have violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b) by misrepresenting that creditor failed to attach relevant documents to amended proof of claim when all documents were attached to original proof of claim. Documents attached to original proof of claim established creditor's contractual right to attorney fees. Show cause issued to determine whether attorney violated Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b) by filing objection to trustee's motion to increase plan payments based on amended proof of claim.).
In re Curry, 425 B.R. 841 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2010) (Somers) (Account statement attached to credit card creditor's proof of claim was sufficient documentation to satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 3001 and Official Form 10. Under Caplan v. B-Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. July 14, 2009) (Tacha, Tymkovich, Gorsuch), credit card creditor cannot simply rely on scheduled debts to validate claim; rather, creditor had obligation to document proof of claim but was not required to itemize principal, interest and other charges in its proof of claim.).
In re Chubb, 426 B.R. 695 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2010) (Shefferly) (Creditor violated Bankruptcy Rule 9037 by including in proof of claim full account number and other identifying information, but that violation is not a ground for disallowance under § 502. Remedy for violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9037 is striking of proof of claim and prohibiting access to it. Creditor can file amended proof of claim in compliance with Rule.).
In re Minbatiwalla, 424 B.R. 104, 114, 115, 117-18, 119, 121 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2010) (Glenn) (Assignee of mortgage has standing to file proof of claim by attaching note and mortgage without attaching written assignment because, under New York law, assignment of mortgage note and mortgage is effective by transfer of documents. "The range of documentation required by courts to be attached to proofs of claim to support the assignment of a credit card debt varies from summaries of the amount of debt owed (with the requirement that the creditor make available to the debtor additional documentation), to a signed copy of a written assignment specifically referring to the debtor's account from the original holder of the debt to the purported assignee. . . . Courts taking a stricter approach require the claimant to attach a signed copy of an assignment to the proof of claim in order to constitute evidence of the validity and the amount of the claim." As to assigned credit card debt, "[f]ailure of the creditor to respond to requests for documentation within two weeks after dispatch or communication of such request could strip any presumption of prima facie validity from the proof of claim and the objection could be sustained after hearing on notice." Although some courts rely on debtor's schedules and deny objections when scheduled debt closely matches proof of claim, that is not definitive rule, since schedules may be amended as matter of course before case is closed. As to mortgage claims, "[t]he creditor may initially attach only a summary of its claim, containing the debtor's name, account number, the prepetition account balance, interest rate, and a breakdown of the interest charges, finance charges and other fees that make up the balance of the debt. If the creditor is an assignee, it must also provide an affidavit attesting to the assignment of the note and mortgage. Upon request of the debtor, the creditor has an obligation to provide additional documentation underlying its summary and affidavit (such as the original note and mortgage, or a written assignment), within two weeks after dispatch or communication of such a request, or the debtor can file an objection based on a lack of adequate documentation. With respect to the effect of the debtor's initially scheduling the claim as undisputed, and amending its schedules to list the claim as 'disputed,' the Court agrees with the reasoning in In re Kincaid, [388 B.R. 610 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. June 2, 2008) (Sigmund),] that it must balance 'the debtor's right to be able to verify that the claimant is the owner [of the debt] and the claimant's right not to be harassed with pro forma documentation objections that have no underlying basis. . . .' Kincaid, 388 B.R. at 616 n.7." Under some circumstances, claims may be disallowed for failure to support the claim with adequate documentation, "even if this is not a specifically enumerated reason for disallowance under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b), because absent adequate documentation, the proof of claim is not sufficient for the objector to concede the validity of a claim." Request for attorney fees was denied to debtor, who did not "demonstrate equally egregious conduct on behalf of the creditor, or its attorneys . . . , nor can the court find that the creditor's claims were entirely meritless and the party acted for improper purposes; the creditor has merely refused to come forward with evidence to meet its evidentiary burden under
In re Jensen, No. 09-14830 (MG), 2010 WL 424690 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010) (unpublished) (Glenn) (Copy of assignment and bill of sale of account provided sufficient documentation to overcome Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) objection to proof of claim for lack of documentation.).
In re Jones, No. 09-04701-8-RDD, 2010 WL 358494, at *3 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2010) (unpublished) (Doub) (Servicer neglected to provide copy of assignment and failed to establish authority to act on behalf of mortgage creditor; record did not demonstrate creditor's entitlement to enforce note and deed of trust. Servicer "failed to allege that HSBC was in possession of the original note and if such note was properly endorsed. . . . Therefore, there is nothing before the Court establishing that HSBC, in fact, has a legal interest to enforce the note.").
In re Reyes, No. BKY 09-17532, 2009 WL 4825200 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished) (Overstreet) (When affidavit from mortgage servicer did not establish that it had authority to hold note or that it held valid chain of assignment from original deed of trust, servicer lacked standing to assert claim.).
Hernandez v. Argent Sec., Inc. (In re Hernandez), No. 09-03280, 2009 WL 4639645 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2009) (Bohm) (When proof of claim attached no evidence that claimant was legal owner and holder of note, debtor stated facial challenge to validity of claim. Under Texas law, to collect note, holder or payee must establish existence of note, that claimant is legal holder or owner of note, that defendant is maker on note, and that balance is due and owing. Debtor's adversary proceeding attacking validity of claim survives motion to dismiss.).
Falwell v. Roundup Funding LLC (In re Falwell), 434 B.R. 779, 789-90 (Bankr. W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2009) (Anderson) (Lack of documentation of assigned claim deprives proof of claim of prima facie validity, but Rule 3001(c) is not independent basis for disallowance, which must be grounded on § 502(b). Debtors scheduled claims in substantially same amounts as proofs of claim and did not schedule them as disputed. "The purpose of the claims litigation scheme is to join disputes only if a dispute actually exists and to do so in the most efficient manner possible. A number of rules have developed in the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, and judicial opinions to foster this purpose. The burden of production and the burden of persuasion are on any creditor who wishes to have its claim allowed. The creditor meets the burden of production by filing a proof of claim that complies with
In re Branch, No. 08-41639, 2009 WL 2046510, at *4 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. July 7, 2009) (unpublished) (McGuire) (Debtor's objection that car lender's claim lacked sufficient documentation is overruled because amended claim filed in response to objection supplied the necessary documentation. Court warned debtor and counsel to "carefully consider their ethical obligations under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b) when prosecuting such an objection. This Court agrees with the observation of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas that 'if a debtor objected to a proof of claim for lack of documentation and, in response, the claimant supplied the documentation, the court would consider imposing sanctions on an attorney who continued to prosecute an objection if the debtor lacked any other basis to challenge the claim.' In re Armstrong, 320 B.R. 97, 109 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2005).").
In re Wells, 407 B.R. 873, 880 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio June 19, 2009) (Morgenstern-Clarren) (Assignee of mortgage claim failed to attach sufficient documentation to proof of claim to demonstrate right to enforce note. "Under Ohio law, the right to enforce a note cannot be assigned—instead, the note must be negotiated in accord with Ohio's version of the Uniform Commercial Code." Limited power of attorney failed to grant authority to file proof of claim and did not satisfy Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a) requirement of evidence that claimant was in fact creditor.).
In re Reilly, No. 07-40499-JDP, 2009 WL 507063 (Bankr. D. Idaho Jan. 9, 2009) (Pappas) (Original mortgage creditor was proper party to file proof of claim because placing account with third party for collection was not an absolute assignment.).
In re Hill, 399 B.R. 472 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 24, 2008) (Stosberg) (Assignee's payment of less than face amount for credit card debt and possible windfall if plan pays 100% are not grounds for disallowing claim; assignee established that it held debt.).
In re Pearce, No. 07-12123, 2008 WL 5096009 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2008) (Brown) (No basis found to sanction bulk purchaser of claims for filing claims that are time-barred under Louisiana law. Bankruptcy Rule 9011 doesn't work because debtor failed to serve creditor with advance copy of motion for sanctions as required by Rule 9011(c)(1)(A). Although court can sanction creditor and/or its attorney for failing to make reasonable inquiry before filing claim, information in assignee's claim put debtor on notice that debt could be challenged as time barred and disallowance of claim is sufficient remedy. Section 105 provides authority to sanction litigants or their attorneys, but court declines to find bad faith by creditor. Louisiana law has been used to penalize creditors for bringing suits on time-barred claims, but state law confers no private right of action for attorney fees for objecting to claims in bankruptcy cases.).