Cite as: Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 135.4, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
This section is currently under revision — please see the update cases.
This section is currently under revision — please see the update cases.
Egbune v. Kiel (In re Egbune), No. CO-16-006, 2016 WL 6996129 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016) (unpublished) (Nugent, Somers, Hall) (Reconsideration under § 502(j) to disallow claim or to reclassify claim as unsecured is not appropriate four years after claim was allowed and after discharge when creditor relied on confirmed plan to be treated as secured and withdrew objections to confirmation based on that treatment. After discharge, creditor initiated foreclosure and debtor responded with motion to reconsider allowance or to reclassify the claim.).
Scotiabank De P.R. v. Lorenzo (In re Lorenzo), No. PR 15-011, 2015 WL 4537792, at *5-*6 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. July 24, 2015) (unpublished) (Hillman, Deasy, Harwood) (Untimely motion to alter or amend order disallowing attorney fee portion of mortgage claim is treated as § 502(j) motion to reconsider disallowance; mortgagee that failed to appear at hearing at which portion of claim was disallowed failed to state any cause for reconsideration. Mortgagee filed proof of claim that included percentage attorney fees that it (mis)calculated according to its note. Debtor objected. At hearing on confirmation, debtor's objection was sustained and an order was entered disallowing the attorney fee portion of the claim. Mortgagee sought to alter the order disallowing attorney fees but filed its motion more than 14 days after entry of the order. "Courts . . . have treated motions filed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) regarding the disallowance of a claim as filed under § 502(j) and Bankruptcy Rule 3008. . . . A party moving for reconsideration of an order disallowing its claim bears the burden of showing 'cause,' without which there can be no basis for the allowance of a previously disallowed claim according to the equities of the case. . . . [T]he bankruptcy court is given wide discretion in determining what constitutes cause for the reconsideration of a claim. . . . [A] motion for reconsideration 'does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures. . . .' . . . Scotiabank could not use its motion for reconsideration to overcome its failure to attend the October 2, 2014 hearing and present its opposition to the Debtor's objection to the Claim. . . . [C]ause for reconsideration under § 502(j) and/or Rule 60(b) does not include disagreement with the court about the disposition of the motion."), aff'd, No. 15-9010, 2016 WL 1275015 (1st Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) (Torruella, Lynch, Thompson).).
Municipality of Carolina v. Gonzalez (In re Gonzalez), 490 B.R. 642, 651 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Apr. 12, 2013) (Haines, Feeney, Hoffman) (Taxing authority failed to prove cause for reconsideration of disallowance of untimely claim filed by debtor. Municipality had notice and failed to file a proof of claim for priority taxes. Debtor filed an unsecured priority claim for the municipality more than 30 days after the claim bar date for governmental units. Trustee objected. Neither taxing authority nor debtor opposed the objection and claim was disallowed. Ten months later, taxing authority filed a Rule 60 motion to set aside the order disallowing the claim. "[E]ven if the Panel were to treat the Rule 60(b) Motion as a motion under § 502(j), the Municipality did not meet its burden of proof under that section. Reconsideration of a claim under § 502(j) is a two-step process: (1) a showing of cause for reconsideration; and (2) a determination of the claim according to the equities of the case. . . . The Municipality never asserted that it did not have notice of the Claim Order, and offered no explanation for its ten-month delay in filing the Rule 60(b) Motion. . . . [T]here can be no basis for reconsideration of an order disallowing a claim according to the equities of the case without cause.").
Stringfellow v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 1:12-cv-84-DPM, 2014 WL 105019, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 9, 2014) (Marshall) (Reconsideration of mortgage claim under § 502(j) denied when parties acted in accordance with confirmed plan for five years and $40,000 in monthly payments were made to mortgage. "No cause exists to reconsider the claim. . . . [Debtors] waited five years after confirmation to object, and have not offered a good reason for their delay. Invalidating the proof of claim now would undo years of time and resources spent in the underlying bankruptcy action. It would also prejudice JPMorgan and Fannie Mae, who have relied on the claim's validity. . . . [Debtors] had many opportunities to challenge the proof of claim and repeatedly stood silent.").
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Stewart, No. 10-3589, 2011 WL 1899820, at *11, *12, *13, *8 (E.D. La. May 16, 2011) (McNamara) (Bankruptcy court improperly reconsidered and substantially disallowed arrearage claim that was timely filed in an amount larger than provided for in confirmed plan. Applying Simmons v. Savell (In re Simmons), 765 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. July 19, 1985) (Clark, Randall, Jolly), plan does not substitute for objection to secured creditor's proof of claim and "a secured creditor is not bound by a plan which purports to reduce its claim where no objection to the plan has been filed." Quoting Sun Finance Co. v. Howard (In re Howard), 972 F.2d 639 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 1992) (Higginbotham, Duhé, Hunter), "a Chapter 13 plan which purports to reduce or eliminate a creditor's secured claim is res judicata [sic] as to that creditor only if the debtor has filed an objection to the creditor's claim. If no objection is filed to a secured claim, the creditor is entitled to rely upon its lien and not participate in the bankruptcy proceedings. . . . The court finds in this case that, while it was appropriate for the bankruptcy court to review of [sic] Countrywide's proof of claim, the creditor was not sufficiently . . . placed on notice that the substance of its claim was placed at issue. There was no challenge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(j) raised by any party. Countrywide was also not so informed by the Trustee's Motion to Dismiss for Unfeasibility . . . . Countrywide was given no clue that the substance of its proof was at issue until bankruptcy court's order issued after [the hearing]." Section 105(a) does not give bankruptcy court "roving commission to do equity." Distinguishing United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S. Ct. 1367, 176 L. Ed. 2d 158 (Mar. 23, 2010), when plan was confirmed before deadline for filing claims, "the failure of a creditor to object to a plan on the grounds that the plan has misstated the amount of the claim cannot, consistent with due process, bind the creditor with respect to the amount which the creditor is required to identify no earlier than the deadline for filing proofs of claim. Thus, the Debtor's proposed Plan treatment of Countrywide's secured claim—payment of less than the full pre-petition arrearage—would not, standing alone, preclude the bankruptcy court from reaching a post-confirmation conclusion that the amount of Countrywide's claim for pre-petition arrearage is greater than that set forth in the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan."), rev'g and vacating No. 03-18462, 2010 WL 3490976 (Bankr. E.D. La. Aug. 23, 2010) (unpublished) (Magner) (Section 502(j) permits reconsideration of order that permitted Countrywide to file untimely claim 46 months into case. Claim had not been substantively allowed. Countrywide had notice of plan and did not object to confirmation. Countrywide was bound by amount in confirmed plan and had received sufficient amount through plan to satisfy its prepetition debt. Countrywide was ordered to reimburse trustee for overpayment and to credit debtor's account for additional direct overpayment by debtor.).
Bank of Am., NA v. Nathanson (In re Nathanson), No. 09-4537(GEB), 2010 WL 1850185 (D.N.J. May 6, 2010) (unpublished) (Brown) (Bank cannot use reconsideration of its proof of claim to evade binding effect of confirmation. Confirmed plan stripped off bank's wholly unsecured junior lien. Bank did not timely object to confirmation or appeal confirmation order.).
In re Bennett, 590 B.R. 156 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2018) (Shefferly) (Reconsideration of disallowance of bank’s claim is appropriate under § 502(j) when bank failed to respond to Chapter 13 debtor’s objection but instead timely filed the documents that supplied the information sought by the objection.).
In re Clevinger, No. 14-32840, 2018 WL 4223251, at *3–*4 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2018) (Whipple) (Reconsideration of disallowance of claim not appropriate: although notice of claim objection did not comply with addressing protocol in Bankruptcy Rules prior to effective date of new Rule 3007(a)(2)(A), creditor had actual notice of objection and failed to explain why it did not timely respond. “Debtor served his objection to Creditor’s proof of claim at the . . . address indicated for notices on the proof of claim. Debtor thus served the objection in the manner prescribed by amended Rule 3007(a)(2)(A). While such service would be sufficient if this case was commenced after the effective date of amended Rule 3007, it was not. The case was filed over three years earlier . . . . And Creditor’s most recent notice of change of address was filed . . . before the effective date of the amended rule. . . . Prior to December 1, 2017, the Bankruptcy Rules did not specifically address the manner in which objections to claims must be served. But following the direction in Bankruptcy Rule 2002(g) for providing notice to creditors, the court finds that sufficient service in cases commenced before December 1, 2017, requires notice to be addressed as the creditor has directed in the last request filed in the particular case. Cf. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(g)(1). . . . Debtor did not comply with that request. . . . Creditor does not contend that it did not receive the court’s notice.”).
In re Quintana, No. 14-15316 MER, 2015 WL 5222911, at *3 (Bankr. D. Colo. Sept. 4, 2015) (Romero) (Reconsideration of disallowance of arrearage claim denied when only challenge was adequacy of notice and notice was properly sent to address and party set forth in proof of claim. Section 502(j) and Bankruptcy Rule 3008 govern reconsideration of claims and direct the court to examine circumstances on a case-by-case basis "according to the equities of the case." Creditor "cannot reasonably expect to file a proof of claim with a specific address for receipt of notices, which lacks reference to any particular officer, agent, or other representative, and then receive notices other than at that address.").
Williams v. M. Bruenger & Co. (In re Brannan), 532 B.R. 834, 841 (Bankr. D. Kan. June 25, 2015) (Nugent) (Reconsideration under § 502(j) is not available to challenge defective security interest when confirmed plan and preconfirmation agreed order acknowledged secured status—notwithstanding that confirmation occurred before the proof of claim was filed. "Most reconsideration cases involve an unexpected post-confirmation change in circumstances, fraud, or newly discovered evidence as the 'cause' for reconsideration. There is nothing the Trustee knows now that was unascertainable or concealed by the creditor beforehand.").
In re Critten, No. 14-10944-WRS, 2014 WL 6686508 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Nov. 25, 2014) (Sawyer) (Applying Bankruptcy Rule 9024, creditor failed to prove cause for reconsideration of disallowance of claim; no evidence supported creditor's claim that it had been misled or defrauded by debtor's failure to include prior bankruptcy filings on petition.).
In re Chaffee, 513 B.R. 215 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2014) (Bucki) (Disallowed arrearage claim reconsidered under § 502(j) when motion was filed prior to confirmation and debtor would not be unduly prejudiced. Reconsideration of arrearage opened all aspects of claim for reconsideration.).
In re Beam, 510 B.R. 399, 406-07 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2014) (Drake) (Postconfirmation reconsideration of claim not available to reclassify secured claim as unsecured. "Assuming . . . Debtors' Plan Modification could be interpreted as a Motion to Reconsider . . . claim, . . . 'cause' does not exist under section 502(j) to reconsider . . . claim. Section 502(j) provides that 'a claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause.' . . . Section 502 also provides that 'a reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed based on the equities of the case.' . . . [R]econsideration of a claim 'according to the equities of the case,' is not an unlimited license to alter allowed claims. . . . This Court has set forth the following factors to determine if 'cause' exists under section 502(j): (1) whether granting review will prejudice the debtor or other creditors; (2) the length of delay and its impact on efficient court administration; (3) whether the delay was beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform; (4) the presence of good faith; (5) whether clients should be penalized for their counsel's mistake or neglect; (6) whether the claimant has a meritorious claim. . . . '[C]ause' does not exist to reconsider . . . claim [because if] claim were to be determined unsecured, then it would take a pro rata share of the plan payments, thereby reducing the funds to the other unsecured creditors—prejudicing them. A reclassification . . . from secured to unsecured also prejudices [creditor whose lien is sought to be stripped]. Additionally, the length of delay in filing the present pleadings was over 33 months after the Confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan. Certainly, the filing of the Motion to Strip was at the convenience of the Debtors, and, by the Debtors' own admission, the lien was 'unsecured' at the time of filing. . . . [N]o justification was presented as to the delay. . . . [G]iven the length of delay and Debtors' control of the situation, it is difficult to accept that the Motion to Strip was filed in good faith. . . . Because of prejudice to the creditors and since the length of the delay was within the reasonable control of the Debtors, or their attorney, the Court finds that 'cause' does not exist.").
Diaz Cruz v. P.R. Treasury Dep't (In re Diaz Cruz), No. 11-00263 (ESL), 2013 WL 3153993 (Bankr. D.P.R. June 19, 2013) (Lamoutte) (Reconsideration denied when amended summary judgment motion raised new claim for relief.).
In re Aranda, No. 09-34798-BJH-13, 2012 WL 6547310 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2012) (Houser) (Motion filed on September 25, 2012, to reconsider claim disallowed on August 4, 2010, was not filed within reasonable time.).
Oudomsouk v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Oudomsouk), 483 B.R. 502 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Nov. 19, 2012) (Mashburn) (On contrived facts, disallowed mortgage claim filed by debtors on behalf of mortgagee is reconsidered under § 502(j) and lien is not voided when parties stipulated validity of lien notwithstanding disallowance of the claim. Debtors filed naked claim on behalf of mortgagee. Trustee objected and claim was disallowed when no party responded to the trustee's objection. Debtors then moved to void the mortgage lien based on the disallowance of the claim under § 506(d). Parties stipulated that lien was otherwise valid and unavoidable. Bankruptcy court declined invitation to rule on the § 506(d) issue and instead reconsidered and set aside disallowance of the claim under § 502(j).).
In re Jackson, 482 B.R. 659 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2012) (Kimball) (Unsecured deficiency claim was untimely new claim, not amended claim; reconsideration of original fully secured claim was not appropriate.).
In re Cruz, No. 11-08947 BKT, 2012 WL 2603412 (Bankr. D.P.R. July 5, 2012) (Tester) (Under Puerto Rico law, judgment lien expired five years from registration and creditor failed to renew; creditor's motion for reconsideration of claim disallowance denied.).
Ruth v. LVNV Funding, Inc. (In re Ruth), 473 B.R. 152, 167 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2012) (Bohm) (Untimely objection prevented reconsideration of claim, notwithstanding claimant's failure to comply with documentation requirements in Bankruptcy Rule 3001. Objection was filed 16 months after claim was allowed under local rule. "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 Smith, 465 B.R. 350 (Bankr. D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2012) (Feeney) (Car lender is permitted to file an amended claim for deficiency when confirmed plan was amended to surrender car in "full satisfaction" but at time of surrender, there was no prospect of payment of unsecured creditors. Debtor subsequently received significant settlement proceeds from litigation and became able to pay unsecured creditors in full. Car lender did not object to surrender in full satisfaction, but bankruptcy court did not consider the failure to object to be a waiver of the deficiency claim.).
In re Brewster, No. 10-54254, 2011 WL 4458792 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2011) (Akard) (Applying FRCP 59(e) standards to deny claim reconsideration under § 502(j), service of claim objection satisfied Rule 7004(b)(3) requirements when objection was mailed to creditor's authorized agent that made prior appearance and to address listed on proof of claim.).
Nicholas v. Oren (In re Nicholas), 457 B.R. 202 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011) (Craig) (After payment through plan and active participation in case, creditor's motion for claim reconsideration was untimely and would inappropriately unwind confirmed plan. Reconsideration is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9024 and incorporates Rule 60 standards.).
In re Clay, No. 09-10618, 2011 WL 6117407 (Bankr. D. Kan. July 22, 2011) (Nugent) (Credit union can amend its proof of claim for unsecured deficiency following destruction of its collateral when incorrect amount of deficiency had been claimed. Bankruptcy Rule 9023 recognizes that reconsideration of disallowed claims under Rule 3008 is exception to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which otherwise would permit reconsideration based only on information unavailable to parties when order disallowing claim had been entered.).
In re Wilkinson, 457 B.R. 530 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. July 22, 2011) (Leif Clark) (After conversion to Chapter 7, mortgage creditor is not entitled to reconsideration of disallowance of its claim when notice was sufficient and creditor delayed five months to appear and seek relief. Section 502(j) overlaps Bankruptcy Rule 9024, and there is conflicting authority within Fifth Circuit whether Rule 60(b) applies when claim holder failed to respond to objection. EMC had constitutional due process, consistent with Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (Apr. 24, 1950), and no Rule 60(b)(4) basis for setting aside disallowance order was apparent. Service requirements of Rule 7004(b)(3) did not apply to claims objection, which is governed by Rule 3007. Even if applied, trustee's service on attorney was sufficient. Chapter 7 trustee sufficiently noticed EMC by serving objection on attorney designated on proof of claim to receive service. Chapter 13 trustee had recommended allowance of EMC's secured claim. After conversion, when EMC sought stay relief, Chapter 7 trustee objected, asserting that EMC had not established it was owner or holder of note or deed of trust. Five months after entry of disallowance order, EMC first appeared, seeking reconsideration, based of lack of service of trustee's objection.).
In re Clay, No. 09-10618, 2011 WL 6117850 (Bankr. D. Kan. June 21, 2011) (Nugent) (Section 502(j) permits reconsideration of allowed claim for cause and destruction of collateral through no fault of debtor was cause. Disagreeing with Chrysler Financial Corp. v. Nolan (In re Nolan), 232 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2000) (Krupansky, Norris, Suhrheinrich), when vehicle was destroyed in postpetition accident, secured creditor must apply insurance proceeds to allowed secured claim until eliminated; balance of debt is allowable unsecured deficiency.).
In re Franklin, 448 B.R. 744 (Bankr. M.D. La. Mar. 4, 2011) (Dodd) (Section 502(j) reconsideration does not provide basis to allow untimely filed proof of claim. Ocwen had notice in time to file timely proof of claim. It failed to file timely claim and failed to object to plan that fixed its arrearage claim. Ocwen was bound by amount of arrearage stated in plan and could not later file untimely proof of claim that would modify confirmed plan treatment.).
In re Watson, No. 10-10424-WHD, 2011 WL 1769009 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2011) (Drake) (Creditor was entitled to reconsideration of claim under § 502(j) once collateral was sold and deficiency established. Plan provided for surrender of truck. Debtor's objection to secured claim did not prevent reconsideration when creditor had not yet liquidated its collateral at time of original claim. Debtor could not claim surprise when schedules and objection to original proof of claim indicated that collateral would be sold and that claim was undersecured.).
Wilson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Wilson), 442 B.R. 10 (Bankr. D. Mass. Nov. 30, 2010) (Bailey) (Debtor's request for reconsideration of mortgage creditor's claim was denied; debtor was bound by agreement with respect to amount of prepetition arrearage.).
In re Morningstar, 433 B.R. 714 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2010) (Grant) (Litton Loan Servicing's motion for reconsideration of claim disallowance was denied when Litton failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining documentation sought by trustee over six-month period. Bankruptcy Code and Rules do not define cause for claim reconsideration. Most courts have adopted Rule 60(b) standard, while minority of courts use four-factor test or consider totality of circumstances. Applying Rule 60(b) analysis, trustee had been persistent in requesting documentation from Litton and court had disallowed claim after hearing, at which Litton still failed to supply supporting documentation.).
In re George, 426 B.R. 895, 900 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2010) (Jennemann) (Although second mortgage creditor was entitled to reconsideration of its claim after first mortgage holder foreclosed, facts did not support second mortgagee's effort to amend its fully secured claim to assert deficiency. "Courts consider five equitable factors in determining whether a late-filed claim will 'relate back' as an amendment to a timely, earlier filed claim: (1) whether the debtor and creditors relied on the earlier proof of claim or had reason to know that a subsequent proof of claim would be filed; (2) whether other creditors would receive a windfall if the court refused to allow amendment; (3) whether the claimant intentionally or negligently delayed in filing the amendment; (4) the justification for the failure to file for an extension to the bar date; and (5) whether other equitable considerations exist that compel amendment." "NCB made a decision to file a fully secured claim at the time the debtors confirmed their Chapter 13 plan. NCB made no reservation for a possible future unsecured deficiency claim that could arise upon the conclusion of SunTrust's foreclosure action. NCB made no effort to determine whether its claim was secured or unsecured until a year after the confirmation hearing and more than six months after SunTrust obtained its foreclosure judgment. The debtors, acting in good faith, clearly expressed their intention to surrender the Property securing NCB's claim and relied upon NCB's secured claim in making substantial payments to their unsecured creditors for many months under the confirmed plan.").
In re Coffia, No. 09-50899, 2010 WL 1872878, at *3, *4 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Mar. 22, 2010) (Dalis) (Plan provision for surrender of residential property in full satisfaction of secured claim did not impair creditor's right under § 502(j) to have its secured claim reconsidered and allowed as unsecured in amount of deficiency. "[No] . . . provision of the Bankruptcy Code . . . require[s] BB & T to assert any deficiency claim should be added instead|>through a separate proof of claim as opposed to a motion for reconsideration pursuant to § 502(j). In this case, BB & T has filed a secured claim in the amount of $82,802.25, to which there has been no objection. Allowing BB & T to file a separate claim if some amount is not satisfied by the surrender of the Property would be unnecessarily duplicative. Rather, the allowed and satisfied secured claim should simply be reconsidered under § 502(j) in order to determine if a portion of the original claim should be allowed as based upon a remaining debt and unsecured. Therefore, I conclude that § 502(j) is the proper mechanism by which BB & T may seek to have its claim reconsidered in the event an enforceable deficiency debt is established under applicable nonbankruptcy law." BB & T, as second lienholder, may "elect to wait for the senior lienholder to foreclose upon its collateral, after which BB & T could then seek to have the entirety of its claim reconsidered as an allowed unsecured claim pursuant to § 502(j). The Debtors' plan did force BB & T to elect treatment at confirmation.").
In re Bryner, No. 08-26804, 2010 WL 917689, at *4 (Bankr. D. Utah Mar. 10, 2010) (unpublished) (Thurman) (Debtor's former spouse was party in interest with standing to seek claim reconsideration under Bankruptcy Rule 3008. "There is no standard articulated for determining whether a claim should be reconsidered under Rule 3008. However, the Court finds Rule 9024 helpful and will look to the standard found in this Rule as a guide to determine whether reconsideration . . . may occur.").
In re Coxeter, No. 05-19146, 2009 WL 4893170, at *3, *4 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2009) (Littlefield) (Applying Rule 60(b) standards, creditor's motion to reconsider claim disallowed by default is granted under § 502(j). "[I]n evaluating a motion for reconsideration, under § 502(j), the standard for relief outlined in Rule 60(b) should be used." Although trend in § 502(j) case law applied excusable neglect standard from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (Mar. 24, 1993), Second Circuit in American Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Eagle Insurance Co., 92 F.3d 57, 59 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 1996) (Newman, Parker, Nickerson), held that in default judgment context three criteria were relevant to vacating judgment: "'(1) whether the default was willful; (2) whether defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the level of prejudice that may occur to the non-defaulting party if relief is granted.'" Default by creditor was not willful or deliberate. Creditor had meritorious defense to disallowance. Debtors were not prejudiced since they had unsuccessfully litigated claim in state court and they had listed claim in bankruptcy schedules.).
Shepard v. Hood (In re Shepard), No. 08-3036, 2009 WL 1658124, at *4 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. June 12, 2009) (Venters) (Cause found to reconsider disallowance of domestic support obligation claim when court mistakenly assumed that claim had been assigned to county. "Factors considered in determining whether there is cause to reconsider claim include: the extent and reasonableness in the delay, the prejudice to any party in interest, the effect on efficient court administration, and the moving party's good faith.").
In re Davis, 404 B.R. 183 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2009) (Bohm) (Modification of confirmed plan to surrender collateral in full satisfaction of secured claim is supported by § 502(j), which allows reclassification of claim from secured to unsecured when equitable to do so; debtors not permitted to surrender collateral in full satisfaction when vehicle had been damaged in accident, but deficiency was reclassified as an unsecured claim.).
In re Cagle, No. 07-11689-WHD, 2008 WL 7874772 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 2, 2008) (Drake) (Reconsideration of disallowance of claim granted when credit union established excusable neglect for failure to respond to objection: notice of objection was addressed to employee who no longer worked for credit union. Credit union demonstrated meritorious defense to disallowance and reconsideration would not prejudice debtor.).