§ 135.7     Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed after October 22, 1994
Cite as:    Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 135.7, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
[1]

In Chapter 13 cases filed after October 22, 1994, a timely filed proof of claim is a prerequisite to allowance of the claim. Discussed above,1 in 1994 Congress amended § 502(b)(9) to make explicit that a claim is not allowable to the extent that “proof of such claim is not timely filed.”2 Section 502(b)(9), as amended in 1994, states two exceptions: (1) “except to the extent tardily filed as permitted under paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of section 726(a) of this title or under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure” and (2) “except that a claim of a governmental unit shall be timely filed if it is filed before 180 days after the date of the order for relief or such later time as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may provide.”3 The legislative history of this 1994 amendment to § 502(b) states: “The amendment to § 502(b) is designed to overrule In re Hausladen, 146 B.R. 557 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1992), and its progeny by disallowing claims that are not timely filed.”4

[2]

Nothing in the language or legislative history of the 1994 amendment to § 502(b)(9) suggests that the disallowance of untimely filed claims is limited to any particular kind of claim—upon objection, § 502(b)(9) disallows untimely filed secured, unsecured or priority claims.5

[3]

The exception in § 502(b)(9) for tardily filed proofs of claim under § 726(a)(1), (2) or (3) has no obvious application in Chapter 13 cases. Section 726(a) is only applicable in Chapter 7 cases, and the best-interests-of-creditors-test implications of § 726 in Chapter 13 cases are limited.6 The cross-reference to § 726 in § 502(b)(9) should not be misinterpreted in Chapter 13 cases to create an additional exception to the timeliness requirements for the allowance of claims in Chapter 13 cases.7

[4]

The “exception” in § 502(b)(9) for claims of governmental units is less an exception to the general rule of disallowance of untimely filed claims than it is a definition of timely for purposes (only) of government claims.8 The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA)9 further amended § 502(b)(9) to allow an additional 60 days for a governmental unit to timely file proof of a tax claim measured from the date the debtor files a tax return required by (new) § 1308.10

[5]

Probably the largest exception to the general rule of disallowance of untimely filed proofs of claim is stated in § 502(a) of the Code: a filed proof of claim is “deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . . objects.”11 Even an untimely filed proof of claim is allowed until an objection to the claim is filed.12

[6]

All of the consequences attendant to disallowance of a claim attach to untimely filed claims in Chapter 13 cases commenced after October 22, 1994. Untimely filed claims are disallowed upon objection and are not entitled to distributions.13 A claim disallowed as untimely under § 502(b)(9) will be discharged upon completion of payments to other creditors under the plan14 unless specifically excepted from discharge by § 1328(a).15 Disallowance of an untimely claim filed by (or on behalf of) a secured claim holder should preclude relief from the stay16 and puts the underlying lien at risk under §§ 1327(c) and 506(d).17 Disallowance of an untimely filed claim precludes standing with respect to some18 but not all19 objections to confirmation.

[7]

The disallowance of untimely filed claims in Chapter 13 cases—by statute in cases filed after October 22, 1994, and by reported decisions in most jurisdictions in cases filed before October 22, 199420—suggests some odd strategies for debtors and creditors. If no claim is filed by a lienholder and neither the debtor nor the trustee files a claim on behalf of the lienholder, the lienholder does not have an allowed claim,21 but § 506(d) is not available to void the lien because disallowance resulted only from the failure of any entity to file a proof of claim.22 If the lienholder files an untimely proof of claim, or if an untimely proof of claim is filed on behalf of the lienholder,23 § 506(d) would apply: disallowance is for a reason other than the failure of any party to file a proof of claim. The creditor’s lien would be voided by § 506(d). The lienholder with no proof of claim could be better off than one with a tardily filed proof of claim. When the consequence of untimely filing is disallowance, there is incentive for Chapter 13 debtors to file untimely proofs of claim on behalf of creditors that have not filed their own claims to disallow those claims and then void any liens securing those untimely claims.24

[8]

When the untimeliness of a proof of claim results from the debtor’s failure to schedule a creditor, the consequences of untimely filing are complicated by constitutional considerations. In In re McQueen,25 the bankruptcy court concluded that § 502(b)(9) imposes disallowance as the consequence of untimely filing by a governmental unit without regard to whether the creditor had notice of the bar date. The bankruptcy court acknowledged that “failure of debtor to properly notice a creditor of bankruptcy clearly raises constitutional concerns with respect to the effects of confirmation and discharge.”26 On appeal, the district court seemed to interchange concern about the disallowance of an untimely filed claim under § 502(b)(9) and the discharge of a claim that was untimely filed because the creditor was without notice. The district court concluded that the untimely filed claim of a governmental unit was not “automatically” disallowed by § 502(b)(9) when the creditor did not get notice of the Chapter 13 case before the 180-day bar.27 Perhaps more accurately, other courts have held that there is no discretion to grant an unscheduled creditor an extension of the bar date for filing proofs of claim in Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c), but disallowance of an unscheduled creditor’s untimely claim does not mean that the debt is subject to discharge.28

[9]

Outside Chapter 13, some reported decisions hold that the claims of creditors that do not have notice of the bar date cannot be disallowed because disallowance would effect an unconstitutional “taking.”29 Other courts have recognized equitable exceptions to the limitations in Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) and have permitted the filing and allowance of late claims when notice to the claim holder was deficient or allowance of the late-filed claim causes no prejudice to the debtor or other creditors.30 The unscheduled creditor that becomes aware of the case and desires payment through the plan should file a (tardy) proof of claim. It is unlikely that the debtor will object because of the likelihood that the claim will survive discharge if not paid through the plan. Several reported decisions recognize that an untimely proof of claim filed by an unscheduled creditor is allowed and participates in distributions unless and until a party in interest objects.31

[10]

One consequence of the failure of a creditor to timely file a proof of claim is that the creditor may be stuck with the amount stated in a proof of claim filed by the debtor or trustee on behalf of the creditor under Bankruptcy Rule 3004. Discussed in detail elsewhere,32 if a creditor fails to timely file proof of its own claim, the debtor or the trustee can file a claim on behalf of the creditor. Bankruptcy Rule 3004 as amended in 2005 no longer contemplates the filing of a “superseding” claim by the creditor, but it may be within the court’s discretion to allow the creditor to file an amendment to a proof of claim filed on its behalf.33 The risk for creditors is that once the period for timely filing claims expires, creditors must accept the amount stated in the debtor’s or trustee’s claim filed under Bankruptcy Rule 3004.34

[11]

Section 502(b)(9) can be a trap for any undersecured creditor that fails to accurately file a “split” claim. Detailed elsewhere,35 Official Bankruptcy Form 10 contemplates that an undersecured creditor will file a single proof of claim for both the secured and unsecured components of its claim. The Official Form instructs the undersecured creditor to value its collateral and specify the secured and unsecured portions of its claim. When timely filed, a single proof of claim for an undersecured debt would be both an allowable secured claim and an allowable unsecured claim.

[12]

The problem comes when an undersecured creditor files only a secured claim and does not “split” the unsecured portion on its proof of claim. This is common—especially after the enactment in 2005 of the so-called “hanging sentence” at the end of § 1325(a), which requires “fully secured” treatment through the plan for many car lenders (and others) that in reality do not have fully secured claims.36 When a creditor files a fully secured proof of claim that does not assert an unsecured claim and the creditor subsequently liquidates its collateral for less than its debt—perhaps after relief from the stay, surrender, casualty loss or the like—the creditor must then file an unsecured deficiency claim that will be measured against the time deadlines in Bankruptcy Rule 3002.37 If the deficiency claim is untimely, the creditor has to win the argument that its untimely unsecured claim is an allowable amendment38 to its timely filed secured claim—notwithstanding that it may have (improperly?) asserted fully secured status in the first instance and may have failed to follow the instructions on Official Form 10. On these facts, some courts have held that the untimely deficiency claim is disallowed and it cannot “amend” the fully secured claim the creditor timely filed.39

[13]

If the creditor’s claim is nondischargeable—for example, a student loan40—the effect of a claim filed on behalf of the creditor after the claims bar date is that distributions to the creditor are limited to the amount stated by the debtor or trustee and the balance will survive discharge. If the underlying claim is dischargeable, then the creditor is stuck with whatever payments the plan provides up to the amount stated in the proof of claim filed by the debtor or trustee. It is disingenuous for creditors to whine about this outcome. But for the proof of claim filed by the debtor or trustee, the creditor would not be entitled to any distribution through the plan.


 

1  See §§ 275.1 [ 1994 Code Amendments Changed the Rules ] § 132.1  1994 Code Amendments Changed the Rules and 275.2 [ In General: Filing is Required for Allowance ] § 132.2  In General: Filing is Required for Allowance.

 

2  11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), as amended by Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-394, § 213, 108 Stat. 4106 (1994).

 

3  11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), as amended by Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-394, § 213, 108 Stat. 4106 (1994). Section 502(b)(9) was further amended in 2005. See below in this section.

 

4  140 Cong. Rec. H10,752, H10,768 (section-by-section analysis by Congressman Brooks). In re Hausladen, 146 B.R. 557 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1992), is discussed in § 289.1 [ Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed before October 22, 1994: The Hausladen Phenomenon ] § 135.6  Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed before October 22, 1994: The Hausladen Phenomenon.

 

5  See United Feeds, Inc. v. Greenig (In re Greenig), 152 F.3d 631, 633–36 (7th Cir. 1998) (In a Chapter 12 case, untimely filed proof of unsecured claim is not allowable. “[I]f the claim is to be allowed, a proof of claim must be filed . . . . [I]n the event a proof of claim is not filed in a timely fashion, and if no exceptions apply, a hearing is not required because the claim is statutorily barred . . . . In a Chapter 12 bankruptcy case, the creditor has 90 days to file a proof of claim, unless an exception of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c) applies. This requirement may not be circumvented, either by the existence of a confirmed plan, or by the presence of equitable considerations. Because UF failed to file its proof of claim within the 90-day time limitation, its claim is barred.”); In re Kressler, Nos. CIV. A. 00-5286, 99-22646, 2001 WL 919860 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2001) (unpublished) (Untimely filed claim of wholly unsecured second mortgage holder is disallowed, but claim holder has standing to object to confirmation of a plan that proposes to avoid the creditor’s lien,), aff’d, 40 Fed. Appx. 712 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Franco, No. 05-04632-5-ATS, 2008 WL 3413293 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2008) (unpublished) (Small) (Untimely claim of former boyfriend was disallowed.); In re Mickens, No. 04-1324, 2005 WL 375661, at *1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2005) (unpublished) (Teel) (Untimely filed claim for mortgage arrearages was disallowed on trustee’s objection. “[T]he Bankruptcy Code itself makes clear that filing of a timely proof of claim is necessary for a holder of a secured claim to have an allowed secured claim. . . . While 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) provides that disallowance of a claim as an allowed secured claim solely on the ground of untimeliness does not void the lien securing the claim, disallowance does bar distributions on that claim under a confirmed plan.”); In re Namusyule, 300 B.R. 100, 101 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2003) (“Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), the court must disallow the creditor’s claim as untimely filed.”); In re Gonzalez, 295 B.R. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003) (Upon objection, late proofs of claim in Chapter 13 cases are disallowed—but only if an objection is filed to the late-filed claim.); In re Zich, 291 B.R. 883 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003) (“The law is clear that a claim is disallowed unless a timely proof of claim is filed.”); In re Taylor, 280 B.R. 711 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2001) (Proof of secured claim filed three months before end of 60-month plan cannot be an amendment of timely filed unsecured claim and is disallowed as an untimely filed new claim.); In re Bennett, 278 B.R. 764 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001) (Untimely filed claim is disallowed by § 502(b)(9).); In re Husmann, 276 B.R. 596 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002) (After 1994 amendments, untimely filed claims are disallowed in Chapter 13 cases by § 502(b)(9), and § 726(a)(3) does not apply in Chapter 13 cases.); In re Brogden, 274 B.R. 287 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001) (Untimely filed claim of IRS is disallowed.); In re Michels, 270 B.R. 737 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2001) (Untimely filed proof of bank’s secured claim is disallowed if a party in interest objects.); In re Gary, No. 99-10618, 2000 WL 35722904 (Bankr. D. Vt. Dec. 5, 2000) (unpublished) (Brown) (Late-filed claim was disallowed after conversion on objection of Chapter 7 trustee.); In re Stewart, 247 B.R. 515 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000) (Untimely filed claim for mortgage arrearage is disallowed by § 502(b)(9), and the mortgage holder is bound by the confirmed plan that does not pay the arrearage claim.); In re Dennis, 230 B.R. 244, 249 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999) (“Neither secured nor unsecured claims tardily filed in a chapter 13 case are excepted from disallowance under section 502(b)(9). If Congress intended tardily filed claims in chapter 13 to be allowed, they too would have been excepted from § 502(b)(9) as were tardily filed claims under § 726(a). The court therefore concludes that any claim tardily filed in a chapter 13 case to which an objection has been raised based on tardiness shall be disallowed.”); In re McQueen, 228 B.R. 408, 410–11 & n.4 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1998) (“In chapter 13 cases, the 1994 amendment imposes disallowance as . . . the consequence of untimely filing without regard to whether the creditor has notice of the bar date. Section 50[2](b)(9) provides no statutory exceptions to its mandate that claims must be filed ‘timely.’ . . . Failure of debtor to properly notice a creditor of bankruptcy clearly raises constitutional concerns with respect to the effects of confirmation and discharge. However, as § 502(b)(9) is presently written, the court is without legal or equitable grounds to allow a late filed proof of claim in a chapter 13 case, even absent proper notice of the bar date for filing proofs of claim.”), rev’d sub nom. IRS v. Hildebrand, 245 B.R. 287 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) (Claim of governmental unit that is without notice in time to file timely claim is not automatically disallowed by § 502(b)(9).); In re Lang, 196 B.R. 528 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996) (Citing United States v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996), and amended § 502, late-filed claims are disallowed in a Chapter 13 case and are not subject to the exception in § 726(a).); In re Macias, 195 B.R. 659, 660–62 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996) (“[T]he bankruptcy rules do not impose a bar date for secured claims in a chapter 13 case. . . . In 1994, Congress settled the matter by passing new section 502(b)(9), which expressly permits disallowance of claims for being untimely. . . . Nonetheless, the new statute does presume a ‘timeliness’ feature, without distinguishing between secured or unsecured claims, and applies of course in chapter 13 cases.”).

 

6  See § 90.1  In General: Plan Payments vs. Hypothetical Liquidation, § 90.3  Exclusions and Exemptions after BAPCPA, § 132.2  In General: Filing is Required for Allowance, § 133.1  General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . ., § 133.5  Tax Claim Exception after BAPCPA and § 135.6  Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed before October 22, 1994: The Hausladen Phenomenon.

 

7  See §§ 275.2 [ In General: Filing is Required for Allowance ] § 132.2  In General: Filing is Required for Allowance and 282.1 [ General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . . ] § 133.1  General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . .. See, e.g., In re Lang, 196 B.R. 528, 530 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996) (Addition of timeliness requirement to § 502(b) and its cross-reference to § 726(a) did not create a new exception to the 90-day bar date for the timely filing of proofs of claim in Chapter 13 cases. “[T]he issue is whether § 726(a)(1)–(3) applies to all chapters because it is referenced in § 502(b) or whether the exception contained in § 502(b) is limited to claims which independently fall within the explicit provisions of § 726(a). . . . Rule 3002(c)(6) includes a procedure whereby claims may be filed late and still participate in a distribution if a surplus remains after the allowed (timely) claims have been paid in full. . . . [S]uch a distribution scheme has no place in a Chapter 13 reorganization setting. . . . [T]he exceptions for late-filed claims set forth in § 726, and referenced in § 502, are only applicable to claims filed in a Chapter 7 case.”). But see In re Lewis, 227 B.R. 886, 890 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1998) (Priority support claim is not disallowed just because it is untimely. “[S]ection 502(b)(9) sets forth the general rule that a claim is allowed unless it is untimely. However, section 502(b)(9) also contains an exception for those debts described in section 726(a)(1). Section 726(a)(1) provides for distribution to priority creditors, including support obligations under section 507(a)(7) whether or not the claim was timely filed so long as the claim is filed before the trustee commences distribution. . . . Accordingly, the court is not required to disallow an untimely proof of claim for a priority debt, even in the chapter 13 context. United States v. Waindel (In re Waindel), 65 F.3d 1307, 1309–10 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1995). Since the debtor’s entire obligation to Patricia Lewis is in the nature of support, it is a priority debt under section 507(a)(7) and is not subject to disallowance merely because it was untimely filed.”).

 

8  See § 276.1 [ Governmental Units ] § 132.3  Governmental Units.

 

9  Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).

 

10  11 U.S.C. § 1308, discussed in § 42.4  Tax Return Duties—In General§ 132.3  Governmental Units, § 133.5  Tax Claim Exception after BAPCPA and § 136.3  Taxes after BAPCPA.

 

11  11 U.S.C. § 502(a).

 

12  See, e.g., In re Nwonwu, 362 B.R. 705, 706, 710 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007) (“[T]he bar date for the [homeowners’] Association to file its [secured] proof of claim cannot be extended in a chapter 13 even for an unlisted creditor that had no notice of the case, but . . . the trustee may nevertheless pay the claim, even though tardy, if no party in interest (including the trustee) objects. . . . [T]he claims bar date is not self-executing. That is, a claim filed after the claims bar date is not thereby deprived of its character as a claim but is simply subject to disallowance. . . . It could very well happen in a chapter 13 case, however, that no purpose would be served by objecting to a late-filed claim if the plan were sufficiently funded to pay it without affecting the payout to other creditors. . . . Accordingly, nothing in this opinion should be read as suggesting that a chapter 13 trustee is required to object to a late-filed claim or is prohibited (particularly after consulting with the debtor) from paying a late-filed claim if there is no prejudice to other creditors.”); In re Gonzalez, 295 B.R. 584, 589 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003) (Untimely proof of claim to which no objection has been filed is deemed allowed and provides predicate for FMCC’s objection to confirmation. “Although that proof of claim was filed after the bar date and so was untimely, . . . and although late proofs of claims in chapter 13 cases are disallowed . . . claims are disallowed as late only ‘if objection to the claim is made’ on that ground. . . . Mr. Gonzalez has not objected to FMCC’s late-filed proof of claim. . . . FMCC has an ‘allowed’ proof of claim . . . . FMCC therefore had the right under section 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) to complain about the van’s valuation.”); Tepper v. Burnham (In re Tepper), 279 B.R. 859, 863, 864 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002) (Because “bankruptcy court has no authority to prohibit the filing [of] an untimely proof of claim,” proofs of claim filed by the debtor on behalf of a taxing authority four years after the petition to which no objection or superseding claim is filed are “allowed and are presumptively valid in the amount and characterization of Defendant’s claims.”); In re McLarry, 273 B.R. 753, 754 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2002) (“[T]he Court has no authority to extend the deadline for filing proofs of claim in a chapter 13 case. . . . On the other hand, the Court has no authority to prohibit a tardy creditor from filing a proof of claim. And, under the statute, whether the claim was filed timely or late, it is allowed unless a party in interest objects to the claim. There is no deadline for objecting to a proof of claim. . . . [T]he Court cannot ‘allow’ the claim and cannot extend the deadline, but Wells Fargo may file its claim without Court permission. The claim is ‘allowed’ by § 502 of the Bankruptcy Code unless a party in interest objects.”).

 

13  See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3021 (“After confirmation of a plan, distributions shall be made to creditors whose claims have been allowed.”). See, e.g., In re Parker, 391 B.R. 411 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008) (Preston) (Mortgagee’s untimely proof of claim was disallowed notwithstanding confirmation of plan that proposed to pay unsecured mortgagee same percentage as other unsecured creditors. Neither res judicata effect of confirmation nor judicial estoppel barred debtor from objecting to claim. That trustee noticed intention to pay mortgagee’s claim did not preclude debtor’s objection to late claim.); In re Hogan, 346 B.R. 715, 720–23 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. July 18, 2006) (Section 502(b)(9) makes it clear that a lienholder must timely file a proof of claim to have an allowed claim and to be entitled to distributions under a Chapter 13 plan; a lienholder that fails to timely file a claim is not entitled to distributions but may seek relief from the stay or adequate protection if neither the debtor nor the trustee files a claim for the lienholder under Bankruptcy Rule 3004. “[I]f a creditor elects not to file a claim, then it also elects not to be paid under the plan. . . . Section 502(b)(9) has made clear, for over a decade now, that a proof of claim not timely filed, regardless of whether it is secured or unsecured, should not be allowed if there is an objection made on grounds of timeliness. . . . [T]he holder of a secured claim has the option of relying solely on its lien in satisfaction of debtor’s indebtedness and to therefore opt to decline to file a proof of claim if the secured creditor wants no distribution under a proposed plan.”); In re Roubert, 336 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2005) (Untimely filed claim was not allowable, and creditor has no right to distributions under confirmed plan.); In re Mickens, No. 04-1324, 2005 WL 375661, at *1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Feb. 14, 2005) (unpublished) (Teel) (Untimely filed claim for mortgage arrearages was disallowed on trustee’s objection. “While 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) provides that disallowance of a claim as an allowed secured claim solely on the ground of untimeliness does not void the lien securing the claim, disallowance does bar distributions on that claim under a confirmed plan.”); Gallick v. United States Dep’t of Educ. (In re Gallick), 292 B.R. 830 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2003) (Absent an order allowing the Department of Education’s out-of-time proof of claim, the failure to file a timely proof of claim would bar distributions during the Chapter 13 case.); In re Zich, 291 B.R. 883 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2003) (“The law is clear that a claim is disallowed unless a timely proof of claim is filed. . . . [A]bsent a timely proof of claim, a creditor is not entitled to receive a distribution even though the confirmed plan provides for payments on the claim.”); In re Michels, 270 B.R. 737, 741 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2001) (Untimely filed proof of bank’s secured claim would be disallowed if a party in interest objects, and the bank will not be entitled to distributions under the plan. “If an untimely secured claim is disallowed, the creditor would receive no distribution under the plan.”); In re Hudson, 260 B.R. 421, 438 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2001) (Although there is no deadline fixed by the Bankruptcy Rules within which a secured claim holder must file a proof of claim, a secured claim holder is not entitled to distributions under a confirmed plan until it files a proof of claim and “[t]here is a point in time when it will be too late for a secured creditor to file a proof of claim and hold an allowed claim. After this point in time, a secured creditor will not be able to receive any distribution from the estate.”); In re Kelley, 259 B.R. 580, 584 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001) (Mortgage holder cannot increase its right to distributions under the plan by filing an untimely proof of claim in an amount greater than the claim filed by the debtor on behalf of the mortgage holder. “[T]here is no safe harbor under Rule 3002(c) into which this movant can retreat and escape the consequences of its failure to file a claim on a timely basis. . . . [T]he Court believes that the proper statutory construction of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, as well as strong policy considerations, mandate a conclusion that secured creditors are, in fact, bound by the bar date established by Rule 3002(c) and must timely file a proof of claim if they desire to receive a plan distribution.”); In re Jones, 238 B.R. 338, 344 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999) (Priority and unsecured claims of IRS will receive no distributions because IRS did not timely file a proof of claim. “‘Although allowed tax claims may take priority under certain circumstances, such priority does not exempt tax claims from the statutory filing deadlines.’ . . . [T]he plan reads that only those creditors whose claims are timely filed and allowed shall participate in the distribution scheme under the plan. This would exclude the priority unsecured claims of the IRS.”); In re Macias, 195 B.R. 659, 660–63 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996) (“A creditor who elects not to file a claim elects also not to be paid under a plan. . . . If a secured claim is untimely filed, the trustee is entitled (perhaps even obligated) to object to its filing as untimely. Such disallowed claims will not be entitled to any distribution under the plan.”).

 

14  See § 344.1 [ Broadest Discharge Available ] § 157.1  Broadest Discharge Available. See, e.g., In re Michels, 270 B.R. 737, 741 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2001) (Upon objection, bank’s untimely filed secured claim would be disallowed and discharged at the completion of payments under the plan. “In order to be an ‘allowed’ secured claim, a proof of claim must be filed under § 501. . . . The deadline for filing a proof of claim is 90 days after the first date set for the creditors’ meeting. . . . If an untimely secured claim is disallowed, the creditor would receive no distribution under the plan, [and] the claim would be discharged at the end of the plan.”); In re Jones, 238 B.R. 338, 344–46 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999) (Priority and unsecured claims of IRS will be discharged at the completion of payments because IRS did not timely file a proof of claim. “One consequence of the failure of a creditor to timely file a proof of claim is that the creditor’s debt, with notice, may be discharged under the terms provided for by the debtor. . . . This creditor would receive nothing and may not seek payment from the debtor once the plan is completed. In other words, the creditor’s debt is discharged in full. The IRS is no exception and is afforded no special treatment in this regard. Consequently, the general unsecured debt of the IRS is discharged pending completion of the plan by the Debtors.”).

 

15  See discussion of exceptions to full payment discharge beginning at § 158.1  Alimony, Maintenance or Support and § 159.1  Taxes.  See, e.g., Gallick v. United States Dep’t of Educ. (In re Gallick), 292 B.R. 830 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2003) (Failure of the Department of Education to file a timely proof of claim for student loan debt precludes distributions during the Chapter 13 case but would not affect whether the student loan is dischargeable under §§ 1328(a)(2) and 523(a)(8).).

 

16  See § 247.1 [ Effect of Failure to File Proof of Claim on Postconfirmation Relief from the Stay ] § 124.7  Effect of Failure to File Proof of Claim on Postconfirmation Relief from the Stay. See, e.g., In re Michels, 270 B.R. 737, 741 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2001) (“If an untimely secured claim is disallowed, . . . the creditor may be precluded from seeking relief from the stay during the term of the plan.”); In re Macias, 195 B.R. 659, 662 n.5, 663 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996) (“If a secured claim is untimely filed, the trustee is entitled (perhaps even obligated) to object to its filing as untimely. Such disallowed claims will not be entitled to any distribution under the plan, nor will the creditor’s failure to timely file permit the [creditor] to later argue a lack of adequate protection.” In a note, “a secured creditor cannot simply absent itself from the bankruptcy process in chapter 13, then hope to obtain easy relief from the automatic stay after confirmation. Such a creditor could hardly maintain that cause existed for relief from stay where the debtor had made provision for the creditor in the plan and only the creditor’s refusal to file a claim prevented it from receiving the adequate protection that had been offered.”).

 

17  See below in this section, and see §§ 231.1 [ 11 U.S.C. § 1327(c): Free and Clear Effect on Liens ] § 120.4  11 U.S.C. § 1327(c): Free and Clear Effect on Liens, 288.1 [ Failure to File Proof of Claim ] § 135.5  Failure to File Proof of Claim and 358.1 [ On Liens ] § 162.3  On Liens. See, e.g., In re Michels, 270 B.R. 737, 741 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2001) (“If an untimely secured claim is disallowed, . . . the creditors’ lien may be at risk under § 506(d). . . . The conditions for voiding a secured creditor’s lien under § 506(d) are present when an untimely proof of a secured claim is filed and a party successfully objects to that claim.”).

 

18  See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1), which triggers the disposable income test on the objection to confirmation of the holder of “an allowed unsecured claim.” See § 116.1  Standing to Object for further discussion of standing to object to confirmation. See also discussion of projected disposable income test before and after BAPCPA beginning at § 91.1  In General and § 92.1  In General.

 

19  See, e.g., In re Kressler, 40 Fed. Appx. 712, 714 (3d Cir. 2002) (Mortgage holder’s untimely filed proof of claim was disallowed, but lien survives and lienholder has standing to object to confirmation. “Litton’s property interest [its lien] is not voided by the disallowing of its claim for filing late. Litton has a pecuniary interest that was not extinguished, and is thus a ‘party in interest’ under 11 U.S.C. [§] 1324 and may object. . . . Debtors are required to initiate an adversary proceeding or something akin thereto to avoid the lien.”). See also In re Gonzalez, 295 B.R. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003) (Untimely proof of claim to which no objection has been filed is deemed allowed and provides predicate for FMCC’s standing to object to confirmation.).

 

20  See § 289.1 [ Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed before October 22, 1994: The Hausladen Phenomenon ] § 135.6  Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed before October 22, 1994: The Hausladen Phenomenon.

 

21  See § 288.1 [ Failure to File Proof of Claim ] § 135.5  Failure to File Proof of Claim.

 

22  11 U.S.C. § 506(d) provides:

To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless—
(1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) of this title; or
(2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.

 

23  See §§ 285.1 [ Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims ] § 134.1  Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims before 2005 and 286.1 [ Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors ] § 134.3  Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors.

 

24  See § 286.1 [ Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors ] § 134.3  Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors.

 

25  228 B.R. 408 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1998), rev’d sub nom. IRS v. Hildebrand, 245 B.R. 287 (M.D. Tenn. 2000), appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 248 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2001).

 

26  228 B.R. at 410.

 

27  IRS v. Hildebrand, 245 B.R. 287 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).

 

28  See §§ 283.1 [ Unscheduled Creditors ] § 133.2  Unscheduled Creditors before BAPCPA and 349.1 [ Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502 ] § 158.5  Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502. See, e.g., In re Trusty, No. 01-6-0300 SD, 2006 WL 4480995 (Bankr. D. Md. Oct. 4, 2006) (unpublished) (Alquist) (Deadline for filing claims cannot be extended, and trustee’s objections to late claims that were not scheduled by debtors are sustained; however, failure to schedule meant that claims were not dischargeable.); In re Mason, No. 05-26519-RAG, 2006 WL 4486450 (Bankr. D. Md. Oct. 4, 2006) (unpublished) (Gordon); In re Namusyule, 300 B.R. 100, 101 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2003) (“Under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), the court must disallow the creditor’s claim as untimely filed. On the face of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, this court is not permitted to enlarge the period in which a creditor must file her proof of claim, even when the creditor had no notice of the case.” Although some courts have “sustained a creditor’s right to file a proof of claim on due process grounds, for lack of proper notice,” informal notice to creditor’s counsel 89 days before the bar date and addition of the creditor to the schedules 60 days before the bar date satisfied due process.); In re Windom, 284 B.R. 644, 646–47 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2002) (Untimely filed claim is disallowed notwithstanding that creditor was not scheduled; however, disgorgement of payments is not appropriate because the debtor waited three and one-half years to object. “Together, § 502(a) and Rule 3002(c) operate as a ‘strict statute of limitations.’ . . . Bankruptcy courts are therefore without the authority to extend the deadline and allow an untimely filed proof of claim over an objection, under legal and equitable grounds, and even absent proper notice of the bankruptcy filing or the bar date for filing proofs of claims. . . . First Tennessee’s constitutional argument is blunted by the fact that, while disadvantaged by the disallowance of its claim, it is by no means totally prejudiced. Because First Tennessee’s debt was not scheduled and was therefore not ‘provided for’ in the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan, its claim will not be discharged.”); In re Bennett, 278 B.R. 764, 766 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001) (Citing Gardenhire v. IRS (In re Gardenhire), 209 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2000), and declining to follow IRS v. Hildebrand, 245 B.R. 287 (M.D. Tenn. 2000), appeal dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 248 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2001), untimely filed claim of an unscheduled creditor is disallowed by § 502(b)(9); court expresses no opinion with respect to discharge of the disallowed claim. “In contrast to Chapter 7, if a creditor is untimely in filing his claim under Chapter 13, but is allowed at some later date to participate in the Trustee’s monthly distribution to creditors, the Trustee will never know how much he can distribute to any creditor at any particular time, and the feasibility of the entire plan as well as its confirmation may be seriously questioned when a late-filed claim is allowed that was not previously anticipated by the Trustee or other creditors. The absence of a bright line claims bar date in Chapter 13 could well create havoc in the system. . . . [T]his Court is only disallowing the Medical Authority’s claim . . . . It is not here passing on such matters as whether . . . the debt to the Medical Authority is discharged.”); In re Brogden, 274 B.R. 287, 289–93 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001) (Untimely filed claim of IRS is disallowed notwithstanding that debt was not scheduled and IRS lacked timely notice of the Chapter 13 case. “Section 502(b)(9) and Bankruptcy Rules 3002(c) and 9006(b)(3) are a comprehensive, unambiguous scheme that disallows untimely filed claims in Chapter 13 cases. . . . [T]he Code and Rules make no exception to the 180-day timeliness deadline when faulty notice or other circumstances disable a governmental creditor to file a timely claim. . . . [T]here is no resort to equitable exceptions. ‘Fundamental fairness’ is not implicated because the Bankruptcy Code otherwise preserves the IRS’s collection rights against the debtor.”); In re Herndon, 188 B.R. 562, 565 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1995) (Untimely filed priority claim of IRS is not allowable but not discharged because not provided for and not adequately noticed. “A claim for a prepetition unsecured tax debt must be filed within 90 days following the last day of the first meeting of creditors. . . . The IRS claim, although accorded priority in payment under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7), is an unsecured claim. Since the IRS claim was not dealt with by the second amended plan confirmed by the court and the IRS did not receive notice in time to file a claim and participate in the debtors’ plan, the IRS claim remains fully collectible after the chapter 13 case is concluded. . . . Meanwhile, the plan is binding on the IRS. . . . Due Process concerns are not implicated; the right of the IRS to collect its claim is simply abated until the plan payments are completed.”); In re Tipton, 118 B.R. 12 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1990).

 

29  See IRS v. Century Boat Co. (In re Century Boat Co.), 986 F.2d 154 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cardinal Mine Supply, Inc., 916 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1990); In re Zimmerman, 156 B.R. 192 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993).

 

30  See § 133.1  General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . ., § 133.2  Unscheduled Creditors before BAPCPA and § 133.3  Unscheduled Creditors after BAPCPA. See, e.g., In re Unroe, 937 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1991) (Although IRS claim for 1983 taxes is untimely under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) and is not rescued by Bankruptcy Rule 7015, the bankruptcy court has broad equitable powers to permit a late-filed claim as an amendment to a timely filed proof of claim. IRS offered no explanation for its late filing, and the debtor did nothing to merit disfavor, but it was not an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to allow the untimely claim for 1983 taxes when the debtor’s plan included provision for payment of 1982 and 1983 taxes, the debtor had scheduled liabilities for 1982 and 1983 taxes, and neither the debtor nor the creditors were “unfairly surprised” by the IRS’s untimely claim for 1983 taxes. Result may be different if the late claim was unscheduled or exceeded the amount anticipated by the debtor or the plan.); In re Vaughn, 151 B.R. 87 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1993) (Where the IRS was not listed but the matrix was amended to include the IRS after the bar date for the filing of proofs of claim, “statutory due process” entitles the government to relief, notwithstanding the bar to late filing of claims in Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c). Accordingly, the IRS is permitted to file a proof of claim after the bar date, and the claim will be deemed timely filed.); Avery v. United States, 134 B.R. 447, 448 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1991) (“In the exercise of its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a),” court allows the IRS to file a “late proof of claim.” IRS was scheduled and listed on the mailing matrix, but “for some reason not reflected in the record, the computer generated notice to creditors did not include the IRS.” Confirmed plan called for full payment of IRS, but IRS did not know to file a timely proof of claim. IRS is bound by confirmed plan and stayed during the life of the plan, but the claim will not be discharged. Allowing a late-filed claim notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 3002 permits the IRS to receive what the debtor intended to pay and avoids dealing with the IRS’s nondischargeable claim after completion of payments to other creditors.).

 

31  See, e.g., Thomas v. United States (In re Thomas), 223 Fed. Appx. 310 (5th Cir. 2007) (Debtors who agreed to order allowing IRS’s late claim could not appeal that judgment.); In re Miranda, 269 B.R. 737, 740–42 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2001) (Unscheduled creditor’s motion to allow late-filing of proof of claim is denied without prejudice; if filed, in the absence of objection, tardy claim would be allowed and could be paid through confirmed plan. “The Court has no authority under the Bankruptcy Code or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to extend the deadline for filing a proof of claim in a chapter 13 case. . . . On the other hand, the Court has no authority to prohibit a tardy creditor from filing a proof of claim. And, under the statute, whether the claim was filed timely or late, it is allowed unless a party in interest (usually the trustee) objects to the claim. . . . There is no explicit prohibition in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or in chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code against payment of tardy claims through a chapter 13 plan. . . . Since late-filed claims are ‘allowed’ unless objection is made, if the plan [provides for payment of allowed claims] it would constitute authority to pay Chase’s claim, albeit late-filed, unless and until someone objects. The trustee might have a duty to object to the claim. . . . Under some facts, allowance of the claim might not matter. For example, if the plan provided for no distributions to unsecured creditors . . . the issue would be moot. Or, distributions to unsecured creditors might not yet have begun, and therefore Chase might be entitled to payment under chapter 7. Or, the plan might provide for 100% payment to unsecured creditors. . . . If no ‘purpose would be served,’ the chapter 13 trustee need not object to Chase’s claim.”); In re Moore, 247 B.R. 677, 686–87 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2000) (Unscheduled claim can be allowed and the creditor can participate in distributions under the confirmed plan if a tardy claim is filed to which no objections are asserted. “[A] claim need not be timely in order to be allowed . . . . Put simply, a proof of claim, even if tardy, is still deemed to be allowed unless and until a party in interest objects to its timeliness. . . . [A]n omitted creditor in an already confirmed plan may still be able to be included in the plan (i.e., receive a distribution and be subject to the Section 1328 discharge) by doing nothing more than filing a late proof of claim. . . . Of course, any party in interest may object to the timeliness of the late claim. . . . Creditors with already-allowed claims could also object to the late filed claim of the omitted creditor. . . . Creditors with already-allowed claims therefore should be notified of any late filed claim which neither the Chapter 13 trustee nor the debtor intends to challenge as untimely. An objection by either the Chapter 13 trustee or an existing creditor would always block an omitted creditor’s attempt to be ‘added’ to a plan through the filing of a late proof of claim.”).

 

32  See §§ 285.1 [ Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims ] § 134.1  Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims before 2005 and 286.1 [ Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors ] § 134.3  Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors.

 

33  See §§ 284.1 [ Amended Claims ] § 133.4  Amended Claims, 285.1 [ Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims ] § 134.1  Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims before 2005 and 286.1 [ Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors ] § 134.3  Strategic Considerations: When to File Claims for Creditors.

 

34  See, e.g., Tepper v. Burnham (In re Tepper), 279 B.R. 859 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002) (Proofs of claim filed by the debtor on behalf of a taxing authority four years after the petition are untimely but are allowed and presumptively valid in the amount stated by the debtor because no objection or superseding claim was filed by the taxing authority.); In re Kelley, 259 B.R. 580, 584 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001) (Mortgage holder’s preemptive motion to allow late-filed proof of claim is denied, and creditor is bound by confirmed plan that pays the amount stated in the proof of claim filed by the debtor for the mortgage holder. Regions Bank had deed of trust on homestead. Regions had notice of the Chapter 13 case, notice of the claims bar date and notice of plan that proposed to pay Regions $43,345 with 9% interest over 60 months. Regions did not file a timely proof of claim and did not timely object to confirmation. The debtor filed a claim on behalf of Regions in the amount proposed under the plan. Two months later Regions filed a claim in the amount of $69,499.80 together with a motion seeking allowance of the late-filed claim. “[T]here is no safe harbor under Rule 3002(c) into which this movant can retreat and escape the consequences of its failure to file a claim on a timely basis.”); In re Jones, 238 B.R. 338 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1999) (IRS’s untimely filed proof of claim cannot be an amendment of nor can it supersede the proof of claim filed on behalf of the IRS by the debtor. IRS failed to timely file any proof of claim. Debtors filed a claim on behalf of the IRS under Bankruptcy Rule 3004, but only for the secured portion of the tax debt. IRS then filed untimely proof of claim asserting a larger secured claim and adding priority and general unsecured claims. The debtors objected. IRS’s untimely proof of claim could not amend the debtors’ claim. IRS’s lien rights are limited by the confirmed plan and the proof of claim filed by the debtors, and its priority and general unsecured claims will be discharged without payment if the debtor completes payments under the plan.); In re Sarkese, 189 B.R. 531, 535 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) (“A debtor who is liable to a secured creditor may file a proof of claim if a creditor does not timely file a proof of claim of such creditor’s claim. See 11 U.S.C. § 501 (1994). A proof of claim filed under section 501 of the Bankruptcy Code is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest objects. See 11 U.S.C. § 502 (1994). Further, Rule 3001(f) . . . provides that, ‘[a] proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of validity and amount of the secured claim.’ Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). . . . [D]ebtors filed a proof of claim . . . which provided that McWilliams had a secured claim valued at $38,364.00. . . . McWilliams was mailed a copy of the notice of the proof of claim. . . . McWilliams did not object to [the] proof of claim filed by debtors. Therefore, the Court finds the proof of claim filed by debtors valuing McWilliams’ secured claim at $38,364.00 to be valid.” Debtor’s proposal to pay $38,364 was confirmed over creditor’s objection that the debtors really owed $62,000.); In re Hamilton, 179 B.R. 749, 756 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995) (One consequence of the failure of a student loan creditor to timely file a proof of claim is that the creditor is stuck with the amount in a debtor’s proof of claim filed on behalf of the creditor under Bankruptcy Rule 3004. The claims bar date was August 1. The Department of Education failed to file a proof of claim. On August 23, the debtor filed a claim on behalf of the Department. The clerk sent the Department notice of the debtor’s claim. The Department responded with a motion to allow a late-filed claim in an amount different from that stated by the debtor. The Department’s motion was denied because no timely proof of claim could be filed by the Department to supersede the debtor’s claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3004. “In sum, non-filing creditors must accept the treatment provided for their claims by the debtor’s plan unless the creditor was not given proper notice. A non-filing creditor with notice does not lose any rights in bankruptcy where a debtor files a proof of claim on its behalf. Such a creditor does not obtain a right to file an otherwise untimely claim simply because the debtor has provided for the creditor by filing a claim for the creditor in an amount which the creditor contests. The effect of a failure to file a proof of claim is that a creditor’s debt, with notice, may be discharged under the terms provided for by the debtor. The question of whether the debt is discharged is unrelated to the claims allowance process. The ability of a debtor to file a proof of claim for a creditor is merely an accommodation to the debtor. A debtor is under no obligation to file a claim on a creditor’s behalf. Assuming proper notice, the non-filing creditor would be barred from participating in the bankruptcy case and would have to be satisfied with whatever payment the debtor provided unless the creditor could evoke the provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules which allow a late filed proof of claim. To the extent that the [United States v. Kolstad (In re Kolstad), 928 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1991),] court was concerned with equity, the above cited authority shows that the Court is limited in its ability to allow late proofs of claim on equitable grounds. This Court declines to adopt the rationale proposed by Kolstad, and concludes instead that the only option is to analyze Movant’s motion as a motion to allow a late filed claim. For the reasons stated here, that motion must be denied.”).

 

35  See §§ 272.1 [ Official Bankruptcy Form 10 and Variations ] § 131.1  Official Bankruptcy Form 410 and Variations and 507.1 [ New Official Form 10 ] § 131.2  Official Form 410 after BAPCPA. See also §§ 278.1 [ Partially Secured Claims ] § 132.5  Partially Secured Claims and 284.1 [ Amended Claims ] § 133.4  Amended Claims.

 

36  See discussion beginning at § 75.1  In General: Modification Without § 506.

 

37  See §§ 282.1 [ General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . . ] § 133.1  General Rules: No Enlargement or Exceptions, Except . . . and 284.1 [ Amended Claims ] § 133.4  Amended Claims.

 

38  See §§ 278.1 [ Partially Secured Claims ] § 132.5  Partially Secured Claims and 284.1 [ Amended Claims ] § 133.4  Amended Claims.

 

39  See §§ 278.1 [ Partially Secured Claims ] § 132.5  Partially Secured Claims and 284.1 [ Amended Claims ] § 133.4  Amended Claims. See, e.g., In re Brooks, 370 B.R. 194 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2007) (Perkins) (Proof of claim by undersecured creditor for deficiency after postpetition sale of collateral was untimely; deficiency was prepetition claim, and stay relief motion was not an informal proof of claim.). Compare In re Steve, No. 06-16453PM, 2007 WL 1810713 (Bankr. D. Md. June 20, 2007) (unpublished) (Mannes) (When Wells Fargo failed to file timely proof of claim for deficiency after repossession of vehicle, court estimated claim of co-obligor and allowed co-obligor one half of estimated amount.).

 

40  See §§ 346.1 [ Student Loans ] § 158.2  Student Loans and 553.1 [ Student Loans: § 523(a)(8) ] § 159.6  Student Loans: § 523(a)(8).