Opinion
Case No. 8:16-bk-00648-RCT
09-16-2016
In re Ritche Apao Baylon, Debtor.
Chapter 13 ORDER OVERRULLING OBJECTIONS TO CLAIM NOS. 6 , 7, 9, 10, 17 and 18 AND VACATING ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION TO CLAIM NO. 19
Before the Court are six identical objections to proofs of unsecured claims filed by Debtor, objecting to the respective claims solely on the basis that insufficient supporting documentation was attached to the claim and seeking the disallowance of the claims in their entirety (the "Objections to Claim"). [Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 32 and 33]. The Objections to Claim make no reference to 11 U.S.C. § 502, which governs the allowance, or disallowance, of claims. Contrary to Debtor's suggestion, a deficiency under Fed. R. Bankr. P. ("Rule(s)") 3001(c) is not, in itself, a valid basis to disallow an otherwise proper claim. See In re Brunson, 486 B.R. 759 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2013); In re Taylor, 363 B.R. 303 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2007).
Debtor scheduled each creditor's claim at or about the amounts in the proofs of claims and, critically, did not schedule any of the claims as "disputed." [Doc. No. 1]. Notwithstanding his sworn schedules attesting to the validity of the debts, Debtor now seeks to disallow the claims based solely on an alleged documentation insufficiency. Our sister bankruptcy court to the South not only overruled objections to claims on similar facts, but also sanctioned debtors' counsel. In re MacFarland, 462 B.R. 857 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011); cf. Brunson, 486 B.R. at 772 (noting that the integrity of the system would be undermined if debtors were allowed "to invoke technical grounds to defeat claims that they otherwise admit are undisputed").
Debtor filed amended schedules E/F the day after he filed the Objections to Claim. Notably, Debtor amended his schedules to conform to the proofs of claim to which he objects.
Rule 3001(c) is intended to "provide the debtor with 'fair notice of the conduct, transaction, and occurrences that form the basis of the claim.'" Taylor, 363 B.R. at 308 (quoting In re Sandifer, 318 B.R. 609, 611 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004)). Upon review of the proofs of claims, the Court finds that the documentation attached provides "itemized statements of the interest, fees, expenses, or charges," in addition to claimed principal amounts, as required by Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). Further, each claim, which is based upon a consumer credit card account, includes a statement of account that complies with the requirements of Rule 3001(c)(3)(A). Given the Debtor's own statements in the schedules, the Court finds that creditors have provided sufficient information for debtor to assess the basis of the claims. This is not a case where the creditors "fall woefully short of any pretext of attempting to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)." Taylor, 363 B.R. at 309.
The statements of accounts provide identical information to statements attached to other proofs of claim, e.g., Claim Nos. 8 and 20, to which Debtor has not objected. --------
An order sustaining a seventh similar objection to proof of claim was entered August 12, 2016. [Doc. No. 49]. That order was entered in error and shall be vacated.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Objections to Claim [Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 32 and 33] are OVERULLED, without prejudice to the filing of legally sufficient claim objections.
2. The Order Sustaining Objection to Claim No. 19 of Synchrony Bank [Doc. No. 49] is VACATED, also without prejudice to Debtor filing a legally sufficient claim objection.
ORDERED. Dated: September 16, 2016
/s/_________
Roberta A. Colton
United States Bankruptcy Judge Attorney Ted J. Starr is directed to serve a copy of this order on interested parties and file proof of service within 3 days of entry of this order.