Gary T. Stewart, 22-10064

Gary T. Stewart filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2022, listing Americredit Financial Services as an unsecured creditor related to a vehicle.
Americredit timely filed a proof of claim for $13,228.47, accompanied by documentation of the debt.
Stewart’s repayment plan was confirmed in May 2022, and Americredit began receiving payments as an unsecured creditor; no timely objection was raised to their claim.
The Trustee filed notices and reports indicating intent to pay the claim, each providing Stewart opportunities to object, but none were filed until October 2024.
In October 2024, nearly three years after the claim was filed and with only two plan payments left, Stewart objected to Americredit’s claim, arguing procedural defects under Ohio repo law.
After hearings and briefing, the Court addressed whether such late objections are allowable and what standard (if any) governs timing.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Timeliness of Post-Confirmation Objection to Claim	Stewart claimed no statutory deadline exists for objecting to claims; debtor can object until discharge.	Trustee asserted the delay was unexcused and prejudicial; laches should apply due to Debtor's failure to object despite multiple notices.	Laches bars the objection; objection overruled due to lack of diligence and prejudice caused by delay.
Responsibility to Object to Claims	Stewart argued trustee is primarily responsible for objecting to unmerited claims.	Trustee maintained that the debtor shares responsibility for raising timely objections and protecting their rights.	Court found debtor must act diligently to protect their interests; primary duty not on trustee.
Effect of Notices and Reports from Trustee	Stewart did not object after being served multiple notices and reports listing the claim.	Trustee argued these notices gave adequate opportunity for objection and thus delay was unreasonable.	Court agreed the notices provided clear opportunities; debtor’s failure to respond contributed to untimeliness.
Remedy or Relief if Objection Succeeds	Stewart suggested Americredit could be compelled to refund already disbursed funds.	Trustee objected to retrospective relief, as funds had been paid in good faith reliance on the plan.	Court declined to order any disgorgement; late objection cannot unwind completed payments.

Nartron Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 305 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2002) (defining laches as negligent and unintentional failure to protect one’s rights; identifying required showings for laches)
Adair v. Sherman, 230 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that post-confirmation objections to proofs of claim are generally barred as collateral attacks)
Simmons v. Savell (In re Simmons), 765 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1985) (plan confirmation bars later objections to proofs of claim)