529 B.R. 385
Bankr. M.D. Ga.2015Background
- Debtor filed Chapter 13 on May 24, 2013 and scheduled an Applied Bank unsecured claim (~$2,191) without marking it as disputed.
- The Applied Bank claim was transferred to MOMA, which filed a general unsecured proof of claim for $2,739.93 on July 2, 2013; the claim was time‑barred under Georgia law at the petition date.
- The confirmed Chapter 13 Plan promised a 100% dividend to holders of proven and allowed unsecured claims.
- Between January and September 2014 the Chapter 13 trustee (pursuant to the Plan) paid MOMA eight disbursements totaling $546.85 before the trustee objected to the claim.
- On September 20, 2014 the trustee objected under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), asserting Georgia's statute of limitations; MOMA invoked O.C.G.A. § 9‑3‑112 (revival by payment/written acknowledgment), arguing the schedule/plan and trustee payments satisfied revival.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trustee) | Defendant's Argument (MOMA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do trustee disbursements under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan constitute "payment by the debtor" (or by debtor's agent) sufficient to revive a time‑barred debt under O.C.G.A. § 9‑3‑112? | Trustee: No — trustee represents the estate, not the debtor; payments are involuntary/estate payments and cannot revive a time‑barred prepetition claim; § 558 preserves the estate's defenses. | MOMA: Yes — trustee paid the claim on debtor's behalf as agent, so payments satisfy the statute's payment element. | Held: No — trustee is estate representative, not debtor's agent; payments were not voluntary debtor payments and postpetition acts cannot waive estate defenses under § 558. |
| Does the debtor’s scheduling of the claim (unspecified as disputed) or filing of a plan promising payment of allowed unsecured claims constitute the "written evidence or other written acknowledgment" required by O.C.G.A. § 9‑3‑112? | Trustee: No — schedules and a generic plan entry are not the absolute, unqualified written admission of present indebtedness required; schedules are filed for bankruptcy notice and do not bind the trustee or automatically revive claims. | MOMA: Yes — the debtor’s schedules (not marked disputed) and the Plan’s promise to pay allowed unsecured claims amount to written acknowledgment and an implied promise to pay. | Held: No — scheduling and the generic plan provision do not constitute the required written, communicated, unqualified acknowledgment; no evidence the schedules were communicated to creditor; postpetition filings cannot waive estate defenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Crutchfield, 492 B.R. 60 (Bankr. M.D. Ga.) (discusses burden-shifting and application of nonbankruptcy law to § 502(b)(1) objections)
- Ryal v. Morris, 68 Ga. 834 (Ga. 1882) (payments must be made by debtor or authorized agent to revive time‑barred debt)
- Cleveland Lumber Co. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (written acknowledgment must be an unqualified admission of existing indebtedness to revive a barred claim)
- U.S. v. Lorince, 773 F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (payments must be voluntary to evidence debtor's acknowledgment; trustee payments in bankruptcy generally insufficient to revive statute‑barred claims)
- In re VanCleef, 479 B.R. 809 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2012) (trustee disbursements require a filed proof of claim; creditor’s proof of claim drives trustee payments)