464 B.R. 827
Bankr. W.D. Wis.2011Background
- Debtors Clausen and Jenkins filed voluntary petitions with schedules not on Official Forms; attorney-provided forms deviated in substance and format.
- Schedule B descriptions were altered and omitted, lacking space for descriptions, locations, joint ownership, and proper value labeling.
- Schedule C and its exemptions extended beyond Official Forms, including language claiming assets exempt under multiple provisions and using Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz logic.
- Schedule E included a priority-claims paragraph not commonly used; omitted standard checkboxes for domestic support and other priority indicators.
- Statement of Financial Affairs resembled Official Form but omitted instructions and certain required disclosures, potentially altering meanings of answers.
- Trustee sought to strike nonconforming documents under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 1007(b)(1) and Rule 9009, arguing substantial compliance is insufficient and deviations hinder administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonconforming schedules should be struck | trustee argues noncompliance under Rule 1007(b)(1) and 9009 | debtors contend Official Forms lack force of law and alterations permissible | Granting of strike justified |
| Whether Official Forms have the force of law and may be altered | courts should require adherence to Official Forms despite Rule 9009 | Official Forms not law; alterations allowed when appropriate | Official Forms should be observed; alterations not appropriate in this case |
| Whether substantial compliance suffices given Rule 9009 | substantial deviations frustrate administrative process | nonconforming forms can be used if substantially compliant | Deviations not substantially compliant; strike warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Orrison, 343 B.R. 906 (N.D.Ind. 2006) (alterations that confuse administrative process warrant amendment)
- In re Mack, 132 B.R. 484 (M.D.Fla. 1991) (forms unsatisfactory in form and content)
- In re Foodsource, Inc., 130 B.R. 549 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (substitution of abrogated form not substantial compliance)
- In re Bell, 179 B.R. 129 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Wis. 1995) (entirely exempt language inappropriate for exemptions)
- In re Simmons, 237 B.R. 672 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 1999) (Official Forms not possessing force of law but generally preferred)
- In re Packham, 126 B.R. 603 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 1991) (use of AOUSC Procedural Forms encouraged but not mandatory)
- In re Thornburg, 406 B.R. 657 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Pa. 2009) (substantial compliance with Official Forms preferred; large departures disfavored)