462 B.R. 75
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Claremont timely filed a proof of claim against FairPoint for $423,066.18, including $422,003.88 secured by a property tax lien and $1,062.30 unsecured for property damage.
- FairPoint's First Estimation Motion sought to estimate Claremont at $1,062.30 and Concord at $0, arguing equal protection issues under New Hampshire law.
- Claremont contends it did not receive notice of the First Estimation Motion; Taylor and Kravet Declarations support lack of notice and late awareness.
- Claremont filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 2, 2010, within eleven days of discovering the Order, supported by three declarations.
- The Court held a hearing and subsequently granted reconsideration, vacating the First Estimation Order as to Claremont and restoring its claim to the claims registry.
- The Court denied FairPoint’s First Estimation Motion as to Concord and Claremont and permissively abstained from adjudicating the Cities’ Tax Claims, directing state-court litigation proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claremont's motion for reconsideration should be granted | Claremont shows excusable neglect under Rule 60(b) and American Alliance. | FairPoint argues no excusable neglect due to receipt presumptions and lack of excuse. | Yes; motion granted for excusable neglect and reconsideration. |
| Whether the court should abstain from deciding the Cities’ Tax Claims | State court proceedings should determine tax claims; abstention appropriate. | Court should decide estimation now; federal jurisdiction to proceed. | Yes; the court permissively abstains from adjudicating the Tax Claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Alliance Ins. Co. v. Eagle Insurance Co., 92 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 1996) (three-factor excusable neglect test for Rule 60(b) reconsideration)
- In re Enron, Inc., 325 B.R. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (context for reconsideration under 502(j) and excusable neglect factors)
- In re JWP Info. Servs., Inc., 231 B.R. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (excusable neglect and prompt movant analysis in bankruptcy)
- In re Bozel S.A., 434 B.R. 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (application of excusable neglect standard in bankruptcy context)
- In re Cody, Inc., 281 B.R. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (permissive abstention framework and factors)
- In re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 434 B.R. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (reaffirming abstention considerations in bankruptcy proceedings)
- Verizon New England, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 156 N.H. 624 (N.H. 2007) (state equal protection tax precedent governing municipal taxation)