584 B.R. 79
Bankr. S.D. Florida2018Background
- Stonebrook II HOA filed a Motion to Allow Late Claim (Claim No. 3), asserting it did not receive timely notice of the chapter 13 claims bar date.
- Debtor did not oppose allowance of Stonebrook's late claim.
- Chapter 13 Trustee Nancy Neidich objected, arguing lack of notice is not a basis to allow a late proof of claim under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c).
- The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether Stonebrook actually lacked notice because Rule 3002(c) at the time did not list lack of notice as an exception to the chapter 13 bar date.
- The Court concluded it lacked authority to judicially create a lack-of-notice exception and denied the Motion; the claim was disallowed without prejudice to Stonebrook asserting nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) if the debtor later obtains a discharge.
- The Court noted the 2017 amendment to Rule 3002(c)(6) (which added an insufficient-notice exception) was not in effect when the debtor filed, so it did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insufficient notice can justify allowing a late proof of claim in chapter 13 | Stonebrook: lack of notice prevented timely filing; claim should be allowed | Trustee: Rule 3002(c) lists exclusive exceptions; lack of notice is not one, so late claim cannot be allowed | Denied — insufficient notice alone is not a basis to extend filing time under Rule 3002(c) as in effect at filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardenhire v. United States Internal Revenue Service, 209 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2000) (rejecting equitable tolling for governmental units' proof-of-claim deadline)
- In re Greenig, 152 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 1998) (treating Rule 3002(c) deadline as absolute absent listed exceptions)
- In re Edelman, 237 B.R. 146 (9th Cir. BAP 1999) (no equitable or §105 authority to create exceptions to Rule 3002(c))