592 B.R. 812
Bankr. E.D. Pa.2018Background
- Debtor filed pro se for chapter 13 on Jan. 31, 2018; claims bar date set for Apr. 11, 2018. Debtor later retained counsel who filed schedules Feb. 13, 2018 listing Chicago Title on Schedule E/F.
- Debtor’s initial handwritten Matrix (list of creditors) filed with the petition listed only three creditors and did not include Chicago Title; the Matrix was never amended to add Chicago Title.
- Notices (including the §341 notice) were mailed by the BNC to addresses on the Matrix and therefore were not sent to Chicago Title before the bar date.
- Chicago Title learned of the bankruptcy only after a suggestion of bankruptcy was filed in a related district-court case on May 21, 2018 (after the bar date), and then filed a motion for extension and an adversary nondischargeability complaint.
- The court found the omission from the Rule 1007(a) list (the Matrix) caused the lack of notice and, under the Dec. 1, 2017 amendment to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A), granted an extension to file a proof of claim.
Issues
| Issue | Chicago Title's Argument | Debtor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether creditor may get enlargement of time to file a proof of claim because it lacked notice due to debtor's failure to include creditor on Rule 1007 list | Omitted from Matrix; had no notice before bar date; Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) permits extension | Debtor argued Chicago Title was scheduled and thus served; matrix inclusion not required or was satisfied | Granted: omission from Rule 1007(a) list satisfied Rule 3002(c)(6)(A); extension allowed (14 days in mem., order extended to Dec. 13, 2018) |
| Whether excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9006(b)(1) can support late claim filing | Argues lack of notice is excusable neglect justifying enlargement | Debtor disputed need for relief; relied on strict bar date | Denied as basis: Rule 9006(b)(1) is inapplicable to extending Rule 3002(c) bar dates; relief only under Rule 3002(c) exceptions |
| Who bears the burden to prove lack of timely notice for relief under Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) | Movant (Chicago Title) argued it lacked notice and showed factual proof | Debtor contended scheduling sufficed; disputed factual assertions | Court held movant bears burden and Chicago Title met it by proving omission and lack of notice |
| Whether relief could also be obtained under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3003 | Chicago Title sought alternate relief under Rule 3003 | Debtor opposed; Rule 3003 inapplicable to chapter 13 | Denied: Rule 3003 does not apply in chapter 13 cases |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McLarry, 273 B.R. 753 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2002) (discussing pre-2017 strict application of Rule 3002(c))
- In re Kristiniak, 208 B.R. 132 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997) (noting nondischargeability as alternate protection when notice lacking)
- In re Brooks, 414 B.R. 65 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009) (describing chapter 13 bar date as strict and nonnegotiable under earlier practice)
- In re Lovo, 584 B.R. 79 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2018) (post-amendment decisions addressing bar-date extensions)
- In re Harris, 447 B.R. 254 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2011) (refusing equitable extension where rule did not authorize it)
- In re Tarbell, 431 B.R. 826 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2010) (same)