474 B.R. 310
Bankr. D. Me.2012Background
- Chapter 13 debtors Perron object to Arch Bay's mortgage claim, currently $248,208.71, on residence.
- Perron contend Arch Bay has not proven entitlement and that the amount is inflated.
- Arch Bay filed initial claim of $281,837.33, amended to $248,833.29, then second amended to $248,208.71.
- Final hearing occurred with Perron presentation absent independent evidence; Arch Bay relied on second amended claim.
- Plan payments have historically been to Arch Bay, and Arch Bay representations about its enforceability were not contradicted at hearing.
- Court concludes Perrons conceded Arch Bay’s standing, second amended proof carries evidentiary weight, and the claim is proven for the stated amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Arch Bay hold the claim? | Perrons challenge Arch Bay's right to enforce the note/mortgage. | Arch Bay has contractual standing and ratified enforcement rights. | Yes; Arch Bay has standing to press its claim. |
| Is the second amended proof prima facie evidence of the claim amount? | Serial amendments render the claim unreliable and void of evidentiary weight. | Second amended proof complies with Rule 3001 and independently evidences the claimed amount. | Yes; second amended proof is prima facie evidence. |
| Do serial amendments negate Arch Bay's evidentiary weight requiring independent proof? | Amendments imply inaccuracies and shift burden to Arch Bay. | Amendments corrected past oversights and reduced disputed amounts without unfairness. | No; amendments do not bar evidentiary weight. |
| Are escrow arrearages tied to the modification enforceable or extinguished? | Escrow arrearages existing before January 1, 2009 were rolled into the modification principal. | Modification affects principal only and does not address escrow; arrears remain governed by mortgage terms. | Escrow issues remain governed by mortgage terms; modification does not forgive pre-modification escrow arrears. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hemingway Transport, Inc., 993 F.2d 915 (1st Cir. 1993) (presumptive validity of proof of claim until substantial evidence.)
- In re Allegheny Intern., Inc., 954 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1992) (substantial evidence required to overcome prima facie claim.)
- In re Organogenesis Inc., 316 B.R. 574 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 2004) (requirement of evidence supporting claimed rights; Rule 3001 considerations.)
- In re Pan, 209 B.R. 152 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 1997) (objector must produce evidence equal in force to prima facie case.)
- In re Spenlinhauer, 261 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2001) (standing concepts and proof burdens in contested matters.)
- In re Burkett, 329 B.R. 820 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 2005) (procedural considerations in amendments to proofs of claim.)
- In re Long, 353 B.R. 1 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass. 2006) (unrebutted proof must evidence lawful entitlement.)
- In re Poor, 219 B.R. 332 (Bkrtcy.D.Me. 1998) (default-like entitlement analysis for claims.)