479 B.R. 238
Bankr. D. Mass.2012Background
- Debtor Ms. Rehman filed a chapter 13 petition on June 9, 2011 seeking to discharge unsecured debts.
- She filed an omnibus objection to 13 of 15 unsecured proofs of claim; two IRS/state tax claims were not objected to.
- Schedule F listed 18 unsecured claims totaling $69,404.96, all but three small items arising from credit card or retail debt; dentist, water/sewer, and a service contract were exceptions.
- Rehman disputed all unsecured debts on Schedule F except the dentist, purportedly due to lack of documentation.
- The objection largely claimed failure to attach documentation as required by Rule 3001(c)(1) and (e)(2)(A) and, for seven claims, lack of standing.
- eCAST Settlement Corp. opposed claims 14 and 15, noting the 2011 amendments to Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) applying only to cases filed after December 1, 2011 and that the case was filed in June 2011; the court had previously ruled the pre-amendment rule applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to attach writings or documentation justifies disallowance | Rehman claims lack of attached writings supports disallowance | Creditors argue pre-amendment Rule 3001 does not require attachments | No automatic disallowance; standing and 502(b)(1) considerations apply |
| How standing affects assignees/successors/agents proving claims | Rehman disputes standing of assignees; lists same debts on Schedule F | Assignees may prove standing with evidence of assignment; successors/agents presumed to have standing | Assignees overruled without opposition if assignment evidence exists; successors/agents may be treated differently; standing issues resolved per case law |
| Effect of judicial estoppel on claims scheduled as disputed | Debtor attempted to avoid estoppel by disputing all debts; affidavit undermines that stance | Scheduling as disputed does not bar creditor from proving claim when debtor later disputes | Judicial estoppel applied to bar objection where scheduling and subsequent affidavit show remedial inconsistency |
| Impact of pre- vs post-2011 Rule 3001 amendments on proofs of claim | Case should follow amendments applying to claims post-2011 | Amendments should not apply to this case filed before December 1, 2011 | Pre-amendment rule applied; amendments not retroactive to this case |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Gauthier, 459 B.R. 526 (Bankr.D.Mass.2011) (standing considerations for assignees; evidence of assignment may suffice)
- In re MacFarland, 462 B.R. 857 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2011) (lack of attached writings not per se grounds for disallowance; 502(b)(1) analysis cadence; estoppel considerations)
- In re Reynolds, 470 B.R. 138 (Bankr.D.Colo.2012) (estoppel and standing in claim objections; debtor’s pleading history matters)
- In re Minbatiwalla, 424 B.R. 104 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2010) (standing and validity of proofs of claim under liberal standing rules)
- Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.2005) (judicial estoppel; general principle protecting judicial process)