490 B.R. 642
1st Cir. BAP2013Background
- Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in Oct 2010; Municipality listed as unpaid unsecured priority tax creditor ($760.28).
- Debtor’s plan provided for priority claims including the Municipality and was confirmed May 2011.
- Bar Date Notice set deadlines; governmental bar date April 25, 2011; Municipality did not file a claim.
- Debtor filed a proof of claim on Municipality’s behalf June 7, 2011; Trustee objected as untimely under Rule 3002(c).
- Claim Order July 19, 2011 disallowed the Debtor’s claim filed on Municipality’s behalf.
- Municipality moved under Rule 60(b) (Rule 9024) on May 8, 2012 to set aside the Claim Order; bankruptcy court denied Aug 24, 2012 without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion permits review of the underlying Claim Order. | Municipality treats Rule 60(b) appeal as contesting both orders. | Trustee argues only Rule 60(b) Order is reviewable; underlying Claim Order not reviewable due to late filing. | Jurisdiction limited to Rule 60(b) Order; underlying Claim Order not reviewed. |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion shows excusable neglect or other grounds for relief. | Municipality asserts excusable neglect and equities favor reinstating the claim. | Debtor and Trustee argue no valid grounds; bar dates strict; no excusable neglect established. | No excusable neglect or other basis shown; Rule 60(b) motion denied. |
| Whether the claim filed on Municipality’s behalf was timely under § 502(b)(9) and Rule 3002(c). | Claim timely or timely under exceptions for government units. | Governmental unit bar date 180 days; Debtor’s filing untimely and disallowed; § 726 exceptions inapplicable. | Untimely filed; disallowed under § 502(b)(9) and Rule 3002; no relief from denial permitted. |
| Whether reconsideration under § 502(j) or Rule 3008 was appropriate. | Possibility of reconsideration due to equities. | No cause shown under § 502(j); equities do not justify reinstating disallowed claim. | § 502(j) does not support relief; Rule 60(b) denial stands. |
| Whether the Municipality had notice and whether Rule 60(b) proceedings were timely. | Not stated separately; focus on timely filing of Rule 60(b). | Rule 60(b) motion filed ten months after order; no tolling of appeal period for underlying order. | Appeal limited to Rule 60(b) denial; delay insufficient to warrant reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vicenty v. San Miguel Sandoval (In re San Miguel Sandoval), 327 B.R. 493 (1st Cir. BAP 2005) (strict application of Rule 3002 deadlines; late claims may be permitted only with deficient notice)
- In re Jurado, 318 B.R. 251 (Bankr.D.P.R.2004) (filing proof of claim not required by Code; late filing affects plan rights)
- Lawrence Tractor Co. v. Gregory (In re Gregory), 705 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.1983) (‘provided for’ in plan dischargeability; plan treatment matters)
- In re Shepherds Hill Dev. Co., LLC, 316 B.R. 406 (1st Cir. BAP 2004) (finality and standards for Rule 60(b) relief in bankruptcy)
- In re Power Recovery Sys., Inc. (Eck v. Dodge Chem. Co.), 950 F.2d 798 (1st Cir.1991) (excusable neglect analysis in Rule 60(b) context)
- Cintron-Lorenzo v. Dep’t de Asuntos del Consumidor, 312 F.3d 522 (1st Cir.2002) (excusable neglect factors governing Rule 60(b) relief)
- Caisse v. DuBois, 346 F.3d 213 (1st Cir.2003) (requirement of exceptional circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Back Bay Spas, Inc. v. 441 Stuart Mktg., LLC, 688 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2012) (nonraised theories cannot be raised on appeal; Rule 60(b) standards)