Paul E. Vrusho, 634 B.R. 660

Debtor filed Chapter 13 on September 15, 2020; Vermont Center had a pending state-court collection action against the Debtor and his company (Granite State).
The Debtor’s schedules and Creditors Matrix listed Vermont Center as “Daniel Proctor for Vermont Center Wreaths, Inc.” and used Attorney Proctor’s PO Box address rather than Vermont Center’s business address.
The Clerk mailed the Notice of Bankruptcy (including the § 341 meeting date and the claims Bar Date) to Attorney Proctor at that address.
Attorney Proctor informed Vermont Center of the bankruptcy and offered to represent it; Vermont Center declined and did not timely file a proof of claim.
Vermont Center filed a late proof of claim on July 9, 2021, then moved under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) for leave to file nunc pro tunc; the Debtor objected.
The Court held that notice to Attorney Proctor (who represented Vermont Center in the related litigation) was reasonably related to the claim, imputed that notice to Vermont Center (and found actual notice as well), denied the extension motion, and sustained the Debtor’s objection to the tardy claim.

Issue	Vermont Center's Argument	Debtor's Argument	Held
Whether the Bar Date extension is warranted under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(6)(A) because notice was insufficient	Debtor failed to list Vermont Center’s address; mailing only to counsel left Vermont Center without reasonable notice and warrants an extension	Listing counsel gave actual notice to counsel, which should be imputed to Vermont Center because counsel represented it in the same underlying claim	Denied: notice was sufficient; motion to extend under Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) denied and tardy claim disallowed
Whether notice to counsel (Proctor) can be imputed to Vermont Center given the scope of the attorney-client relationship	Proctor’s representation was limited to the state-court litigation and post-notice any further imputation is inappropriate	Proctor had been representing Vermont Center in the same collection litigation on which the claim is based, creating a sufficient nexus to impute notice	Held: sufficient nexus existed; notice to counsel imputed to Vermont Center; Court also found counsel actually notified Vermont Center

San Miguel Sandoval v. Sandoval, 327 B.R. 493 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2005) (timely filed proof of claim required in chapter 13)
In re Wulff, 598 B.R. 459 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2019) (insufficient notice alone is not dispositive under Rule 3002(c)(6))
In re Griggs, 306 B.R. 660 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2004) (notice to prior litigation counsel can be imputed to creditor)
Irwin v. Veterans’ Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (notice served upon counsel satisfies notice to the party)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (due-process reasonableness of notice standard)
In re Schicke, 290 B.R. 792 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2003) (nexus required between attorney retention and the bankruptcy-related claim)
In re Linzer, 264 B.R. 243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2001) (prepetition counsel actively prosecuting claim may be deemed agent for notice purposes)
In re Blakely, 440 B.R. 443 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2010) (actual notice discovered pre-Bar Date precludes extension)