Spokane Lefcu v. Marcella Barker
839 F.3d 1189
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Debtor Marcella Barker filed Chapter 13 on Sept 6, 2012; notice set the proof-of-claim deadline for creditors at Jan 8, 2013.
- Barker timely filed schedules listing Spokane Law Enforcement Federal Credit Union (Credit Union) as both a secured and unsecured creditor.
- The Credit Union received the case notice and multiple subsequent notices and confirmations of amended plans.
- The Credit Union filed three proofs of claim on May 30, 2013 — after the Jan 8 deadline.
- The bankruptcy court disallowed the late claims; the BAP affirmed; Credit Union appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the claims were untimely and whether Barker’s schedules could substitute for timely proofs of claim (formal, informal, or debtor-filed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Credit Union) | Defendant's Argument (Barker / Trustee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether creditor’s untimely proofs of claim must be disallowed | Late filing excused because debtor scheduled the debt; schedules operate as admission or informal proof | Creditor still required to file timely proof of claim under Rule 3002; schedules insufficient | Held: Claims disallowed as untimely; schedules do not relieve filing duty |
| Whether debtor’s schedule is a judicial admission binding the debtor and sufficient to allow claim | Schedules are admissions that obligate debtor to pay listed debts, so claim should be allowed | Even if a judicial admission, it does not satisfy creditor’s affirmative duty to file a claim | Held: Even if schedules were judicial admissions, they cannot replace creditor’s filing obligation |
| Whether debtor’s schedules constitute an informal proof of claim | Schedules should suffice as an informal claim because they identify the debt | Informal-proof doctrine requires an explicit demand and creditor’s intent to hold debtor liable; schedules lack creditor action | Held: Schedules do not meet requirements for an informal proof of claim |
| Whether debtor’s schedules constitute a debtor-filed proof of claim under Rule 3004 | Schedules filed after the 30-day window and do not show the required additional affirmative showing by debtor | Rule 3004 requires a separate filing within 30 days after claim deadline to assert unfiled creditor claims | Held: Schedules are not a debtor’s proof of claim; Rule 3004 not satisfied |
| Whether equitable relief can extend the filing deadline | Equity should permit allowance to avoid harsh result to creditor | Ninth Circuit precedent bars equitable enlargement of the Chapter 13 claims deadline | Held: Equity cannot retroactively extend the strict Chapter 13 deadline; claims may not be allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Blendheim, 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2015) (Chapter 13 claim allowance and lien principles; timely proofs required to participate in plan)
- Gardenhire v. IRS (In re Gardenhire), 209 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court lacks equitable power to enlarge Chapter 13 proof-of-claim deadline)
- IRS v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996) (timeliness of proofs of claim reviewed de novo; strict deadlines)
- Sambo’s Rests., Inc. v. Wheeler (In re Sambo’s Rests., Inc.), 754 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1985) (two-prong test for informal proof of claim: explicit demand and creditor intent)
- Sullivan v. Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., Inc. (In re Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., Inc.), 963 F.2d 1146 (9th Cir. 1992) (examples of informal proofs include correspondence showing intent to assert claim)
- Bowden v. Structured Invs. Co. (In re Bowden), 315 B.R. 903 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004) (schedules alone insufficient to establish informal proof of claim)
- Varela v. Dynamic Brokers, Inc. (In re Dynamic Brokers, Inc.), 293 B.R. 489 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (contrasting Chapter 11 rules where scheduled but undisputed claims may not need proofs)
- Perry v. Certificate Holders of Thrift Sav., 320 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1963) (schedules are not substitutes for proofs of claim)