In Re Harris
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On Jаnuary 5, 2011, William Thomas Harris, III, the debtor (“debtor”), filed an Objection to Claim (“Objection”) as docket entry 67 alleging that Sysco Arkansas, LLC (“Sysco”) filed an untimely proof of claim. Sysco responded on February 4, 2011, by filing Sysco Arkansas, LLC’s Response to Debtor’s Objection to Claim (“Response”). The court held a hearing on the Objection and Response on February 23, 2011. The parties were afforded additional time to brief the issues presented. For the reasons stated below, the debtor’s Objection is overruled.
I. Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
II. Findings of Fact
In 2009, Sysco filed a lawsuit in state court against the debtor regarding an unpaid business debt. 1 Sysco obtained a judgment against the debtor in the approximate sum of $33,000. Sysco subsequently initiated a garnishment of rental income checks that the debtor received from the tenant of his dental office. On April 8, 2010, the debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13. (Debtor’s Ex. 1.) Sysco was not listed as a creditor on the debtor’s creditor matrix. (Docket Entry 1.) On Aрril 9, 2010, the clerk of court filed a Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines (“Notice”) in the debtor’s case as docket entry 4. (Debtor’s Ex. 2.) The Notice provided a deadline or bar date of August 10, 2010, for creditors to file proofs of claims. (Debtor’s Ex. 2.) Docket entry 4-1 reflects that the Notice was not forwarded to Sys-co or any representative for Sysco.
On May 6, 2010, the debtor filed his schedules, summaries, and other documents as docket entry 8. (Debtor’s Ex. 3.) The debtor’s Schedule F-Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims listed “Sysco, c/o Paul Hickey, PO Box 26278, Little Rock, AR 72221” with a judgment in the sum of $33,000. (Debtor’s Ex. 3.) Pаul Hickey represented Sysco in the state court litigation and assisted Sysco in garnishing the debtor’s rental income pre-petition. The debtor’s schedules did not include an amended creditor matrix. 2 Instead, the schedules included a verificatiоn signed by the debtor that the “attached list of creditors is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.” (Docket Entry 8 at 31.)
After learning of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing in late September, 2010, Sysco filed its proof of claim as claim 12-1 for $37,666.57 on October 8, 2010. (Debtor’s Ex. 6.) Ben Nix, Director of Credit for Sysco, testified that neither he nor anyone at Sysco received notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing prior to September, 2010. The debtor filed his Objection to Sysco’s proof of claim on January 5, 2011, аnd Sysco filed its Response on February 4, 2011.
III. Discussion
The debtor contends that Sysco’s proof of claim was filed untimely and should be disallowed. Sysco responds that “[d]ue process and fundamental fairness require actual notice of the debtor’s bankruрtcy in time to permit creditors to file proofs of claim. Sysco was denied this opportunity[.]” (Resp. at 1.) Sysco alternatively contends that “the debtor’s failure to list Sysco in its petition and schedules in time to permit Sysco to file a proоf of claim renders the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § [] 1328(a)(2) pursuant to
A. Notice
The debtor asserts that Sysco’s proof of claim should be disallowed because the debtor properly provided notice of his bankruptcy filing to Paul Hickey, an attоrney who represented Sysco in the state court litigation involving the debtor and
“The general rule in bankruptcy cases, as well аs other types of cases, is that notice served upon counsel satisfies any requirement to give notice to the party.”
In re Griggs,
The court need not address whether Paul Hickey’s pre-petition representation of Sysco constituted a sufficient nexus for the debtor to assume that Paul Hickey was Sysco’s agent for notice in the bankruptcy case. Rather, the court finds that Sysco did not receive proper notice of the debtоr’s bankruptcy filing as the debtor neglected to include Sysco or any representative of Sysco on the debtor’s creditor matrix, which was filed with the debtor’s petition. (Docket Entry 1.)
B. Sysco’s Proof of Claim
Even though Sysco did not receive notice of the bar date, the court must cоnsider whether Sysco’s belated proof of claim should be allowed. Creditors can file proofs of claims in a bankruptcy case pursuant to
proof of such claim is not timely filed, except to the extent tardily filed as permitted under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 726(a) 3 of this title or under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, except that a claim of a governmental unit shall be timely filed if it is filedbefore 180 days after the date of the order for relief or such later time as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may provide, and except that in a case under chapter 13, a claim of a governmental unit for a tax with respect to a return filed under section 1308 shall be timely if the claim is filed on or before the date that is 60 days after the date on which such return was filed as required.
Thus,
In a chapter 7 liquidation, chapter 12 family farmer’s debt adjustment, or chаpter 13 individual’s debt adjustment case, a proof of claim is timely filed if it is filed not later than 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors called under § 341(a) of the Code, except as follows[.]
While the language contained in the Code and the Rules greatly restricts the rights of creditors who do not receive notice of a dеbtor’s bankruptcy filing, courts are split on the issue of whether a “creditor who has received no notice in a Chapter 13 case should be entitled to file a late proof of claim notwithstanding the provisions of Bankruptcy
“However, the majority of those courts [who rely on a strict interpretation] ha[ve] recognized, on separate thеories, the authority of [a] bankruptcy court to allow late claims when adequate notice of the bankruptcy proceeding is not provided to allow the filing of timely claims.”
Barnes,
Section 501 gives scant protection to a creditor who fails to file a proof of claim because it was deprived of notice ... Unlikе other Code chapters, no back door provisions under Chapter 13 otherwise allow the creditor with no notice to participate in distributions. For these reasons, a creditor who has received no notice in a Chaptеr 13 case should be entitled to file a late proof of claim notwithstanding the provisions of BankruptcyRules 3002(c) and 9006(b).
Id.
at *3 (quoting
United States v. Cole (In re Cole),
Other courts have concurred with the analysis in
Barnes
and relied on equitable grounds to permit the filing of an untimely proof of claim. In
Griggs,
the court implied that a court “mаy be empowered to invoke the Due Process Clause and grant a motion to file a proof of claim out of time in a Chapter 13 case if the creditor did not receive notice of the bar date[.]”
In
In re Rose Exterminator Co., Inc.,
the court noted that “[d]ue process demands that a creditor in a Chapter 11 case receive reasonable notice of a claims bar date before it is effective against him.”
This court adopts the more equitable approach as consistent with fundamental due process. It would be inequitable to proscribe a creditor’s right to filе a proof of claim after the bar date when a debtor’s omission of the creditor on his creditor matrix resulted in the creditor failing to receive notice of the deadline to file proofs of claims. In this case, Sysco cleаrly did not receive notice of the bar date for filing proofs of claims. As such, the debtor’s Objection is overruled, and the proof of claim filed by Sysco is allowed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the court finds that the debtor’s Objection is ovеrruled. Sysco’s proof of claim, filed as claim 12-1, is hereby allowed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Sysco Arkansas, LLC v. Starving Angler, Inc. d/b/a Hungry Fisherman and Tom Harris, Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, Case No.: CV-2009-710-III.
. In his Brief in Support of Debtor’s Objection to Claim (''Brief'), the debtor contends that he submitted a revised creditor matrix with his Chapter 13 Plan filed as docket entry 11. (Debtor’s Br. at 1; Debtor's Ex. 4.) However, the ECF docket does not reflect that the matrix, which is attached to the debtor's Brief, was filed.
. Section 726(a) permits a creditor who does not receive notice of a debtor's bankruptcy filing to file an untimely proof of claim. See
Griggs,
. In so ruling, the court granted the creditor relief in the form of