In re Cluff
| Decision Date | 23 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-39152.,No. 03-32779.,03-32779.,03-39152. |
| Citation | 313 B.R. 323 |
| Parties | In re James Craig CLUFF and Kathleen Clark Cluff, Debtors. In re Tomas Medina, Debtor. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Utah |
Stephen Dourgherty, Anderson and Kerrenberg, Salt Lake City, for eCast Settlement Corporation and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Creditor.
Daniel R. Robison, St. George, for James and Kathleen Cluff.
C. Val Morley, Pleasant Grove, for Nebo Credit Union.
Kevin R. Anderson, Salt Lake City, UT, Chapter 13 Trustee.
The Debtors in these claims objections proceedings (collectively the "Debtors") ask the Court to establish a bright line test to disallow unsecured claims because of a creditor's failure to attach to the claim the writing upon which the claim is based. The Debtors' do not object to the claims because they assert the amounts are not owed; instead they argue that the documentation attached to the claims, if any, does not fulfill the requirements of Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(c) and therefore the claims should be disallowed. Because of the basis upon which the Debtors' object to the claims, this Court is not able to rule on the actual allowance or disallowance of the claims, and the Debtors' attorney has admitted that such a determination may be premature. Instead, the Debtors' objections lead the Court's analysis into the realm of burdens of proof and evidentiary presumption in the claims allowance process. But in the end, the Court declines the Debtors' invitation to establish a rule that disallows creditors' claims solely for insufficiency of documentation, and instead requires the Debtors to also present evidence that rebuts the merits of the creditors' claims. The Court concludes, therefore, that the Debtors have failed to present sufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof to the creditors to prove their claims against the estates, and as a result all the claims objections based upon the creditors' failure to attach documentation are overruled.
For ease of understanding the context of each objection, the undisputed evidence received consisting of the information listed in the Debtors' schedules and the creditors' claims are set forth in table form below. In the Cluffs' case, all of the claims were originally listed as undisputed, liquidated, and non-contingent, but subsequently amended to disputed after the objecting parties pointed out that fact in their briefs. In the Medina case, all claims remain listed as undisputed, liquidated, and non-contingent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kirkland
...does not admit the validity of the Claim nor that supporting documentation is unlikely to exist. C. Objections by Debtors 1. In re Cluff43 In Cluff, debtors in several Chapter 13 cases filed objections to pertain of their unsecured claims. The claims at issue were listed as undisputed in th......
-
In re Eads
...a verified complaint and have an independent evidentiary effect in a hearing on an objection to the claim. See, e.g., In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323, 340-43 (Bankr.D.Utah 2004); Garner v. Shier (In re Garner), 246 B.R. 617, 622 (9th Cir. BAP 2000). The claimant will prevail unless the objecting ......
-
Alan Nisselson, for Transmar Commodity Grp., Ltd. v. Bank of the W. (In re Cocoa Servs., L.L.C.)
...Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3003.02 at 3003-3—3003-4 (15th ed. rev. 2001)), aff'd, 352 F.3d 1062 (6th Cir. 2003). See also In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323, 340 (Bankr. D. Utah 2004), aff'd sub nom. Cluff v. eCast Settlement, No. 2:04-CV-978, 2006 WL 2820005 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2006) (stating that a "f......
-
In re Greater Southeast Community Hosp. Corp. I
...proof of the claims' existence. "Proofs of claim are more than mere pleadings or allegations — they are some evidence." In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323, 340 (Bankr.D.Utah 2004); accord In re Dove-Nation, 318 B.R. 147, 152 (8th BAP 2004); see also In re McGee, 258 B.R. 139, 147 (Bankr.D.Md.2001) (......