In re Crutchfield

• Decision Date: 26 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–51855–JDW.,12–51855–JDW.
• Citation: 492 B.R. 60
• Parties: In re Lucius Rodney CRUTCHFIELD, Debtor.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Georgia

492 B.R. 60

In re Lucius Rodney CRUTCHFIELD, Debtor.

No. 12–51855–JDW.

United States Bankruptcy Court,

M.D. Georgia,

Macon Division.

April 26, 2013.

G. McGregor Jordan, Jr., Macon, GA, for Debtor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES D. WALKER, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Debtor's objections to claims. This is a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). After considering the pleadings, the evidence, and the applicable authorities, the Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in conformance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

Findings of Fact

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 case on July 11, 2012. On Schedule F, Debtor listed unsecured debts in the total amount of $100,448. Proofs of claim for unsecured debts have been filed in the total amount of $100,974.96. Debtor's Chapter 13 plan proposed a 100 percent distribution to unsecured creditors and was confirmed on December 3, 2012.

Just prior to confirmation, on November 28, 2012, Debtor filed objections to seven proofs of claim—claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15—requesting that they be disallowed in full. In each case, the claimant purports to be an assignee of the original creditor. The proofs of claim at issue were filed between September 6, 2012, and November 12, 2012, and they represent claims in the amount of $49,482.77, or 49 percent of unsecured claims.

In each claim objection, Debtor made the following contentions:

1. Creditor's claim is not enforceable against Debtor under Georgia Law;

2. Debtor does not owe any money to Creditor;

3. Creditor is not the real party in interest to enforce the claim;

4. The documentation attached to Creditor's Proof of Claim does not comply with Rule 3001 and Official Form 10[.]

(Objection to Claim, docket nos. 22–28.) Debtor also filed interrogatories and requests for production as to each claim, which sought information and documents relating to the chain of assignment for the claims. Debtor received no responses to the discovery requests from any claimants.

The Court held a hearing on the claim objections on February 11, 2013. Debtor's counsel appeared at the hearing, but no representatives appeared for any of the claimants. During the hearing, the Court accepted Debtor's stipulated testimony that he never made any agreement with any of the entities who filed the proofs of claim; he never received any notice of assignment of the claims; he never received any correspondence or other communications from the assignees; he has never heard of the assignees; and he has no knowledge that he owes money to the assignees. As to each claim, Debtor scheduled a corresponding debt to the original creditor in an amount approximate to the amount of the claim. At no time have the claimants responded in any way to Debtor's objections.

The claims at issue in this case are as follows:

Claim 8

• Name of creditor: Quantum3 Group LLC as agent for MOMA Funding LLC

• Amount of claim: $814.67

• Last four digits of account number: 7598

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: GE Money Bank

• Attachments: Account Summary with GE Money Bank named as the original creditor and assignor; MOMA Funding LLC named as the current creditor; LR Crutchfield named as the account holder; partially redacted account number of 7598; partially redacted social security number of the account holder; open date of 2/28/2005; last payment date of 5/4/2012; last payment amount of $97; and charge-off date of 8/13/2012.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: PayPal–GE Capital Retail Bank; no account number given; $763.00.

Claim 9

• Name of creditor: Back Bowl I LLC, Series C

• Amount of claim: $14,953.13

• Last four digits of account number: 0057

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: no information provided

• Attachments: Account summary with debtor's name, partially redacted social security number, balance of account, open date of January 17, 1996, last payment date of June 1, 2012, last payment amount of $897.21, last purchase date of December 29, 2011, and CitiBank named as the issuer.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Citi Card, account number 0057, $15,712.00

Claim 10

• Name of creditor: Back Bowl I LLC, Series C

• Amount of claim: $573.54

• Last four digits of account number: 8467

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: no information provided

• Attachments: Account summary with debtor's name, partially redacted social security number, balance of account, open date of June 1, 1994, last payment date of May 7, 2012, last payment amount of $75, last purchase date of May 28, 2012, and CitiBank named as the issuer.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Citi Card, account number 8467, $494.00

Claim 11

• Name of creditor: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, successor in interest to Capital One, NA by PRA Receivables Management, LLC, agent

• Amount of claim: $18,580.40

• Last four digits of account number: 8224

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: Capital One, NA

• Attachments: (1) Account summary with debtor's name; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC listed as account owner; Capital One, NA listed as original creditor; Capital One, NA listed as seller of account; redacted account number of 8224; date of loan as July 11, 2003; last payment date of May 18, 2012; charge off date of August 9, 2012; and account balance; (2) Limited power of attorney designating PRA Receivables as attorney in fact for Portfolio Recovery Associates for purposes of filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy court; (3) Bill of sale dated September 21, 2012 recognizing the sale of “Accounts identified in the Sale File” from Capital One Bank to Portfolio Recovery Associates; signed by John H. Maurer, vice president of Capital One Bank.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Capital One, account number 8224, $18,246.

Claim 12

• Name of creditor: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, successor in interest to Citibank, NA (Sears Gold Mastercard) by PRA Receivables Management, LLC, agent

• Amount of claim: $5,871.28

• Last four digits of account number: 7924

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: Sears Gold Mastercard

• Attachments: (1) Account summary with debtor's name; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC listed as account owner; Sears Gold Mastercard listed as original creditor; Citibank, NA listed as seller of account; date of loan as June 1, 1993; last payment date as May 11, 2012; charge off date as August 15, 2012; and account balance; (2) Limited power of attorney designating PRA Receivables as attorney in fact for Portfolio Recovery Associates for purposes of filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy court; (3) Bill of sale and assignment dated September 27, 2012, recognizing the sale of “the Accounts described in Exhibit 1 and the final electronic file” from Citibank (NA) to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; signed by Patricia Hall, financial account manager for Citibank.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Sears Card, account number 7924, $5,717.

Claim 13

• Name of creditor: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, successor in interest to Chase Bank USA by PRA Receivables Management, LLC, agent

• Amount of claim: $2,246.67

• Last four digits of account number: 0899

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: Chase Bank USA, NA

• Attachments: (1) Account summary with debtor's name; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC listed as account owner; Chase Bank USA, NA listed as original creditor; Chase Bank USA, NA listed as seller of account; date of loan as June 16, 2002; last payment date as May 23, 2012; charge off date as September 11, 2012; and account balance; (2) Limited power of attorney designating PRA Receivables as attorney in fact for Portfolio Recovery Associates for purposes of filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy court; (3) Bill of sale dated October 25, 2012, recognizing the sale of “those certain receivables, judgments or evidences of debt described in the Final Data File” from Chase Bank USA, NA to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; signed by Ericka Long, team leader for Chase Bank USA and by an authorized officer of Portfolio Recovery Associates, whose name is not given and whose signature is illegible.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Chase, account number 0899, $2,182

Claim 15

• Name of creditor: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, successor in interest to Chase Bank USA by PRA Receivables Management, LLC, agent

• Amount of claim: $6,443.08

• Last four digits of account number: 8278

• Debtor may have scheduled account as: Chase Bank USA, NA

• Attachments: (1) Account summary with debtor's name; Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC listed as account owner; Chase Bank USA, NA listed as original creditor; Chase Bank USA, NA listed as seller of account; date of loan as January 13, 1997; last payment date as May 18, 2012; charge off date as September 11, 2012; and account balance; (2) Limited power of attorney designating PRA Receivables as attorney in fact for Portfolio Recovery Associates for purposes of filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy court; (3) Bill of sale dated October 25, 2012, recognizing the sale of “those certain receivables, judgments or evidences of debt described in the Final Data File” from Chase Bank USA, NA to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; signed by Ericka Long, team leader for Chase Bank USA and by an authorized officer of Portfolio Recovery Associates, whose name is not given and whose signature is illegible; (4) copy of June 2012 account statement.

• Corresponding debt on Schedule F: Chase, account number 8278, $6,257.00

Conclusions of Law

At issue in this case is whether the claims identified by Debtor should be disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) as unenforceable under Georgia law due to failure to produce a document showing assignment of the claim to the claimant. The Court concludes the challenged proofs of claim are sufficient to create prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claims and that Debtor has failed to provide any evidence sufficient to refute...