In re Kirkland
| Citation | 572 F.3d 838 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-2017.,08-2017. |
| Parties | In re Patricia M. KIRKLAND, Debtor. Michael J. Caplan, Trustee, Appellant, v. B-Line, LLC, Successor in interest to Next Card, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Michael K. Daniels, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.
Linh K. Tran, B-Line, LLC, Seattle, Washington, for Appellee.
Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Kirkland (the "Debtor") filed for bankruptcy, and a predecessor to the Appellee, B-Line, LLC ("B-Line") submitted a proof of claim. After the Appellant ("the Trustee") objected to the claim, the bankruptcy court sustained the objection and disallowed the claim. A divided Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") reversed the bankruptcy court's decision. We conclude that the bankruptcy court properly disallowed B-Line's claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d),1 we REVERSE the BAP's judgment and REINSTATE the bankruptcy court's order disallowing B-Line's claim.
On August 22, 2001, the Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. The Debtor's schedule of unsecured creditors included a $5,004 credit card debt associated with an account number ending with 2787. On September 25, 2001, NextBank, N.A./B-Line, LLC ("NextBank/B-Line") filed a proof of claim for a $5,328.19 credit card debt associated with an account number ending with 2787. NextBank/B-Line did not include supporting documentation.
That same day, the Debtor converted her case to Chapter 7; then she later reconverted it back to Chapter 13. The Chapter 13 trustee reported a claim by "B-Hold, LLC" for $5,328.19, the identical amount listed on NextBank/B-Line's proof of claim. After the Debtor's attempt to restructure her debt failed, she reconverted her case back to Chapter 7 on May 20, 2005. On June 22, 2006, the Trustee filed an objection to NextBank/B-Line's claim in bankruptcy court, asserting that NextBank/B-Line had failed to include supporting documentation for its proof of claim, as required under Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Soon thereafter, B-Line filed a notice indicating that the claim had been transferred to B-Line. The notice listed the value of the claim as $5328.19 and listed its source as an account number ending with 2787. B-Line did not include supporting documentation.
On November 15, 2006, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the Trustee's objection. In re Kirkland, 361 B.R. 199, 200 (Bankr.D.N.M.2007). Neither B-Line nor the Trustee presented any evidence at the hearing. Id. Pursuant to B-Line's request, however, the bankruptcy court took judicial notice of the schedules and statements the Debtor had filed with her petition. Id. Following the hearing, the court determined that B-Line had failed to meet its burden to substantiate the claim because it had failed to produce any evidence supporting it. Id. at 205. Accordingly, the Court disallowed the claim. Id. B-Line appealed to the BAP, which reversed the bankruptcy court's decision by a vote of two to one. B-Line, LLC v. Kirkland (In re Kirkland), 379 B.R. 341, 354 (B.A.P. 10th Cir.2007). The Trustee timely appeals.
"In our review of BAP decisions, we independently review the bankruptcy court decision." In re Albrecht, 233 F.3d 1258, 1260 (10th Cir.2000). Neither side has contested the bankruptcy court's factual findings. Because the issues on appeal are limited to questions of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo. Hamilton v. Lanning (In re Lanning), 545 F.3d 1269, 1274 (10th Cir.2008).
The bankruptcy court appropriately determined that because B-Line bore the burden of proof for its claim and failed to meet its burden, its claim was disallowed. See In re Kirkland, 361 B.R. at 205. The plain language of the Bankruptcy Code and its associated procedural rules support the court's ruling. The Bankruptcy Code provides that "[a] creditor . . . may file a proof of claim." 11 U.S.C. § 501(a). Because the code does not define "proof of claim," we look to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(a). The relevant form is Official Form 10, which requires a claimant to "[a]ttach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as promissory notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments, mortgages, and security agreements." Fed. R. Bankr.P. Official Form 10. Form 10 also instructs a claimant that "[i]f the documents are not available, please explain." Id. When a proof of claim is executed and filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3001 (including Official Form 10), it "constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim." Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(f).
B-Line has failed to produce a single document to support its proof of claim. B-Line has also failed to explain its failure to provide supporting documentation. Although the bankruptcy court took judicial notice of the Debtor's appended schedules of unsecured creditors, it correctly determined that the schedules were of no evidentiary value against the Trustee. Therefore, B-Line has failed to present "prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim." Id. In response to the Trustee's objection, the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing. Even then, B-Line produced no evidence in support of its claim and no explanation for its failure to do so. On this record, we conclude that the bankruptcy court appropriately disallowed B-Line's claim. Had the bankruptcy court allowed B-Line's claim despite B-Line's failure to provide either supporting evidence or an explanation for its failure to provide supporting evidence, the burden would have improperly rested with the Trustee to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Market Center East Retail Property Inc.
...it ‘constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.’ Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(f).” Caplan v. B-Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838, 840 (10th Cir.2009). Upon objection, the proof of claim provides some evidence as to its validity and amount and is strong enough t......
-
In re Vancleef
...the objecting party is the trustee, the bankruptcy schedules are not admissible as an admission against the trustee. See In re Kirkland, 572 F.3d 838, 840–41 (10th Cir.2009) (stating that debtor's schedules “were of no evidentiary value against the Trustee”); Burkett, 329 B.R. at 829 (“Of c......
-
Dill Oil Co. v. Stephens (In re Stephens), 11–6309.
...presents a question of statutory interpretation. Accordingly, we review the bankruptcy court's determination de novo. In re Kirkland, 572 F.3d 838, 840 (10th Cir.2009). “[T]he starting point is always the language of the statute itself. If the language is clear and unambiguous, the plain me......
-
First Nat'l Bank of Durango v. Woods (In re Woods)
...review the bankruptcy court's interpretation of the statute de novo.1See In re Stephens, 704 F.3d at 1283;Caplan v. B–Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838, 840 (10th Cir.2009). We begin by interpreting the phrase “arises out of” in the “family farmer” definition of 11 U.S.C. § 101(18)(A......
-
Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
...debtor's failure to object). Claims not so filed are not entitled to this presumption. See, e.g., Caplan v. B-Line, LLC (In re Kirkland), 572 F.3d 838, 840-41 (10th Cir. 2009), cited with approval in Brown v. Ameriquest Funding II, LLC (In re Brown), 431 B.R. 309, 310 & n.1 (Bankr. D. Mass.......