FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
WILLIAM PRESTON DAVIS, No. 1-86-01692
Debtor.
_______________________/
ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION TO CLAIM
In the above Chapter 13 matter, an objection was filed to the claim of Jinsil Pang as being untimely.
The creditor admits that the claim was filed late; her only argument is that because the debtor scheduled
the claim its late filing should be allowed. Since Pang's attorney has informed the court that he will not
attend the hearing set on the objection, the court treats the matter as submitted by her.
Many actions taken by a creditor during bankruptcy proceedings may be deemed informal proofs of
claim, which have the effect of tolling the claim bar date.
In re Anderson-Walker Industries, Inc. (9th
Cir.1986) 798 F.2d 1285, 1288;
In re Pizza Hut of Hawaii, Inc. (9th Cir.1985) 761 F.2d 1374, 1380. The
common element in all cases finding an informal claim is the express intent of the creditor before the bar
date to
pursue the claim; an acknowledgement by the debtor of the mere existence of the claim is not
enough.
In re Solvation, Inc. (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1985) 48 B.R. 670, 673. The mere listing of a creditor's
claim in a debtor's schedule is not a basis for a belated amended proof of claim.
In re Greene (DC
D.R.I.1983) 33 B.R. 1007, 1009.
Section 1111(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that in Chapter 11 cases a creditor whose claim is
properly listed need not file a formal proof of claim; there is no analogous provision in Chapter 13, and
Bankruptcy Rule 3002 requires that formal claims be filed in Chapter 13 cases. Interpreting the law as
urged by Pang would render both section 1111(a) and rule 3002 meaningless.
For the above reasons, the objection to the claim of Jinsil Pang is sustained.
Dated: December 7, 1987 ____________________________
ALAN JAROSLOVSKY
U.S. BANKRUPTCY
Printer-friendly version