Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; October 20, 2017; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court
The Debtor's objections to Proofs of Claim Nos. 3, 9, 10, 13, and 14 were considered by the Court. Initially, the Trustee challenged the Debtor's standing to object, but the Court allowed the objections to proceed despite the absence of supporting evidence from the Debtor. The objections were taken under advisement pending a ruling on standing, which was ultimately overruled on July 18, 2017, allowing the objections to remain active. The Court then denied a request to reopen the record made by the Debtor's counsel.
Key considerations for the remaining objections (Claims 9, 10, 13, and 14) included the lack of evidence presented by the Claimants or the Trustee to support their claims or the objections. The objections did not address compliance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, particularly Rule 3001. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a proof of claim is presumed allowed unless objected to, and a properly filed proof of claim is considered prima facie valid. The burden of production shifts to the objector to negate the claim's validity if a prima facie claim is established.
The Court agreed to evaluate whether the claims presented prima facie evidence of validity and, if so, would subsequently assess the objections to determine if they effectively undermined that validity. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001 requires that claims based on writings must include a copy of the writing, and a claim filed in accordance with the rules serves as prima facie evidence of its validity and amount.
Claim No. 9 from the Borough of Honesdale, exceeding $304,000, included attorney’s fees of $37,511.40 but lacked the necessary supporting documentation as required by Rule 3001, leading the court to find it without evidentiary effect. Honesdale failed to present evidence at the hearing, resulting in the claim being disallowed. Similarly, three other claims (Claims 10, 13, and 14) did not include supporting writings but were deemed to meet the prima facie validity requirements under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3001 due to the absence of objections from the Debtors.
Claim No. 10, filed by Mark J. Conway, Esq., on behalf of William Rooney for $589.43, was upheld despite an objection regarding incomplete work by an electrical contractor, as no supporting evidence was provided. Claim No. 13, filed by First Alarm Security for $4,875.00, also survived an objection related to uncompleted security system installation, with no evidence presented against it. Claim No. 14, filed by R3 Hardware for $300.00, was similarly upheld despite an objection claiming prior payment of the debt, as the Court received no evidence to support this assertion. The Court overruled all objections to Claims 10, 13, and 14, confirming their validity and amounts. An additional note mentions the sustained objection to Claim No. 3 by Rosenn, Jenkins, Greenwald during a prior argument.
