  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
court explained that due process requires the creditor to receive actual notice of the claims bar date. A presumption of receipt arose in this case because the debtor showed that it properly addressed and mailed the notice of the claims bar date to the creditor and its attorneys. The moving creditor offered affidavits that it did not receive the notice of the claims bar date, as well as their normal procedure for receiving and filing mail. The court held such evidence insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt because the movant had to also provide "more detailed evidence . . . such as evidence of tracking procedures to catalogue the receipt of mail," which the movant failed to provide.
x. In re Holden, 491 B.R. 728 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2013)
Issue: Whether a wholly unsecured creditor may file a proof of claim for attorney fees based on promissory notes.
Holding: The bankruptcy court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly prohibit collecting attorney fees on unsecured claims and that the unsecured creditor was entitled to attorney fees based on the parties' promissory notes. The debtor objected to proofs of claim filed by a creditor for attorney fees associated with wholly unsecured claims. The debtor argued that 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) does not expressly allow attorney fees, and when read in conjunction with 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the allowance of attorney fees for under-secured or unsecured claims. The court rejected such a narrow reading of Section 502(b). The court also reasoned that Section 506(b) only discusses amounts recoverable on the value of collateral, not whether a claim is allowed or disallowed. Because the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly prohibit the allowance of attorney fees on unsecured claims, the court looked to state law to determine that the creditor's claim for attorney fees was allowed under state law because such fees were provided for in the parties' promissory notes.
xi. In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. et al., 465 B.R. 38 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)
Issue: Whether the creditor's claim, filed four years after the bar date, should nonetheless be allowed on either due process or excusable neglect grounds.
Holding: The court disallowed the mortgagor's proof of claim.
Reasoning: The court first addressed Galope's argument that she did not become aware of her claim until after the bar date had already passed. The court discussed the Third Circuit decision in Jeld-Wen, Inc., noting that the Court there had concluded that a claim arises pre-bankruptcy when the claimant is exposed to the harmful product or conduct pre-petition, even if the injury does not manifest until after reorganization. The court noted that Galope's claim here was based on a mortgage note executed in connection with a sale that took place in 2006. In short, the court found that Galope's claim arose out of the debtor's conduct toward Ms. Galope that occurred prior to the bankruptcy filing and thus was a pre-petition claim. Next, the court addressed
©2014 William L. Norton III
