FRBP 3001 Proof of Claim (Judge Gargotta)
Cavu/Rock Properties Project I, LLC v. Gold Star Construction (August 27, 2014)
Issue: Whether to allow Defendant’s claim.
Holding: The Court allowed Defendant’s claim, but in a reduced amount. Defendant’s properly filed proof of claim was prima facie evidence of the claim’s validity and extent per Bankruptcy Rule 3001. Plaintiff’s valid objection to Defendant’s claim shifted the burden back to Defendant. The full extent of the debt was not clear. The Court allowed the claim, but only in a lesser amount that Defendant was able to support with evidence.
In re UTEX Communications Corp. (September 21, 2011)
Issue: Did Creditor establish prima facie validity of its claim by including sufficient documentation to meet the evidentiary requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)?
Holding: Documentation was sufficient and the Proof of Claim is prima facie valid under Bankruptcy Rule 3001. Debtor did not provide sufficient evidence of discrepancies to shift the burden to Creditor to prove up the charges.
In re Bootka (February 25, 2009)
Issue: Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.004(c), is collection on the claim barred by the statute of limitations?
Holding: There is no evidence here that either of the Debtors acknowledged the justness of the debt in writing or indeed signed anything in connection with the payment. The Court therefore finds and concludes that Claimant has failed to meet its burden of proving its Claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.
In re Cox (Nov. 30, 2007)
Issue: Does Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e), and case law interpreting this issue, require proof of the transfer of a debt to be attached if the proof of claim is filed after the transfer?
Holding: For this specific situation, this Court declines to follow the additional requirement that proof of the assignment be attached to the claim for the claim to provide prima facie evidence of the debt owed. The Debtor’s objections to the three claims are Denied without prejudice to the Debtor’s right to file subsequent objections objecting to the claims on other grounds.