The opinion
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and analysis
of this court the document set forth below. This document has been entered electronically in
the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Wea"
ey Ptr
John P. Gustafson
Dated: April 17 2025 United States Bankruptcy Judge
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In Re: ) Case No. 24-61719
)
Alexander Crespo Morales ) Chapter 13
)
Debtor. )
) JUDGE JOHN P. GUSTAFSON
ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO CLAIM 4
This case came before the court on Debtor’s Amended Objection to Claim 4 [Doc. #24], seeking
disallowance of a proof of claim filed by Lightstream, a Division of Truist Bank (“Creditor”) [Claim No.
4-1].
The Objection states:
Now comes Debtor Alexander Crespo Morales (hereinafter “Debtor”) by and
through the undersigned counsel, and hereby objects to Proof of Claim No. 4 filed by
Lightstream, A Division of Truist Bank, PO Box 1847, Wilson, NC 27894, on February
10, 2025. Debtor objects to Lightstream’s claim on the basis that it fails to comply with
Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c).
WHEREFORE, Debtor respectfully requests that Claim No. 4 be denied in its
entirety.
[Doc. #24, p. 1].
While Creditor has not filed a response to the Objection, an objection to a creditor’s proof of claim
does not automatically result in disallowance, particularly where the claim includes some documentation
establishing a prima facie basis for liability and where the claim is verified by debtor’s schedules. See, In
re Burkett, 329 B.R. 820, 829 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005).
Here, Claim Number 4-1 was filed in the amount of $20,795.70. A copy of an underlying “Loan
Agreement” was attached to the Lightstream Proof of Claim. [Claim No. 4-1, pp. 4-14]. The Proof of
Claim reflects that the “last four digits of the debtor’s account” are “0694”. [Claim No. 4-1, p.2, ¶6].
Reviewing Debtor’s Schedule E/F, the court notes that “SUNTRUST BANK DBA LI” is listed as
a creditor with a “Total claim” of “$20,165.00”. [Doc. #1, p. 26, ¶4.6]. The “SunTrust” claim is not listed
as disputed, contingent or unliquidated. [Id.]. The Debtor listed the “last four digits of the account” as
“0694”, the same four-digit number referenced by Lightstream on Claim Number 4-1.1 A debtor’s
schedules are signed and filled under penalty of perjury. See, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1008; 28 U.S.C. §1746;
see also, Elite Constr. Design Mgmt. LLC v. Kerschner, No. 2:23-CV-820, 2024 WL 2315272 at *12,
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91800 at *34 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2024) quoting, In re Perez, 2019 WL 7341580,
at *8, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3942 at *23 (6th Cir. BAP Dec. 30, 2019).
The matter will therefore be scheduled for evidentiary hearing for the reasons that follow.
Courts have consistently held that disallowance of a claim requires more than a procedural
deficiency; it demands substantive rebuttal. See, In re Insight Terminal Sols., LLC, 657 B.R. 78, 93 (B.A.P.
6th Cir. 2024); In re Hughes, 313 B.R. 205, 208 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2004); In re Dow Corning Corp., 250
B.R. 298, 321 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2000)(citing Juniper Dev. Group v. Kahn, 993 F.2d 915, 925 (1st Cir.
1993) and In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
3001(c), if a claim is based on a writing, a copy of the writing is to be filed along with the proof of claim.
Once a creditor properly executes and files a proof of claim in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure, its proof of claim is considered “prima facie evidence of the validity and amount
of the claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f); In re Stoecker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993); Ashford v.
Consolidated Pioneer Mortgage, (In re Consolidated Pioneer Mortgage), 178 B.R. 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P.
1995). Further:
[A] claim verified by a debtor’s schedules may require no documentation whatsoever. If a
proof of claim correlates to a debt listed by the debtor in his or her schedules, this may be
sufficient, by itself, to establish the prima facie validity of the proof of claim. In re Relford,
323 B.R. 669, 676 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2005) (as amended following reconsideration);
Jorczak, 314 B.R. at 481–82 (noting that the scheduling of a debt is a judicial admission
by the debtor); Cluff, 313 B.R. at 340 . . . it is nevertheless strongly probative of the claim’s
validity.
In re Burkett, 329 B.R. at 829; see also, In re Hughes, 313 B.R. at 212.
Moreover, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(3) provides a specific remedy where
the required documentation is not attached to the filed proof of claim in an “Individual-Debtor Case”:
(3) Sanctions in an Individual-Debtor Case. If the debtor is an individual and a claim
holder fails to provide any information required by (1) or (2), the court may, after notice
and a hearing, take one or both of these actions:
(A) preclude the holder from presenting the information in any form as evidence in
any contested matter or adversary proceeding in the case - unless the court
determines that the failure is substantially justified or is harmless; and
(B) award other appropriate relief, including reasonable expenses and attorney’s
fees caused by the failure.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)(3).
Notably, disallowance of the claim based solely on the failure to include the required
documentation is not one of the sanctions listed in Rule 3001(c)(3). Debtor did not provide any
affirmative evidence that he did not owe the debt, nor did the Objection assert that there was insufficient
evidence provided for the Debtor to determine whether or not he owed the debt asserted in Creditor’s
In In re Jorczak, 314 B.R. 474 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2004), the court ruled that even if Rule 3001
documentation is incomplete, the debtor must still meet their evidentiary burden. The same principle was
observed in In re Brown, 244 B.R. 603 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2000) and In re Taylor, 363 B.R. 303 (Bankr.
M.D. Fla. 2007): objecting parties must support objections with actual evidence, not merely rely on
creditor silence or minor technical failures.
Here, Creditor attached a signed loan agreement to its claim, which references the same account
numbers listed in the Debtor’s Schedule E/F. This appears to provide the documentation sufficient to
support a presumption of validity of the underlying obligation, as contemplated by Jorczak, Brown, and
Taylor. Unless contradicted by additional evidence from the Debtor, this is further bolstered by the
Debtor’s apparent acknowledgment of the debt under penalty of perjury as discussed in Burkett and
Hughes.
What Creditor did not attach was “an itemized statement of the principal amount and any interest,
fees, expenses, and other charges incurred before the petition was filed; . . . .” Fed. R. Bankr. P.
3001(c)(2)(A).2 If the Debtor wishes to offer evidence that the pre-petition interest, fees, expenses, and
other charges that were not itemized in any attachment to Proof of Claim 4-1 are improper, Creditor will
be precluded from presenting evidence to the contrary.3
However, the burden remains on the Debtor to produce evidence sufficient to overcome the claim’s
presumption of validity as to the debt itself, and to present evidence as to any payments made to Creditor
that were uncredited during the period from when the loan was taken out (on or about July 9, 2024) and
the date of the filing of the Chapter 13 Petition on December 23, 2024.
For the reasons stated above,
2/ Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c)(2)(B) and (C) only apply to secured loans, and Proof of Claim 4-1 reflects
Creditor’s assertion (under penalty of perjury) that no part of the loan in issue is secured. [Proof of Claim 4-1, p. 2, ¶9].
IT IS ORDERED that the Debtor’s Amended Objection to Claim 4 [Doc. #24], is scheduled for
EVIDENTIARY HEARING before the Honorable John P. Gustafson, on May 14, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.,
in Courtroom Ralph Regula United States Courthouse, 401 McKinley Ave. SW, Canton, OH 44702.
Parties are required to appear in person.
###