In Re: Jenna Denise Hillard
- Jeffrey White
- 4:23-cv-01461
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In re Jenna Denise Hillard, Judge White affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling because Duarte’s claim was untimely and Hilliard’s filings were not an informal proof of claim.
Jerry Duarte’s claim in Jenna Denise Hilliard’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy case was disallowed as untimely; Hilliard’s Bankruptcy Court victory was affirmed.
What happened
In Re: Jenna Denise Hillard concerns Jerry Duarte’s appeal of a Bankruptcy Court order sustaining Jenna Denise Hilliard’s objection to his claim in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.
Duarte did not file his claim by the October 28, 2022 deadline. He argued that Hilliard’s amended schedules and bankruptcy plan effectively filed a claim for him, but Hilliard, who represented herself, argued that they did not.
Judge Jeffrey White affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order, concluding that Duarte was required to file his own claim and that Hilliard’s later filings did not qualify as an informal proof of claim.
The detailed version
- In Re: Jenna Denise Hillard · No. 4:23-cv-01461
- Jeffrey White
- July 15, 2024
Background
Jenna Denise Hilliard filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on August 19, 2022. She initially listed Jerry Duarte as an unsecured creditor and listed the debt as $87,068.89. Proofs of claim were due by October 28, 2022, but Duarte did not file a claim by that deadline.
Hilliard later amended her schedules and listed the debt to Duarte as $114,320. She also amended her bankruptcy plan. On January 4, 2023, Hilliard objected to Duarte’s claim because it was untimely. Duarte argued that Hilliard’s amended schedules and plan amounted to an “informal claim” on his behalf. The Bankruptcy Court sustained Hilliard’s objection, and Duarte appealed to the District Court. Hilliard appeared without a lawyer and asked the District Court to affirm.
Legal Standard and Analysis
The District Court reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions independently. The court treated the questions of whether Duarte’s claim was properly disallowed as untimely and whether Hilliard submitted an informal proof of claim as legal questions.
Under Bankruptcy Rule 3002, an unsecured creditor generally must file a proof of claim for the claim to be allowed, subject to specified exceptions. Rule 3004 permits a debtor to file a proof of claim on behalf of a creditor who fails to do so. The court explained that Duarte offered no authority showing that Rule 3004 was intended to protect creditors who missed the filing deadline.
The court also rejected Duarte’s informal-claim argument. An informal proof of claim must state an explicit demand showing the nature and amount of the claim and show an intent to hold the debtor liable. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that the creditor must take some affirmative action indicating that intent before the claims deadline. Duarte did not argue that he had taken such action before the deadline. The court therefore concluded that Hilliard’s initial schedules were not an informal proof of claim.
The court also rejected Duarte’s argument that Hilliard’s later amendments, filed after he submitted his untimely claim, supplied the required showing. The court noted that bankruptcy schedules serve purposes independent of filing a proof of claim and that Duarte cited no authority applying the informal-claim doctrine to actions taken by a debtor after an untimely claim was filed.
Disposition
The District Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling was not erroneous. Judge Jeffrey White AFFIRMED the Bankruptcy Court’s order sustaining Hilliard’s objection to Duarte’s claim. The order constituted the judgment on the appeal, and the Clerk was directed to close the file.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.