- Case Type:
- Case Status:
- CO-16-006 (10th Circuit, Nov 30,2016) Not Published
Any action taken post-confirmation to avoid or alter secured status provided by a confirmed plans is barred by the res judicata effect of § 1327(a). A court can reconsider an allowed or dissallowed claim upon a showing of cause and after determining whether the equities of a case dictate allowance or dissallowance.
- Procedural context:
The Bankruptcy Court denied debtor’s late filed objection to creditor’s claim and his motion to reconsider the claim. The 10th Circuit BAP affirmed reviewing the claim objection de novo and the motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.
Debtor guaranteed a bail bond issued by A-1 Bail Bonds which guaranty was secured by a lien on debtor’s house. Debtor filed bankruptcy but failed to list A-1 as a creditor. A-1 actively participated in the case, filed a claim, and objected to debtor’s plan but withdrew the objection after debtor agreed that A-1’s lien on his house was not affected by the plan or otherwise stripped by debtor’s § 506 motion. The plan provided that A-1’s claim was secured by the house and was confirmed. After discharge, A-1 sought to foreclose its lien and debtor filed his objection to A-1’s claim; an objection filed about 4 years after the claim was filed.
- NUGENT, SOMERS, HALL (HALL)
In re: TIMOTHY RUSSELL HOFFMAN
Summarizing by Amir Shachmurove
3358 in the system
2 Being Processed