- Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, No. 10-10029-BKT (April 12, 2013)A
- Concluding that no legally cognizable grounds for reconsideration were established, the Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, seeking to recognize a late-filed claim. The Court held that under Code sec. 502(b)(9) a claim must be disallowed, iirrespective of whether the creditor or debtor filed the claim, where (i) the late-filing exceptions arising from Code sec. 726(a)(1), (2) or (3) are inapplicable to a Chapter 13 case, (ii) the claim was never filed by the creditor, which had received proper notice, (iii) the claim was filed by the Debtor more than 30 days after the original bar date, and (iv) the 30 day period for a debtor to file a claim for a creditor under FRBP 3004 is a further "bar date" that should be strictly construed. While courts have broad discretion in deciding Rule 60(b) motions, the motion here was not only itself untimely but also showed no cause for relief.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico of an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a previous order disallowing a claim.
- The Debtor in a Chapter 13 case filed an unsecured priority tax claim in the name of a municipality approximatgely six weeks after the time for filing claims had expired. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the claim on the basis of its being late and no party responded. Ten months after the objection was allowed, the municipality filed a motion to set aside the order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9024 (making FRCP 60(b) applicable), oddly seeking both to challenge the Debtor's right to file the claim and to have the claim allowed. This motion was denied.
- Haines, Feeney and Hoffman
George Czaplinski v. Bank of America
Summarizing by Lars Fuller
3144 in the system
1 Being Processed