In re Pajian, 785 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. May 11, 2015) is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order allowing a secured creditor’s proof of claim filed after the 90 day deadline imposed by Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 3002(c) but before the Debtor’s plan was confirmed. The issue on appeal was whether the deadline only applies to unsecured claims. The Bankruptcy Court allowed the claim and Debtor took a direct appeal to the 7th Circuit to resolve conflicting decisions among the bankruptcy courts as to whether rule 3002(c) deadline apply to secured claims. The Court observed that conflict in the bankruptcy courts results from the way rule 3002 was drafted. The first part of the rule applies specifically to unsecured creditors without mentioning secured creditors. Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 3002(a). The omission of secured creditors from this provision led some courts to hold that the entirety of rule 3002 applies only to unsecured lenders. The 7th circuit disagreed with this reading because 1) on its face the rule applies to any proof of claim and the code defies a claim as any right to payment whether secured or unsecured; 2) rule 3002(a) deals with a different topic than the deadline to file a proof imposed by 3002(c and 3) Rule 3002(c) makes a differentiation between secured and unsecured claims. Thus, it is a mistake to read the Rule as applying only to unsecured claims. It applies to both kinds.
Download Related DocumentSolomon has nearly two decades of experience representing financial institutions, real estate investors and privately owned business entities. Solomon concentrates his practice in the areas of banking, consumer financial services, real estate, business law and related litigation and appellate practice.
Latest in this Category
- Illinois court says check maker is still liable to holder in due course on…
- Lender’s attempt to avoid foreclosure in Illinois backfires
- Seventh Circuit finds that “waiver of defense” clause in commercial guaranty did not waive…
- Wisconsin federal court awards fees to plaintiff for defendant’s attempt to remove case where…