Eileen C. Lapsansky

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: :
EILEEN C. LAPSANSKY, : Case No. 04-26238REF
Debtor : Chapter 13
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Before me for decision are Objections filed by Debtor to proofs of claim filed by two
unsecured creditors. Because the issues raised by Debtor in each Objection are identical, I shall
resolve the Objections in one decision. I begin with a brief summary of the facts relevant to this
dispute and the procedural history of this case.
Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition on November 30,2004. On July 28,2005, Arrow
Financial Services liLC ("Arrow") filed a proof of claim, known as proof of claim number 1, in
which it asserted that it was the holder of an unsecured claim in the amount of $2,645.27. The
proof of claim indicates that the basis for the claim is credit card debt. Attached to the proof of
claim is an account summary that identifies Debtor by name, address, and properly redacted
social security number, and that shows the bankruptcy case number, the date of the bankruptcy
filing, the date the account was originally opened, the charge off date, the last payment date, the
last payment amount, the properly redacted account number, the purchase date, the balance owed
on the account at the time of purchase, the amount of payments received since the purchase date,
and the current balance. On July 17,2006, Debtor filed an Objection to this proof of claim, to
which Arrow responded by filing an amended proof of claim, known as amended proof of claim
number 1. Attached to the amended proof of claim is a copy of an account screen that identifies
Debtor by name, address, and properly redacted social security number, the bankruptcy case
number, the name of the creditor, "Providian," the properly redacted account number, and the
Case 04-26238-ref Doc 79 Filed 10/31/06 Entered 10/31/06 15:13:55 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

account balance.
On November 4,2005, B-Line, LLC/Collect America/Direct Merchants ("B-Line") filed
a proof of claim, known as proof of claim number 7, in which it asserted that it is the holder of an
unsecured claim in the amount of $4,924.39. The proof of claim indicates that the basis for the
claim is "money loaned." Attached to the proof of claim is an account summary that identifies
Debtor by name, address, and properly redacted social security number. The account summary
also identifies the end balance on the account, the last payment date, the last payment amount,
and the original creditor, "Direct Merchants," and indicates the properly redacted account
number. Debtor filed an objection to this claim on July 17,2006.
As I noted earlier, Debtor's Objections to the proofs of claim filed by Arrow and B-Line
are identical, with each alleging that "[p]ursuant to [Fed. R. Bankr. P.] 300l(c), [claimant] failed
to attach an original or duplicate documentation supporting its claim nor did they file a statement
explaining the circumstances of the loss or destruction, if any, and therefore [the proof of claim]
is not a valid claim and should be disallowed and expunged." See Debtor's Objections to Proofs
of Claim, 1[5. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c) states:
(c) Claim based on a writing
When a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the
claim, is based on a writing, the original or a duplicate shall be
filed with the proof of claim. If the writing has been lost or
destroyed, a statement of the circumstances of the loss or
destruction shall be filed with the claim.
The majority of the courts that have considered this issue, however, have rejected this
argument as insufficient to justify disallowing or reducing a claim. Most of these courts have
denied claim objections that do not actually contest the debtor's liability to the claimant, or the
amount of the debt, but instead simply argue that the claimant failed to attach documentation
Case 04-26238-ref Doc 79 Filed 10/31/06 Entered 10/31/06 15:13:55 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c). See Cluffv. eCast Settlement. No. 2:04-CV-978TS, 2006
WL 282005, at *3 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2006)(Objection to proof of claim based solely on fact that
claim fails to attach documentation in compliance with Fed. R. Bankr P. 3001(c) is insufficient to
disallow or reduce claim.); Campbell v. Verizon Wireless S-CA (In re CampbelD. 336 B.R. 430, 434-
36 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005)("[A] claim objection that does not actually contest the debtor's liability or
the amount of the debt is not enough to disallow a proof of claim, even if the proof of claim lacks the
documentation required by Rule 300 l(c)."); Heath v. American Express Travel Related Services Co..
Inc. (InreHeath), 331 B.R. 424, 431-37 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005); Dove-Nation v. eCast Settlement
Corp. (In re Dove-NationX 318 B.R. 147,150-53 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2004)("Section 502(b) sets forth the
sole grounds for objecting to a claim and directs the court to allow the claim unless one of the
exceptions applies. ...[e]ven if the claims had not substantially complied with Rule 3001, the claims
are still allowed under Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code unless the Debtor establishes an exception
under Section 502(b)."); In re Habiballa. 337 B.R. 911, 914-18 (Bankr. E.D. Wis.
2006)("Recognizing that Bankruptcy Code §502 provides that a claim shall be allowed unless the
objector shows that one of the exceptions applies, and that Bankruptcy Rule 3001 is an evidentiary
rule that cannot supercede the substantive provisions of the Code, this Court will require the Debtor to
come forward with some evidence to contradict the claim summary, even in the absence of a
creditor's compliance with an information request."); In re Burkett. 329 B.R. 820, 825-232 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 2005)("If there is no underlying factual dispute as to the validity, ownership or amount of a
claim, a debtor or trustee has no basis for filing an objection for lack of documentation unless the
debtor or trustee alleges a basis that would require reduction or disallowance under §502."); In re
Guidrv. 321 B.R. 712, 714-15 (Bankr. N.D. 111. 2005)("[A] claim cannot be disallowed solely on the
basis that its proof was not accompanied by a Rule 3001(c) attachment."); InreCluff.313 B.R. 323
(Bankr. D. Utah 2004), affd. No. 2:04-CV-978TS, 2006 WL 282005, at *3 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2006).
Case 04-26238-ref Doc 79 Filed 10/31/06 Entered 10/31/06 15:13:55 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

I agree with the analysis applied by these courts and I adopt their reasoning and ruling
herein. I therefore overrule Debtor's Objections to the proofs of claim filed by Arrow and B-
Line because the Objections do not attack Debtor's liability for the claims or the amount of the
underlying debts, but instead are based solely on the argument that the claims should be
disallowed because they do not attach the documentation required by Rule SOOl(c).1
I shall issue an appropriate Order overruling Debtor's Objections to the proofs of claim
filed by Arrow and B-Line and allowing these claims as filed.
'I also note that Debtor's Schedules list both the debt owed to Arrow and the debt owed
to B-Line as undisputed, although in amounts that differ from the amounts alleged to be owed in
the proofs of claim. I further note that Debtor never raised an issue with the amounts alleged to
be owed to Arrow or B-Line in the proofs of claim in either the Objections filed to the proofs of
claim, at the hearing held on the Objections to the proofs of claim or in her brief.
Case 04-26238-ref Doc 79 Filed 10/31/06 Entered 10/31/06 15:13:55 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re: :
EILEEN C. LAPSANSKY, : Case No. 04-26238REF
Debtor : Chapter 13
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 31 day of October, 2006, upon my consideration of Debtor's
Objections to proof of claim number 1 filed by Arrow Financial Services LLC ("Arrow"), as
thereafter amended, and proof of claim number 7 filed by B-Line, LLC/Collect America/Direct
Merchants ("B-Line"), and based upon the discussion contained in the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Debtor's Objections to these proofs of
claim are OVERRULED and amended proof of claim number 1 filed by Arrow and proof of
claim number 7 filed by B-Line are hereby ALLOWED AS FILED.
BY THE COURT
RICHARD E. FEHEING
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 04-26238-ref Doc 79 Filed 10/31/06 Entered 10/31/06 15:13:55 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5