Bryan E Cromer and Lee A Cromer

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	B RYAN E. C ROMER AND
LEE A. CROMER,
Debtors
Case No. 	04-31618
Judge L. S. Walter
Chapter 7
DECISION OVERRULING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO CLAIM
DISPOSITION
The Chapter 7 Trustee filed an objection to the claim of a credit card claimholder
requesting disallowance of the claim primarily because of the failure to attach sufficient
supporting documentation. For the reasons set forth in the Burkett decision, the court concludes
that the Trustee’s objection is without merit. An objection to a claim based solely on lack of
documentation or deviation from the Official Form does not provide a substantive basis for
disallowing the claim, especially if a debtor acknowledges the claim as a legitimate debt in his or
her schedules.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 18, 2005
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:04-bk-31618 Doc 38 Filed 09/18/05 Entered 09/19/05 14:48:59 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2005, Chapter 7 Trustee Thomas R. Noland (“Trustee”) filed an objection
to several claims in the bankruptcy case of Bryan E. and Lee A. Cromer (“Debtors”). [Doc. 26.]
The Trustee primarily objects because of an alleged lack of proper documentation attached to
creditors’ proofs of claim. 1 One credit card claimholder, Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, NA fka
Bank One Delaware, NA fka First USA (“Chase Manhattan”), filed a response [Doc. 27] to the
Trustee’s objection. Chase Manhattan further filed a supplemental response [Doc. 29] and
amended the proof of claim at issue to provide additional documentation requested by the
Trustee. [Proof of Claim # 7 amending # 1.]
In the response to the Trustee’s objection, Chase Manhattan argues that the
documentation requested by the Trustee, including the Debtor’s full credit card account number,
credit card application, itemized statement of interest, fees and other charges and monthly
account statements are not required by the Bankruptcy Code or related rules. Consequently,
Chase Manhattan argues that the omission of these documents and information from a proof of
claim does not form a basis for disallowance of the claim. On March 17, 2005, the court held a
hearing to consider the Trustee’s objection as well as similar objections filed by the Trustee in
other bankruptcy cases. The parties filed supplemental briefs following the hearing [Docs. 33
and 36] and the court is now prepared to render its decision.
1 The Trustee also objects to the failure of creditors to check the box in paragraph 4 of Official Form 10 and minor
modifications to the Official Form. The full text of the Trustee’s objection to the creditor’s claim at issue in this
decision is as follows:
Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim filed by Bank One Delaware (now Chase Manhattan) (#1):
“Disallow, checked “other” in paragraph 1 of the POC, when account is for money loaned for credit card purchases,
failed to check paragraph 4 despite interest and other charges assessed on unpaid balances, failed to provide
documents to support claim required by paragraph nine, provided on summary on account, failed to provide account
number on account, redacting of account not required on non-financial account.”
Case 3:04-bk-31618 Doc 38 Filed 09/18/05 Entered 09/19/05 14:48:59 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Because of the similarity of objections filed by the Trustee in several cases before the
court, the court has decided to adopt the legal analysis and reasoning written in the court’s
decision on the Trustee’s objection entered on September 15, 2005 in the case of In re Charles
Burkett, III, Case No. 04-34826, Docket # 48.
Applying the law to this case, the court will begin by emphasizing that a trustee’s
objection to a claim based on the omission of a complete account number is without merit. The
court will not require a full credit card account number on a public document filed with this
court. Such a requirement not only compromises a debtor’s privacy, but also conflicts with
current laws protecting sensitive financial information as well as the court’s own Administrative
Procedures for Electronic Case Filing and revisions to Official Form 10.
The Trustee’s remaining bases for objecting to the claim at issue in this case are not
substantive in nature and do not question the validity, ownership or amount of the claim.
Instead, the objection primarily focuses on the lack of appropriate documentation attached to the
proof of claim as purportedly required by Rule 3001 and/or Official Form 10 and the failure to
precisely comply with the Official Form. [See Doc. 26.] Lack of documentation, alone, is not a
statutory basis for disallowance of a claim nor can Rule 3001 and Official Form 10 expand on
the statutory bases for disallowance. Furthermore, the claim may be verified against the
Debtors’ schedules in which the Debtors acknowledged the validity of their debt to this claimant.
[See Doc. 1, Schedule F.]
The court holds that the Trustee’s objection based on a lack of documentation attached to
the proof of claim does not provide the court with a basis for disallowing the claim. The court
concludes that the Trustee’s objection is without merit and is overruled.
Case 3:04-bk-31618 Doc 38 Filed 09/18/05 Entered 09/19/05 14:48:59 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
For future guidance, the court recommends that trustees compare the proofs of claim filed
in a case against the debtor’s schedules. To the extent they do not match, and the proofs of claim
are not substantiated by attachments, a trustee may have a basis for a substantive objection based
on the dissimilarities. However, the substantive basis for the objection must be described clearly
in the trustee’s objection.
WHEREFORE, the court overrules the Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim filed by
Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, NA: Proof of Claim # 1 as amended by Proof of Claim # 7.
SO ORDERED.
cc:
Thomas R Noland
Fifth Third Building
110 N Main Street, Suite 1520
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 222-1090
Fax : (937)222-1046
Email: notices@shsedayton.com
Geoffrey E Albrecht
673 Mohawk Street, Suite 203
Columbus, OH 43206
(614) 445-8811
Jennifer G CaJacob
40 W Fourth Centre
40 W Fourth St
Ste 2160
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 226-9354
Fax : (937) 226-9359
Email: jgc@legalhelpers.com
Asst US Trustee (Day)
Office of the US Trustee
170 North High Street
Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215-2417
614-469-7411
# # #
Case 3:04-bk-31618 Doc 38 Filed 09/18/05 Entered 09/19/05 14:48:59 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4