Johnie R. Muncy, Esquire

Counsel for Movant

Samuel I White, P.C.

Bar No. 73248

1804 Staples Mill Road

Suite 200

Richmond, VA 23230

(804) 290-4290

File No. 59435

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

In re:

VINCENT E HARRIS

JANET L HARRIS,

CHAPTER 13

DEBTORS. CASE NO. 17-35621-KRH

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,

MOVANT,

vs.

VINCENT E HARRIS

JANET L HARRIS

and SUZANNE E. WADE, TRUSTEE,

RESPONDENTS.

RESPONSE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION TO DEBTORS’ 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 3

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (Toyota), by and through its undersigned counsel, 

hereby files its Response to Debtors’ Objection to Claim Number 3 and, in support thereof, 

avers as follows:

1. On November 10, 2017, Vincent E. Harris and Janet L. Harris (Debtors) filed 

a voluntary petition under Chapter 13, Title 11 of the United States Code and relief was 

ordered thereon. 

2. On December 11, 2017, Toyota, timely filed a proof of claim in the amount 

of $16,249.49 for the loan on Debtor’s 2014 Toyota Camry with a secured value of 

$15,774.47, an unsecured amount of $475.02 and a cure amount of $639.89. The claim is 

designated as Claim Number 3-1 (Claim 3) on the Court’s Claims Register. 

3. On December 12, 2018, Toyota amended Claim 3-1 to an unsecured 

deficiency balance in the amount of $5,939.25. The amended claim is designated as Claim 

Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 15
Number 3-2 (Claim 3-2). Attached in support of the amended claim is an Explanation of 

Calculation of Surplus or Deficiency reflecting, among other things, the date of the 

vehicle’s sale (11/05/2018) along with the proceeds of the sale in the amount of $11,100.

4. On February 12, 2021, the Debtors filed an Objection to Claim 3 (Doc 55) 

seeking to reduce the claim by an additional $1000 with an unsupported statement that 

“had Toyota been more diligent in selling the vehicle the deficiency balance would have 

been significantly lower.” The Objection indicates service to Toyota Motor Credit 

Corporation c/o Beckett & Lee, LLP PO Box 3001 Malvern, PA 19355-0701 but was never 

received.

5. After the Court’s Notice of Deficiency regarding a Notice of Objection (Doc 

59), on May 26, 2021, the Debtors filed a second Objection to Claim 3 (Doc 64). The 

Objection is identical to the first and seeks to reduce the claim by an additional $1000 with 

an unsupported statement that “had Toyota been more diligent in selling the vehicle the 

deficiency balance would have been significantly lower.” Again, the Objection indicates 

service by mail to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation c/o Beckett & Lee, LLP PO Box 3001 

Malvern, PA 19355-0701. However, the Debtor never filed a Notice of Objection with regard 

to the second Objection until August 2, 2021.

6. It appears Debtor never prosecuted either the first or second Objection to 

Claim 3 resulting in the filing of a third Notice and Objection to Claim 3 (Doc 71) on 

November 2, 2021. Although the Certificate of Service indicates service by mail to Toyota 

Motor Credit Corporation c/o Beckett & Lee, LLP PO Box 3001 Malvern, PA 19355-0701 it 

also indicates service was made almost 6 months earlier on May 27, 2021. Toyota did not 

receive the Objection.

7. The third Objection to Claim 3 alleges Toyota failed to sell the vehicle in a 

commercially reasonable manner and seeks to reduce the claim balance to zero. Despite 

Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 15
the Objection, Debtor provides no indication as to the basis for the allegation or in what 

way he believes Toyota failed in this regard. 

8. The third Objection was followed by an Amended Certificate of Service (Doc 

80). Doc 80 was filed on April 8, 2021, over 5 months after the November 2, 2021 

Objection. Doc 80 causes more confusion when the header indicates service of the 

Objection to Claim 3 (Doc 71) but the body indicates service of Doc 72 (which is the 

Objection to Claim 4) via mail to Beckett & Lee’s address at PO Box 3001, Malvern, PA 

19355-0701. Despite the Debtor’s several attempts at service of the Objection, the 

Objection was not received. However, as the Objection appears to still be pending, Toyota 

files its Response. 

RESPONSE

9. Pursuant to VA Code Ann. § 8.9A-610 the disposition of collateral after 

default must be “commercially reasonable”. Toyota avers that every aspect of the 

disposition of collateral, including the method, manner, time, place, and other terms, were 

commercially reasonable. 

10. Claim 3-2 represents the deficiency balance due on the Debtors’ loan for a 

2014 Toyota Camry after the vehicle was recovered on August 17, 2018 in accordance with 

the Order Granting Toyota’s Motion for Relief and sold at auction on November 5, 2018. 

Attached herein as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Vehicle Condition Report 

completed by Toyota prior to the sale of the vehicle which reflects the condition of the 

vehicle. Further, attached herein as Exhibit B is a true and correct redacted copy of the 

Buyer’s Receipt / Auction Information which reflects the auctioneer, Manheim PA, as well 

as the vehicle sale date and price. Finally, attached herein as Exhibit C are copies of letters 

from Toyota to Debtors with the Notice of Our Plan to Sell Property at a private sale, 

including among other things, Debtors’ Right to Redeem.

Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 15
11. Toyota avers that there is no minimum amount established for the sale of 

the vehicle. The vehicle is sold at auction to the highest bidder. In this case, the vehicle 

was sold, after recovery, after the Notice provided to the Debtor and, due to the 

bankruptcy, after a legal review to ensure the stay had been lifted and the vehicle was 

eligible for sale. The sale took place on November 5, 2018 in the amount of $11,100.00. 

12. Claim 3-2 was filed with a true and correct copy of Toyota’s Loan Record, 

Explanation of Calculation of Surplus or Deficiency and the Retail Installment Sale 

Contract.

13. Toyota alleges the vehicle was sold in a commercially reasonable manner 

BURDEN OF PROOF

14. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502, a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a 

party in interest objects. Upon objection and after notice and hearing, the court shall allow 

the claim except to the extent that the claim is unenforceable against the debtor. 11 U.S.C. 

§ 502(b)(1). 

15. The Debtors bear the burden of proof of establishing that the claim is not 

valid. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) provides that a proof of claim filed in 

accordance with the rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount 

of the claim. 

16. The burden of proof is on the objecting party to produce evidence 

“equivalent in probative value to that of the creditor to rebut the prima facie effect of the 

proof of claim.” In re VTN, Inc., 69 B.R. 1005 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1987), citing In re DeLorean 

Motor Co. Litigation, 59 B.R. 329 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1986).

17. The Debtors have made no argument nor provided any evidence that would 

contradict the prima facie effect of the claim or the additional documentation provided. 

Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 15
WHEREFORE, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation respectfully requests this 

Honorable Court deny the Debtors’ Objection to Claim Number 3 and allow the claim.

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION

By: /s/JOHNIE R. MUNCY

Eric D. White, Esquire, Bar No. 21346

Johnie R. Muncy, Esquire, Bar No. 73248

1804 Staples Mill Road, Suite 200

Richmond, VA 23230

D. Carol Sasser, Esquire, Bar No. 28422

596 Lynnhaven Parkway, Suite 200

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Samuel I. White, P.C.

Tel: (804) 290-4290

Fax: (804) 290-4298(757) 490-8143

jmuncy@siwpc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 29, 2022, the foregoing Response was served via CM/ECF on 

Suzanne E. Wade, Trustee, and Joseph S. Massie, III, Counsel for Debtors, at the email 

addresses registered with the Court, and that a true copy was mailed via first class mail, 

postage prepaid, to Vincent E Harris, and Janet L Harris, Debtors, 1304 Poco Dr, Richmond, 

VA 23235.

/s/JOHNIE R. MUNCY

Johnie R. Muncy, Esquire

Samuel I. White, P.C.

Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 15
Case 17-35621-KRH Doc 85 Filed 04/29/22 Entered 04/29/22 11:27:54 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 15