FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 88 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 03 23 1- CV-BB M-1 BKCY No . 96 -7 53 20 BKC-M H InRe: MARLENE H. OL IVER, Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ HAMID MIKE SAM ADI, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MARLENE H. OLIVE R, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m ber 3 0, 2 00 8) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

App el la ntHam idMi ke Sam ad i, p ro ceed in g p ro se , ap pe al s an ord er o f th e di st ric t co urt af

firm in g t he ba nk rupt cy

co urt’s ca lc ul at io n o f th e in te res t o wedto hi m by App el le e Marle ne H. Oliv er. I. Fa cts In19 94 , Sam ad i s ig ne d a n a gr eem en t i n wh ic h h e co nv ey eda pa rcel of pr op erty to Oli ve r fo r $4 6,0 00 . Oliv er ag reedto m ak e m on th ly paym en ts un ti l Nov em be r 15 , 19 95 , at wh ic h t im e th e o ut st an di ng ba la nc e u nd er t he co ntractwas to be co m e due . Oliv er m ad e m on th ly paym en ts un ti l No ve m be r 15 , 19 95 , bu t was un ab le to m eetth e o bl ig at io n t o p ay th e rem ai ni ng ba la nc e o f $3 5,0 00 on th atda te . Sam ad i t he reaf

te r th reat en edfor ecl os ur e an d Ol iv er fi le d fo r vo lu nt ary Ch ap te r 13 ba nk rupt cy . The b an krup tc y co urt ap pr ov eda pa y

m en t p la n a ndOli ve r co m pl et ed he r ob li ga ti on s u nd er t he pl an on Ju ly 19, 2 00 0. Th e b an krup tc y co urt cl os edth e es ta te an d d is ch arg edOli ve r. On Dec em

be r 29 , 20 00 , Oli ve r pe ti ti on edto reo pe n h er ca se , all eg in g t ha t Sam ad i re fu se d t o i ss ue a qu itcla im de edon Oli ve r’s pr op ert y , des pi te ful l pa ym en t t hr ou gh th e Ch ap te r 13 ba nk rupt cy tru st ee. Sam ad i d en ie d h av in g rece iv edful l p aym en t an d a ss ert eda co un te rcl ai m . The b an kr up tc y co urt ul ti m at el y

gra nt edpa rti al su m

m ary jud gm en t i n S am ad i’s fa vo r an d v acat edit s

2pr ev io us ord er d efi ni ng th e am ou ntof Ol iv er’s d eb t t o S am ad i, fi nd in g t ha t

Sam ad i’s s ecu redcla im

was n otful ly pai d i n Ol iv er’s b an kr up tc y cas e. The ba nk rupt cy

co urt fo un d t ha t b ecau se Sam ad i’s cl ai m was o ve rs ecu red , 1 he was e nt it le d t o p os t-p et it io n i nt eres t, an d i t o rd eredhi m to fil e a s ta te m en t wi th a d et ai le d c al cu la ti onof t he in te res t o wed . Sam ad i ca lc ul at edin te res t o ve r a 1 20 - m on th pe rio d, o n am on th ly bas is th ro ug h M arch 20 04 an d o n ada il y ba si s dur in g Apr il an d M ay

20 04 . Oliv er d is pu te d t hi s ca lc ul at io n; th eref or e th e b an krup tc y co urt “ co m

pu te d t he in te res t due ba se d o n t he term s o f th e lo an ” an d re ach eda 2 to ta l o f $3 0,8 68 .79 inin te res t (r ep res en ti ng 11 8 m on th s o f in te res t o n t he $3 5,0 00 th atwas o ut st an di ng on Nov em be r 15 , 19 95 , with a n a nn ua l i nt eres t ra te of 1 4.5 % an d s tra ig ht -li ne am orti zat io n) . The co urt t he n d educ te d p aym en ts m ad e b y Oli ve r aft er No ve m

be r 15 , 19 95 , whi ch to ta le d $ 3,6 00 , andth e p aym en ts m ad e b y th e Ch ap te r 13 tru st ee, wh ic h t ot al ed$3 5,2 61 .41 . The b an krup tc y co urt the reb y arri ve d a t $ 27 ,00 7.3 8 i n i nt eres t, wh ic h i t o rd eredOli ve r to pay to Sam ad i. 3 “An ove rsec ured c reditor is one whose cla im is secured by collater al whose va lue 1 exceeds the pr incipal amount of the c laim.” In re Welzel, 275 F.3d 1308, 1311 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001). The c ontrac t itself is not i ncluded in the r ecord on appea l. The bankr uptcy court, 2 howeve r, did make f

indings a s to its t erms, conc luding that the loa n specifie d a 14.5% inter est rate for pa

y ments made a fter N ovember 15, 1995. The ba nkruptcy court late r ame nded its judgme nt to provide an e x penses a war d to 3 Samadi. Samadi appea led the bankr uptcy court’s e x pense total to the district cour t and, upon aff irmance , soug ht to appeal this court. On January 18, 2008, howeve r, this court ruled that 3Sam ad i fi le d am ot io n t o a m en d t he jud gm en t, ch al le ng in g t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s ca lc ul at io n a ndpre se nt in g t wo al te rn at iv e m et ho ds of c al cu la ti on . Und er th e fi rs t m etho d, Sa m ad i ca lc ul at edin te res t o ve r a 1 0- y ear p eri odan d d idno t acco un t fo r an y

an nu al am orti zat io n. Un de r th e se co ndm et ho d, Sa m ad i imm ed ia te ly deduc te d t he $3 ,60 0 p ai d b y Oli ve r, bu t b ecau se “pa ym en t d at es an d am ou nt s m ad e b y

Trus te e were s cat te redth ro ug ho utth e y ears ,” he di d n otde du ct th e $ 35 ,26 1.4 1 p ai d b y

th e Ch ap te r 13 tru st ee u nt il m id way th ro ug h t he Ch ap te r 13 cy cl e. The b an krup tc y co urt d en ie d S am ad i’s m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at Sam ad i’s “ m etho ds of c al cu la ti on ha ve no t b e[en ] ex pl ai ne d a nddo no t ap pe ar t o co m po rt wi th st an da rdacco un ti ng m et ho ds .” Sam ad i ap pe al edto th e d is tri ctco urt, ar gu in g tha t t he ba nk rupt cy co urt erre d i n m ak in g i ts in te res t ca lc ul at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt af firm edan d S am ad i no w app eal s t o t hi s co urt o n the same gro un ds . II . Anal ys is Whe re we s erv e as th e se co ndco urt o f rev ie w of aba nk rupt cy co urt’s jud gm en t, we em

pl oy the fol lo win g s ta nd ardof r ev ie w:

Samadi never

filed a timely

notice to appe al the expense a war d to the district court. Ther efor e, we va cate d that portion of the district cour t’s order and the merits of that issue cannot now be addre ssed by

this court on appea l. 4[W] e in de pe nd en tl y ex am in e th e fac tu al an d l eg al de te rm in at io ns of th e b an krup tc y

co urt an d e m

pl oy the same sta nd ard s o f rev ie w as the di st ric t co urt. As t he di st ric t co urt m ad e n o fa ctua l fi nd in gs in it s fu nc ti on as a n app el la te co urt, o ur rev ie w is de no vo . W e rev ie w th e fin di ng s o f fac t m ad e b y

th e b an krup tc y

co urt fo r cl ear e rro r. A factua l fi nd in g i s n otcle arl y erro ne ou s u nl es s t hi s co urt, af te r rev ie win g a ll of t he ev id en ce, [i s] lef t wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d. Th is Co urt co nduc ts a de no vo rev ie w of d et erm in at io ns of l aw, whet he r fro m th e ba nk rupt cy

co urt o r th e d is tri ctco urt. Inre In t’l Adm in . Serv s. In c., 40 8 F .3d68 9, 6 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al ci ta ti on s an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Und er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ban krup tc y Pro cedur e, a cre di to r m ay fil e a pr oo f of cla im , whi ch , when ex ecu te d a ndfil edco rrec tl y , “ co ns ti tu te [s ] pr im a

4 faci e ev id en ce o f th e v al id ity an d a m ou ntof the cla im .” Fed . R. Ban kr . P. 30 01 (f); se e In re Bat em an , 33 1 F .3d82 1, 8 27 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The d eb to r m ay reb utth e cred it or ’s pro of

of c la im by fili ng anob

jecti onpu rs ua ntto Ru le 30 07 . Fed . R. Ban kr . P. 30 07 . Whe n s uc h a n o bjec ti on is m ad e, fed eral law re qu ire s tha t “ th e co urt, af te r no ti ce an d ahe ari ng , [] de te rm in e th e am ou ntof s uc h c la im .” 11 U.S.C. § 5 02 (b ). The cr ed it orret ai ns th e u lt im at e b ur de n o f pe rs ua si on as t o t he am ou ntof t he cla im . In re Harfo rdSan ds Inc ., 37 2 F .3d63 7, 6 40 (4t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; Inre Harri so n, 9 87 F.2d67 7, 6 80 (10 th Cir . 19 93 ). “A pr oof of c laim is a written statement settingforth a c reditor’ s claim.” F ed. R. Ba nkr. 4 P. 3001(a). 5Ban krup tc y law m an da te s t ha t t he term s o f th e ag reem en t ar e to go ve rnth e se cu redcred it or ’s award . See 1 1 U.S.C. § 50 6( b) (th e o ve rs ecu redcred it oris en ti tl edto “ in te res t o n s uc h c la im , andan y reas on ab le fees , cos ts , or c ha rg es pr ov id edforun de r th e ag reem en t” ) (em ph as is ad de d) . In t he in st an t ca se , Sam ad i fil edhi s p ro of

of c la im , bu t Ol iv er re bu tt editby fili ng anob jecti on to Sam ad i’s m etho d o f cal cu la ti on . Oliv er ar gu ed , in te r al ia , th atSam ad i’s ca lc ul at io n was no t ba se d o n a ccu rat e fi gu res an d h e la ck edpro of to supp ort h is cal cu la ti on . Sam ad i u lt im at el y

pre se nt edth ree d iff

eren t m et ho ds of c al cu la ti on , all of whi chco nt ai ne d fl aws . The fi rs t m et ho d i nc orrect ly pro jecte d t he in te res t o ve r a 12 0- m on th , rathe r th an 11 8- m on th , per io d. Th e se co ndm et ho d s im il arl y cal cu la te d t he in te res t o ve r 12 0- m on th s an d d idno t ac co un t fo r an y an nu al am orti zat io n, ev en th ou gh itis un di sp ut edth atth e Ch ap te r 13 tru st ee m ad e pa ym en ts . The l as t m etho d a ss ig ne d a n arb it rary andad m it te dl y in co rrec t d at e to th e p aym en t b y

th e Ch ap te r 13 tru st ee, thu s p erm it ti ng Sam ad i t o a ccu m ul at e a la rg e am ou ntof i nt eres t b efo re t he $3 5,2 61 .41 pa ym en t was de du ct ed . The m etho ds of c om

pu ta ti on pro vi de d b y

Sam ad i co nt ai ne d e rro rs , were s el f-s erv in g, an d, as th e b an krup tc y

co urt n ot ed , di d “ no t ap pe ar t o c om po rt wi th st an da rd acco un ti ng m etho ds .” W e th eref or e h ol d t ha t t he ba nk rupt cy co urt d idno t err in reject in g t he m etho ds of c al cu la ti on pro po se d b y Sam ad i. 6The ba nk rupt cy co urt’s awar d was reac he d b y ap pl y in g t he 14 .5% i nt eres t rat e, as sp eci fie d i n t he co nt ract , to th e 1 18 -m on th de fau ltpe rio d. As th e ba nk rupt cy

co urt n ot edan d b ot h p art ie s ac kn owl ed ge , paym en ts were m ad e sp or ad ic al ly andth e d at es of c ert ai n p aym en ts were d is pu te d. Be cau se th is m ad e a pr eci se in te res t ca lc ul at io n i m po ss ib le , th e b an krup tc y

co urt u se d ast rai gh t-l in e am orti zat io n app ro ach , cal cu la ti ng th e in te res t o wedas i f m on th ly paym en ts of $5 58 .21 be en m ad e equa ll y ov er t he 11 8- m on th pe rio d. Whil e n otpe rfec t, t hi s m etho d was reas on ab le gi ve n t he cir cu m st an ces an d re fle ct s t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s ad he ren ce t o t he term s o f th e ag reem en t, i n a cco rd an ce wi th 11 U.S.C. § 50 6( b) . Bec au se Sam ad i d idno t s at is fy hi s b ur de n o f pr ov in g t he am ou ntof i nt eres t owe d t o h im , th e b an krup tc y co urt d idno t err in us in g an i m pr eci se , bu t m or e co m pr eh en si bl e, m etho d t o c al cu la te th e in te res t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7