IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: ) 

William W Yotis, III ) Chapter 13 

 ) Case No. 14-02689

 Debtor ) Judge Schmetterer 

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: U.S. TRUSTEE Oxford Bank and Trust 

 By CM/ECF electronic notice c/o Adam Rome 

 Greiman, Rome & Griesmeyer LLC 

 TOM VAUGHN, TRUSTEE By CM/ECF electronic notice 

 By CM/ECF electronic notice 

 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, June 07, 2017 at 9:30AM or as soon thereafter as 

Counsel may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Judge Jack B Schmetterer, or any other Judge

sitting instead, in courtroom 682 at the Dirksen Federal Building, 219 S Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois and 

present the attached Objection to Claim #04 filed by Oxford Bank and Trust. 

 /s/ Scott J Kofkin

 Attorney for Debtor(s) 

. 675 E Irving Park Road, #104 

 Roselle, Illinois 60172 

 (630) 539-4600 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Scott Kofkin, an attorney, certifies under penalty of perjury that he has, on the date 

shown below, filed and caused to be transmitted by the court’s electronic filing system, a true 

copy of this Notice and attached Objection to Claim to all parties listed above and to others 

included on the court’s ECF Service List, on May 02, 2017. 

 

/s/ Scott J Kofkin

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 6
1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: ) 

Karen C Yotis ) Chapter 13 

 ) Case No. 16-30628

 Debtor ) Judge Schmetterer 

DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO CLAIM #04

OF OXFORD BANK AND TRUST

Karen C Yotis (the “Debtor”) by and through counsel Scott J Kofkin, objects pursuant to 

11 USC 502(b)1 and FRBP2 3007(a) to Proof of Claim #04 of Oxford Bank and Trust (“Oxford”) 

and in support thereof respectfully states as follows: 

Factual Background and Procedural History

A. Current Case. 

The Debtor filed her voluntary Chapter 13 petition [Dkt 01] on September 26, 2016, and 

her original Chapter 13 Plan [Dkt 14] on October 10, 2016. The Section 341(a) Meeting of 

Creditors was held November 10, 2016. The proposed plan has not been confirmed. 

Oxford filed a Motion to Dismiss and Shorten Notice [Dkt 21] alleging lack of good 

faith, which motion was denied [Dkt 64] by order entered February 17, 2016. 

Oxford’s Proof of Claim [Claim #04] filed November 14, 2016 asserts that it is owed, as 

of the petition date, a total of $147,577.27 as the holder of a mortgage on the Debtor’s residence, 

at all relevant times owned jointly with her spouse as tenants by the entirety. The Debtor does 

not have personal liability for the Oxford claim, having received a discharge in a 2010 Chapter 7. 

 

1

 All section references will be to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 USC §§101 et seq, unless otherwise specifically stated 

2

 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 6
2

Oxford’s note and mortgage, dated in December, 1993, are attached as Part 02 to 

Oxford’s Claim #04. A copy of Oxford’s Claim #04 and attachments are attached hereto. 

B. Prior Chapter 13 by Debtor’s Spouse. 

Oxford’s mortgage on the Debtor’s residence was included in a Chapter 13 filed in this 

Court [14-02689; Dkt 01] by the Debtor’s spouse, William W Yotis, III, on or about January 29, 

2014. Oxford received payments pursuant to the confirmed plan in William’s case until the case 

was dismissed on August 03, 2016 on a trustee’s motion for the spouse’s failure to make plan 

payments. Oxford was represented in William’s case by the same attorneys representing them in 

the current case pending herein. 

 The Trustee’s Final Report and Account in that case [14-02689; Dkt 310] shows that 

Oxford received a total of $137,056.33 in payments disbursed by the Trustee during the course 

of William’s plan. A copy of that Final Report and Account is attached hereto. 

Oxford and William stipulated in William’s case that the residence, based on a real estate 

appraisal commissioned by Oxford, had a fair market value of $400,000 in early 2014. Oxford’s 

claim at the time of William’s petition for relief was approximately $201,000.00. 

On February 05, 2016, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and accompanying 

Order [14-02689; Dkt 293, 295] disallowing more than $19,600 in Post-Petition Mortgage Fees, 

Expenses and Charges asserted by Oxford after an objection filed by William and briefs 

submitted by the parties in that case. Copies are attached hereto. 

C. Other Oxford Representations. 

In July, 2016 Oxford sent a mortgage statement to the residence showing a past due 

amount of $50,030.00 as of August 01, 2016 and a remaining balance in the amount of 

$20,700.61. 

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 6
3

In addition, Oxford, through their current attorney, provided three(3) payoff letters at 

William’s request dated April 18, 2014, June 01, 2014 and June 24, 2016, the later two each 

showing the same $20,700.61 mortgage balance remaining at that time plus additional amounts 

for late charges, interest, and legal fees. Copies of the mortgage statement and payoff letters 

provided by Oxford are attached hereto. 

Argument

It is well established that the Debtor is permitted to reorganize a debt not personally owed 

by her. Johnson v Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78; 111 S. Ct. 2150; 115 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1991). See 

also In Re Udell, 18 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 1994)(“the right to foreclose is a claim”). 

It is undisputed that the home is worth about $400,000 [stipulated by Oxford in the 

spouse’s case based on an appraisal commissioned by them], that Oxford is the only mortgage 

against the property, and that Oxford received a total of nearly $140,000 in payments in the two 

years the spouse’s case was pending prior to its dismissal. 

Shortly before the filing of this Chapter 13, Oxford repeatedly represented that the 

principal balance remaining on its mortgage loan was only $20,700.00 and that the payoff 

balance of its mortgage was less than $110,000.00 in the weeks leading up to the filing of the 

petition for relief. 

The mortgage and note were executed on or about December 21. 1993. The note provided 

for payments over a 30-year period beginning February 01, 1994 with the final payment due on 

the ‘maturity date’ stated to be January 01, 2024. The mortgage is AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, 

with the remaining principal balance reduced to the amount that would be expected as of May or 

June of 2022, according to readily-available amortization schedules for loans matching the terms 

of Oxford’s note. 

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 6
4

The records in this case and in the spouse’s 2014 case clearly show that Oxford and its 

attorneys have pursued a strategy of excessive litigation, citing questionable and poorly 

researched legal theories, while carefully crafting disingenuous and deliberately false and 

misleading assertions as a basis for churning grossly excessive billings in blatant disregard for 

the well-established principles of fee allowance in bankruptcy proceedings. 

For example, Oxford has delayed and prolonged this case by standing firm on a vague 

and unsupported rant that the petition for relief represented only an intent to hinder and delay 

Oxford, with no intent to repay, despite numerous undisputed facts including the substantial 

equity in the residence and the two-year history of significant payments received by Oxford 

resulting in the more-than-80% reduction of principal balance from $117,832.02 [as of the 

husband’s petition date] to $20,700.61. 

As this Court observed earlier in this case, there is more anger in Oxford’s pleadings than 

law. 

In addition, Oxford knowingly failed to file the supplemental claim forms required for 

creditors holding claims secured by residential mortgage despite having done so with the same 

legal representation in the spouse’s 2014 case. 

In the course of the two cases, Oxford has attempted to add more than $100,000 in legal 

fees opposing the debtors’ attempts to complete the payment of the home they have lived in since 

1983. Oxford’s opposition improperly attempts to compound the Debtor’s burden in order to 

unfairly milk the case for tens of thousands of dollars in fabricated fees. 

Conclusion

Oxford’s Proof of Claim asserting the amount due on it’s mortgage as of the petition 

filing date of September 26, 2016 is unjustifiably inflated above the amounts represented by 

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 6
5

Oxford to be due on multiple occasions within the previous two calendar months. In particular, 

without providing the detailed information required to accompany its Proof of Claim, and in 

contradiction to its own repeated representations, Oxford increased the amount of asserted legal 

fees from $39,339.41 on June 24, 2016 to $76,222.61 on September 26, 2016. 

WHEREFORE, the Debtor prays for an Order disallowing Oxford’s claim to the extent 

determined by this Court to be reasonable and justified in accordance with applicable authority, 

and granting such other and further relief as this Court deems proper. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Karen C Yotis

 BY: /s/ Scott J Kofkin

 Attorney for the Debtor 

Scott J Kofkin 

675 E. Irving Park Road, Ste 104 

Roselle, Illinois 60172 

630-539-4600 

Case 16-30628 Doc 71 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 23:05:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 6