United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1095

___________

In re: Donald Lynn Pierce, Jr., *

*

Debtor. *

_____________________ *

*

Myron Roberts, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Appellant, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

* 

v. * 

*

Donald Lynn Pierce, Jr., * 

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 12, 2005

 Filed: January 25, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Myron Roberts (Roberts) filed a proof of claim in the voluntary Chapter 13

bankruptcy proceeding of Donald Lynn Pierce, Jr. (Pierce). Pierce objected to

Roberts’s proof of claim. Pierce’s counsel served a “negative notice” on Roberts by

attaching to the objection a document entitled “Notice of Opportunity to Respond and
1

The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

3

Rule 9007 states: “When notice is to be given under these rules, the court shall

designate, if not otherwise specified herein, the time within which, the entities to

whom, and the form and manner in which the notice shall be given. When feasible,

the court may order any notices under these rules to be combined.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.

9007. Although Rule 9007 may give the bankruptcy court discretion to adopt a

practice of “negative notices,” as explained hereafter, the Bankruptcy Code more

directly authorizes such a practice in 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)(B)(i).

-2-

Request a Hearing,” which advised Roberts that if Roberts did not respond and request

a hearing within thirty days, the bankruptcy court could enter an order without further

hearing. Roberts did not respond to the negative notice, nor did Roberts request an

evidentiary hearing. 

Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court1

 issued an

amended order granting Roberts’s claim in part and disallowing the balance. Roberts

appealed to the district court,2

 arguing the bankruptcy court should have held an

evidentiary hearing on his claim. The district court concluded Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure 9007 “grants bankruptcy courts the discretion to set the

particularities of notice procedures,”3

 and the bankruptcy court did not abuse its

discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed. 

Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that if a debtor objects to a proof

of claim, “the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such

claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). Section 102 defines the phrase “after notice and a

hearing” to “authorize[] an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given

properly and if . . . such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest.” Id.

§ 102(1)(B)(i). Negative notices are therefore authorized by the Code. Cf. In re
-3-

Looney, 823 F.2d 788, 791 (4th Cir. 1987) (finding section 102 does not require

actual hearings (here preliminary hearings under 11 U.S.C. § 362(e)) in all cases, but

“requires at a minimum that notice be given to the parties before taking such action”).

Negative notices shift the burden to an interested party, such as Roberts, to evaluate

his claim and the debtor’s objections, and then make his own decision whether an

evidentiary hearing would be helpful, and request a hearing, if desired. 

In this case, Pierce served a negative notice on Roberts, Roberts admittedly

received the notice, the notice was clear, and Roberts failed to request an evidentiary

hearing. Roberts received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. We find

no error.

We affirm the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order

granting, in part, and disallowing, in part, Roberts’s proof of claim without holding

an evidentiary hearing.

______________________________