By order of the Bank ruptcy Appe llate Panel, the prec edential effec t of this decision is l imited to the case and parties pursuant to 6 th C i r
. B A P L B R 8 0 1 3 -1 (b). S

ee a l s o 6 th C i r
. B

A P L B R 8 0 1 0 -1 (c).
F ile Nam e: 06b0017n.06
BA NK RU P TC Y A P P ELLA TE P AN EL OF THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
I n re: RONAL D J OSEPH PER RON and MARY ANN PERRON,

De bto rs
.

_______________________________________ RONAL D J OSEPH PER RON and MARY ANN PERRON,

Ap pe lla nts ,

v. eCAST SETTL EMENT CORP.,

Appellee

.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 05-8075

Appea l from the United States B ankruptc y Court for the Wester

n District of Michig an, at Ma rquette. No. 03-90592. Arg ued: Aug ust 23, 2006
Dec ided and F iled: October 13, 2006
B e fo re : A UG , SCO TT , a

nd WHI PPL E, B a nk

ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e s.

____________________ CO UN SEL
ARG UED: Al lan J. Ri tte nh ou se , Iro n M ounta in, Mic hig a n, fo r A pp ell ant s. Al a ne A. B e c ke t, BECKET & L EE, Malver n, Pe n n s y lvania, for

Appellee

. O N B RI E F: Allan J . Ritt enhouse, Iron Mo un ta in, M i c h i g a n , f

o r Ap p e l l a n t s
. Jam e s W

. B a t c h e l o r , T R O T T & T R O T T , G r a n d R a p i ds , Michig an, for

Appellee

.- 2- ____________________ OP IN ION

____________________ J. VI NC EN T AU G, JR., Chi e f B a nk ru ptc y Ap pe llate Pane l Judg e . T he c ha pte r 7 de bto rs , Ronald J oseph and Ma

ry Ann Perron (the “De btors”), a ppeal the or der of

the bankr uptcy court that

overr uled their objec tions to t he ame nded proof s of claims filed by

eCAST Settlement Corporation (“ eC AST”), a s assig nee of two cre dit card c reditors. F or the re asons that follow, the orde r of the bankruptc y

court is AF FI RMED.
I. ISS UE ON AP P EAL
Whether a de btor’s cla im objection is sufficient to d i s al l o w a proof of c laim where the objection (i) doe s not actually contest the de btor’s liability or t he amount of the debt and (ii) is base d solely on the ar g ument that the proof of claim is technica lly

insufficient beca

use the cre ditor attache d only a summary

of the ba sis for the cla im and failed to a ttach supporting documentation.

II. JU RI SDI CT ION AND STANDARD OF RE VI EW
The B ankruptc y

Appella t e P an el of the Si x th Circuit (“B AP”) ha s jurisdiction to hear and decide this a

ppeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b) (1). The United States District Court for the Wester n District of Michig an has a

uthorized appea ls to the BAP, and no one has objected to transfe r of this appeal to t he B AP. A f

ina l or de r o f a

ba nk ru ptc y c ourt may be a ppe a le d b y

ri g ht u nd e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 158(a) (1). An or der is fina l if it “‘ends the litig ation on the merits and leave s nothing for the c ourt to do but ex ecute the judg ment.’” Midland Asphalt Cor p. v. United States , 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S. Ct. 14 94 , 14 97 (1 98 9) (c itatio n omi tte d)

. Th e ba nk ru ptc y c ourt ’s or de r ov e rr

uli ng the De bto rs ’ objections to e CAST’s c laims is a f inal order

. Morton v. Morton (I n re Morton) , 298 B.R. 301, 303 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2003).
The fa cts are not in disput e. S i n ce the issue on appe al is whether the bankr

uptcy court committed an error of law, the or der is re viewed de novo

. E.g., Corzin v. Fordu ( In re Fordu) , 201 F.3d 693, 6 9 6 n
. 1 (6 t h C i r. 1999). “ ‘De novo means that the a ppellate c ourt deter

mines the law independe ntly

of the trial co u rt ’s deter mination.’” Tre ini

sh v . No rwe

st B an k Mi nn ., N.A . (

In re Pe ria nd ri) , 266 B.R. 651, 653 (B .A.P. 6th Ci r. 2001) ( citations omitt ed).- 3- III . F AC TS
The De btors filed their pe titions for r elief unde r chapte r 7 of the U. S. B ankruptc y Code on Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 3

. O n Sc h e d u le F, Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Clai ms , they listed twenty -one c redit ca

rd debts, none of which wer e marke d as conting ent, unliquidated, or disputed. Th e lis t in c lud e d: 1) MB NA Amer ica - acc ount number ending 9633, in the amount o f $5,745.23, with the notation “Plat i n u m P l us car d first used 1/00. Possibly consolidated into MBN A ca rd number [ending] 7545.” 2) MB NA Amer ica - acc ount number ending 4726, in the amount of $13,290.0 1 , wi t h the notation “MBN A Quauntum used 4/95. Possibly consolidated into ca

rd number [ending ] 7545.” 3) MB NA Amer ica - no acc ount number g iven, in the amount of $26,000, with the notation “This is a consolidation of a ll MBNAs.” 4) Providian - acc ount numbe r ending 1788, in the amount of $356.00, with the n otation “Use d since 8/97.”
On June 23 , 2 00 4, e CA ST, a s a ssi g ne e of Pr ov idi a n, fi le d an a me ndme nt to its pr oo f of c la im number 4, amended c lai m n u m b er 6 , cl aim ing a debt in the amount of $554.98 on a cre dit card

acc ount with the number ending 1788. Mr. Perron a nd h i s Social Security

number we re listed on the proof of

claim which wa s a modified ver sion of Offic ial For m 10. Parag raph 4 of the proof of claim, titled “TOTAL

AMOUNT O F CL AI M AT TI ME CASE FI L E D, ” i ncluded the la ng uag e, “Chec k this box if claim includes inter est s o r other c harg es in addition to the principal amount of the claim. Attach itemiz ed st atement of all interest or additional char g es.” ( J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 292.) That box was not ch ecke d. Parag raph 8 of the modified for

m, titl ed “SUPPORTI

NG DOCUMENTS,” state d:

I temized monthl y

statements of a ccount we re ma iled to the debtor pre -petition; claimant maintains copies of said stateme nts on microfilm or imag e proc essing and re pr od uc tio n o f s a me a

bs e nt a dis pu te a s to the ba lanc e wo uld b e un du ly tim e c on su min g a

nd burd e ns ome ; ne ve rt

he le ss, wh e re a n in te re ste d p a rt y so re qu e sts , claimant will sear ch its rec ords to provide c opies of said mont h [si c] acc ounts [ sic] statements. To re quest furthe r docume ntation please c all Be cket & L ee L L P at 1-- 4-

800-562-6030 a

nd ask to speak to the Claims Servicing S u p ervisor. Claims may inc lud e c on tr a c tua l in te re st a nd /or la te c ha rg e s. ( J

. A

. a t 2 9 2

. ) A t t a c h e d t o a m e n d e d c l a i m n u m b e r 6 w a s a d o c u m e n tt i t l e d “ A c c o u n t i n g S u m m a r

y” sh ow ingthe name s o f b oth de bto rs , a “B e g inn ing B a la nc e At Pur c ha se ” of

$5 54 .9 8, wi th n o in te re st added a nd no pay ments made, a

nd showing a “Curr ent Balanc e as of 6/ 10/03" of $554.98, and the statement “The above a ccount infor mation was der ived from the inf ormation containe d in the eCAST Settlement Corporation ac count databa se, which inc ludes information p ro v i ded by the previous own er of the ac count, Providian National B ank, and othe r sourc es, including the Ba nkruptcy Court.” (J.A. at 293.)
Al so on June 23 , 2 00 4, e CA ST, a s a ssi g ne e of MB NA Am e ri c a , fi le d a n a me ndme nt to i ts proof of claim number 5, a

mended c laim number 7, cla iming a de bt in the amount of $26,908.04,

on a cr edit car d acc ount with the number ending7545. Mr. Perron and his Social Security number

wer e listed on the for

m proof of c laim which was a modified version of Offic ial For m 10. Parag raph 4 of the proof

of claim, titled “TOTA L AMOUNT O F CL AI M AT TI ME CASE FI L ED,” inc luded the lang uag e, “Che ck this box if claim includes intere sts or other cha rg es in addition to the principal amount of the c laim. A ttach itemiz ed statement of all interest or additional char g es.” (J.A. at 294.) That box was not checke d. Parag raph 8 of the modified form , t i t l ed “SUPPORTI NG DOCUMENTS,” c ontained the same lang uag e quoted above with r espec t to amended c laim number 6. (J.A. at 294.)
Attache d to amended

c la im n u mb e r 7 w a s a d o c u me n t t it le d

“Ac counting Summary ” showing the names of both de btors, a “B eg inning B alanc e At Purcha se” of $26,908.04, with no interest adde d and no pay

ments made to the amount claimed, and the statement “The above a ccount infor mation was de rived fr om the information containe d in the eCAST Settlement Corporation ac count databa se, which includes infor

mation pr ovided by the previous owner of the a ccount, MB NA Amer ica, a nd other sourc es, including the B ankruptc y Court.” (J.A. at 295.)
On July 14 , 200 4, the De bto rs fi le d obje c tio ns to the a me nd e d pro of s of cl a im on the ba sis , in essence , that they wer e technically insufficient because only acc ount summaries were pr ovided.The objec tion requested that the Trustee strike the claims, that eCAST be pre vented f rom 1 mod if y ingor a me nd ingits c laim s and that e CA ST b e re qu ir e d to pa y a tto rn e y fe e s to De bto rs ’ attorney in the amount of $500 “f or the filing of an imprope r plea ding in this ca se.” ( J .A. at 83.)

- 5- Th e De bto rs re qu e ste d th a t th e c la im s be di sa llo we d. On Au g us t 13 , 2 00 4, e CA ST f ile d it s 1 response to the obj ections by including documentation i n support of i ts summaries, t hat is, copies of monthly

statements and a ccompa

ny ing a pplications for e ach c ard. Providian statements, with due date s for the period from Aug ust 14, 2002, to J uly 15, 2003, show inclusion of l ate pay ment char g es ($29 then $35) , overlimit fees ( $29), and f inance char g es (at 23.99%). Statements beg inning with the due date of J anuar y 14, 2003, include the languag e “Y OUR PAYMENT I S L ATE AND YOUR B AL ANCE I S OVER I TS CR EDI T L I MI T!” T he Providian

c r e d i tc a r d

a p p l i c a t i o n i s b y M r
. P e r

r o n o n l y.
MBNA A me r ic a s tate me n ts , w it h d u e d a te s f o r th e p e r io d f

r o m Ju n e 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 , to Ju n e 1, 2003, show inclusion of late fees ($35), overlimit fee s ($35), and financ e charg es (up to 21.99%). Statements beg inning with the due date of J anuar y 1, 2003, include the languag e “O UR RECORDS SHOW YOUR ACCOUNT I S P AST DUE AND YOUR B AL ANCE EXCEEDS APPROVED C R E D IT L IM IT S

. ” T h e M B N A A m e r i c a c r e d i tc a r d

a p p l i c a t i o n i s b y M r
. P e r

r o n o n l y.
A hea ring was conducted on September 10, 2004, a nd on October

7, 2004, the cour

t entere d its Memorandum Opinion overr uling the Debtors’ objection and holding that eCAST had provide d

su ff ic ie nt do c ume ntatio n of its c la ims pr ior to the he a ri ng so that the y c on sti tut e d prim a facie evidenc e of the validity

and amount of the claims; that in list ing the debts on t h ei r S chedule s as
un dis pu te d, the de bto rs ha d a dmi tte d th e y ha d p os se sse d th e c re dit c a rd s a nd ha d inc ur re d the de bts ; and th a t s in c e th e D e b to r s h a d p r o d u c e d n o c o n tr a r

y e v id e n c e , in f

a c t n o e v id e n c e a t a ll , a s to the validity and amount of the claims, the cla ims were a llowed.F or c a se s in the Sixth C ir c uit

wh ic h a dd

re ss t he iss ue of

su pp or tin g do c ume ntatio n b y

c re dit 2 car d claimants, see In re Hughe s , 3 13 B .R. 20 5 ( B a

nk r. E. D. Mic h. 20 04 ) (“ I n the c on te xt o f a c la im fi le d b y a n a ssi g ne e of

a c re dit c a rd c re dit or , th e a ssi g ne e mus t pro vid e the c on tr a c tua l ba sis of its rig ht to pay

ment , and spec ific information on the Debtor’s a ccount ( i.e. ac count number, soc ial se c ur ity nu mbe r, a nd

a c c ount b a lanc e ). ” ); In re Kem mer , 315 B.R. 706 (B ankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004) (holding that wh er e chapter 13 debtors obje cted to proof s of claim on basis of insuff icient do c ume ntatio n, a nd wh e re de bto rs ha d sch e du le d cr e dit c a rd de bts , alt ho ug h s umm a ry

a tta c hme nts wer e insuffic ient pursuant to Fed. R. B ankr. P. 3001(c ) to ac cord pr esumption of validity , claimant es t ab l i s h ed validity

and debtor s had not met burden of proof of challeng ing va lidity

and leg al sufficie ncy

of debts owe d); and In re Bu rk e tt , 329 B.R. 820 (B ankr. S. D. Ohio 2005) (conc luding that exclusive gr ounds for disallowanc e of c laim i s s t at u t ory , 11 U.S.C. § 502, which does not include insuffic iency

of docume ntation and t h at co u rt must determine validity , owner ship, and amount of claim on case -by -ca se basis). eCAST was one of the claimants in Hughes and Kemme r . I n Hughes , o ne of

the pr oo fs of

c la im fil e d ha d ide nti c a l la ng ua g e re g a rd ingsu

pp or tin g do c ume nts as the proof

s of claim filed by

eCAST here

. Kemme r declined to f ollow Hughes , in hold ingthat a proof of claim base d on a cr edit car d acc ount require s attachme nt of both the underly ing a g ree ment a nd the a c tua l tr a

ns a c tio ns
.

- 6-

IV . D ISC USS ION
Tw o o the r b a nk

ru ptc y a pp e llate pa

ne ls h a ve ru le d o n s imi lar f a c ts: Do v e -N

ati on v . eCast Settlement Corporation ( In re Dov e-Nation) , 318 B.R. 147 (B .A.P

. 8 t h C i r. 2004), and Heath v. American E

xpress Travel Re lated Company ( In re He ath) , 331 B.R. 424 (B .A.P. 9th Ci r. 2005). 2

I n Dove -Nation , the cha

pter 13 de btor objecte d to eCAST’s proof of cl ai m for credit ca

rd debts on the basis that the cre ditor had not pr ovided documentation to suppor t the claims, as re quired by Fe d. R. Bankr . P. Rul es 3001 and 3002 and instruc tions to t he proof of cla im form. The de btor had sche duled the debts, for almost the s ame amounts as claimed by eCAST and without indicating they we re co n t inge nt, unliquidated, or disputed, but later amended he r Schedule F to list the obligations as disputed.
After a hea ring , the bankr

uptcy court e ntere d an orde r over ruling the debtor’ s objections and

a n a pp e a l f oll ow e d. I n a ff

ir min g the ba

nk ru ptc y c ourt , th e Ei g hth

Cir c uit B a nk ru ptc y App ellate Panel deter

mined:
The c laims complied with the spirit of the applica b l e ru l es and as such constituted pr imaf a c i e e v i d e n c e o f t h e v a l i d i t y a n d a m o u n t o f t h e c l a i m s
. F e d

. R

. B a nk r. P. 3001(f)

. Howeve r, even if the claims had not substantially complied with Rule 3001, the c la ims a re sti ll a llo we d c la ims un de r Se c tio n 50 2 of the B a nk ru ptc y Cod e un le ss- 7-

the Debtor

establishes an e x ception under Section 502(b). 1 1 U.S.C. § 502(a) a nd (b).
In r e D o ve -N

a t ion , 318 B.R. at 152. In rea ching its determination, the cour t stated that the Ba nkruptcy Code, not proce dural rule s or offic ial fo rm s , g overns the a llowance and disallowanc e of c la ims

. I n He ath , the cha

pter 7 de btors also schedule d sever al cr edit car d debts without designating the m a s c on tin g e nt, un liq uid a te d, or dis pu te d. Se ve ra l hold e rs of the c la ims fi le d pro of s of c la im, all in slightly highe r amounts than were li sted by the debtors on their S chedule F. Specifica lly not relying on the debtors havingschedule d the debts, the Ninth Circuit Ba nkruptcy Appellate Pane l held:
When a cr editor files a proof of claim, that claim is deeme d allowed unde r Sections 50 1 a nd 50 2( a ). A p ro of

of c la im that la c ks the do c umentat ion re qu ir e d b y

Rul e 30 01 (c ) d oe s n ot q

ua lif y fo r t he e vid e nti a ry be ne fi t of Rul e 30 01 (f )– it i s n ot p ri ma fa c ie e vid e nc e of

the va lid ity a nd a mou

nt of the c la im–

bu t that by its e lf is no t a

ba sis to d is a ll o w th e c la im

. Se c ti o n 5 0 2 ( b ) s e ts f o rth th e e xc lu s iv e g r o unds for dis a llo wa nc e of c la ims , a nd De bto rs have int

ro du c e d no evi dence or

a rgume nts to e sta bli sha ny of tho se g ro un ds

. He ath , 3 31 B .R. a t 42 6; se e als o M ill ma n v . Ca

pit al O ne Ba nk (

In re Cam

pb e ll) , 336 B.R. 430 (B .A .P. 9t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ( on fa c ts i nd ist inguis ha

ble fr om He ath , the cour t reiterated that the Ba nkruptcy Rules cannot expand 11 U.S.C. § 502). “Compliance is ce rtainly important. Howeve r, the mere failure to comply with rules conc erning the form a nd content of a p ro o f o f cla im is not justification under the B ankruptc y Code to judicially

invalidate a cre ditor’s otherwise lawful c laim.” In re Shaffner , 320 B.R. 870, 876 (B ankr. W.D. Mich. 2005).
The B ankruptc y Code establishes subs tantive rights. The B ankruptc y Rules do not “abridg e, enlar g e, or modify any

substantive rig hts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2075. They mere ly supplement the Code, in part providing evidentiar y g uidance

. Offic ial For

ms, and the instructions to them, offe r g uidance fo r a sse rt ingsu

bs tanti ve ri g hts

. Pur su a nt t o 1 1 U .S. C. § 50 2( a ), a c la im i s d e e me d a llo we d unle ss an objec tion to the claim is filed. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) offe rs ex ceptions to the rule of allowanc e. That the proof

of cla im filed is technically insufficient is not one of the exceptions.- 8-

Fe d. R. Bankr . P. 3001(a) pr ovides, “A pr oof of c laim shall con fo rm substantially to the

a pp ro pr ia te Of

fi c ia l F or m.” Th a t is Of

fi c ia l Fo rm 10 , or F or

m B1 0. Sub se c tio n ( f) of

the ru le state s,

“ A p ro of of c la im ex ecut ed and

fi le d in a c c or da nc e wi th t

he se ru le s sh a ll c on sti tut e pr ima fa c ie evidenc e of the validity

and amount of the claim.”
The Of ficial F orm 10 ava ilable when e CAST filed its proofs of claims in J une of 2004 w as last amende d in D ece mber of 2003. Parag raph 4 of the for m, Tot al Am ou nt of Clai m at Time Cas e Filed , includes the same lang uag e as on the modified form used by eCAST, that is, “Check this box if claim includes inter est or other char g es in a ddition to t he princ ipal amount of the c laim. Attach itemiz ed stateme nt of all interest or a dditional charg es.” Par ag raph 9 of the form, Supporting Do c um e nts , in c lud e s th e state me nts , “ I f t he do c ume nts a re no t a va ila ble , e xpla in. I f the do c ume nts

a re vo lum ino us , a tta c h a su mma ry .” Th e pe na lty fo r pr e se nti ng a fr a ud ule nt c la im is a fi ne of up to $500,000, imprisonment for up to five y ear s, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571. I nstructions for completing the form a

re pr ovided.
Al tho ug h e CA ST d id n ot s ta te on its fi le d, mod if

ie d of fi c ia l fo rm pr oo fs of c la im that in te re st

a nd a dd iti on a l c ha

rg e s w e re inc lud e d in

the to tal amou

nts c la ime d, pr ior

to t he he a ri ng e CA ST provided doc umentation in support of its summ arie s, specific ally , monthly statements showing the inclusion of interest and a dditional char g es. Ne verthe less, even if , pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of B a nk ru ptc y Pr oc e du re 30 01 (a ), e CA ST d id n ot “ c on fo rm su bs tanti a lly” wi th t

he ru le , p ur su a nt t o
su bs e c tio n ( f) of

the ru le , it me re ly did no t hav e the be ne fi t of “p ri ma fa c ie e vid e nc e of

the va lid ity and amount” of the claims. The re cord indicates that eCAST substantiated both the validity and the

a mou nts of the c la ims a t the he a ri ng , whi c h ev ide nc e the De bto rs did no t counte r. Th e y a rgue d o nly that th e c la ims a s f

ile d w e re te c hn ic a lly

ins uf fi c ie nt.
F ur the rm or e , th e De bto rs a dmi tte d in the ir Sc he du le F , a

n uns wo rn

de c laratio n und e r p e na lty of per jury , that they

owe $26,000 to MB NA and $356.0 0 t o P rovidian. F ed. R. Evid. 801(d)( 2). MB NA ’s c la im i s f

or $2 6, 90 8. 04 , o r a dif

fe re nc e of $9 08 .0 4 fr om wh a t is a dmi tte d by the De bto rs
. Pr ov idi a n’ s c la im is fo r $ 55 4. 98 , o r a dif fe re nc e of $1 98 .9 8 f

ro m w hat is a dmi tte d b y

the De bto rs
. Consequently , the total amount in dispute is $1,107.02.
Th e De bto rs a sse rt

th at th ey are not bo th l ia ble on the c re dit

c a rd de bts . H ow e ve r, thi s de te rm inatio n is no t r e le va nt a s to the va lid ity

or a mou nt o f the de bts ow e d. Th e De bto rs fi le d th e ir- 9-

bankruptc y jointly and did not indicate on their Schedules whether the debts belong ed to them individually

or jointly . This issue need not be a ddresse d further

. I n addition, although both pa rties refer to the Debtors’ motion to sever and their c oncer

n for

re a l pr op e rt

y on c e oc c up ie d b y

Mr s. Pe rr on ’s mot

he r, the De bto rs ’ m oti vatio n in fi li ngthe ir objections to eCAST’s p ro o fs o f cl aim is not relevant. The ref ore, this issue also nee d not be addre ssed furthe r.
I n acc ordanc e with 11 U.S.C. § 502(b), the bankr uptcy court a ppropriate ly

deter mined, from the pr oo f p re se nte d a t the he a ri ng on Se pte mbe r 1 0, 20 04 , th e a mou nt o f t he c la ims ma de by

e CA ST

a s $ 26 ,9 08 .0 4 f

or the MB NAc la im a

nd $5 54 .9 8 f

or the Pr ov idi a n c la im a

nd a llo we d th e c la ims in those amounts, thus overruling the Debtor s’ objections. I n this case, the ba nkruptcy court rule d

corr ectly

. V. CO NC LU SION
For the forg oing r easons, the or der of the bankr uptcy court is AF FI RMED.