FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 14 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 01 53 7- CV-2 -RBP , BKCY No .07 -0 35 15 -TBB-1 3 IN RE: TERRY D. JACKS, SANDRA C. JAC KS, Deb to rs .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ TERRY D. JACKS, SANDRA C. JAC KS, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us W ELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 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 Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 7 , 20 11 )Befo re MAR TIN, COX andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es .

BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an ts Terry

an d S an dr a Ja ck s fi le d t hi s p ur po rte d c la ss act io n as anadve rs ary pr oc eed in g b efo re the ba nkrupt cy co urt. The ir a m en de d c om pl ai nt al le ge d t he ir m ortg ag e le nd er, Wells Farg o B an k, N.A., vi ol at edva rio us pr ov is io ns of t he Ban krup tc y Co de an d B an krup tc y

Ru le s b y fai li ng to di sc lo se cert ai n fe es on th e p ro of

of c la im itfil edin th e Ja ck s’ Chapt er 1 3 b an krup tc y cas e. Pri orto co ns id eri ng cla ss cert ifi cat io n, t he bankrupt cy co urt ch os e to ad dr es s t he
m eri ts of the Jac ks ’ in di vi du al cla im s. Fo ll owi ng a he ari ng in whi ch itm ad e fin di ng s o f fac t an d c on cl us io ns of l aw, th e b an krup tc y co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

W el ls Farg o o n a ll co un ts . The J ack s ap pe al edth is de ci si on to th e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h a ffi rm edth e b an kr up tc y co urt’s d eci si on . W e aff irm th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n Well s Fa rg o’s fa vo r as to all cl ai m s ex cep t tho se ba se d o n a ct io ns th atW el ls Farg o m ay tak e aft er the Jac ks ’ ba nkrupt cy

cas e is di sm is se d o r di sc ha rg ed . W e d et erm in e to th e ex te ntth e Ja ck s’ cl ai m s ar e b as edon ev en ts th atm ay tak e p la ce l at er, the y

are n otrip e, an d we di sm is s t he m . I. BACKGROUND

2InNov em be r 20 04 , Terry

an d S an dr a Ja ck s o bt ai ne d aho m e m ortg ag e fro m W as hi ng to n M utua l Ba nk . In M arch 20 07 , th e m ortg ag e was ass ig ne d t o Well s Farg o. Lat er tha t year, on Aug us t 8 , 20 07 , th e Ja ck s fi le d avo lu nt ary pe ti ti on for Ch ap te r 13 ba nkrupt cy

in th e U.S. Ban krup tc y

Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Alab am a. The p et it io n d is cl os edth atW el ls Farg o h el d a
se cu redcla im

as am ortg ag e o n the Jac ks ’ ho m e. On Se pt em

be r 6, 2 00 7, Well s Fa rg o fi le d apro of of c la im ass ert in g a se cu redcla im

of $ 16 2,2 05 .57 . Exh ib itA to th e p ro of of c la im was a n “ Ite m iz at io n of Cla im an d S umm ary of

Supp orti ng Docu m en ts .” Thi s ex hi bi t l is te d t he Jac ks ’ to ta l d eb t o f $1 62 ,20 5.5 7. It d idno t l is t an y pre -p et it io n a tt orne y

fees or c os ts , 1 bu t s ta te d a t t he en d o f th e it em iz at io n s ect io n:

Pl e a s e be advi se d th at reas on ab le fees an d co st s fo r th e rev ie w of th e bankrupt c y pl ead in gs , rev ie w of cl ie nt in fo rm at io n, pr ep a r a t io n an d fil in g of th e Pro of of Cl ai m wil l be ch arg ed to th e le nd er/ se rv ic er fo r po st -p et it io n se rv ic es ren de red subs eque nt to th e fil in g of th is ba nkrupt cy m at te r. Fu rth er, no te th at fu tu re fees an d co st s fo r bankrupt cy rel at ed se rv i c e s a re expe ct ed to accrue th ro ug ho u t th e li fe of th is bankrupt cy cas e, an d wil l be c ha rg ed to th e le nd er/ se rv ic er. If su ch fees an d co s t s o r ch a r ge s are no t pa id th ro ug h th e ba nkrupt cy , th e le nd er res erv es th e rig ht , at th e le nd er’s di sc ret io n, to se ek fu tu re The proof

of cla im also asserted a

n arr ear ag e in the amount of $1,191.83. A ccor ding to 1 Wells Farg o, the ar

rea rag e wa s claimed in er

ror, a nd the J acks’ monthly

mortg ag e pay

ments were curr ent when the proof of claim was f

iled. 3rei m bu r s em en t fo r th e fees , co st s an d ch arg es rel at ed to se rv ic es ren de red an d expe ns es in curred pu rs uant to th e te rm s pr ov id ed fo r in th e un de rlyin g se cu rit y in st ru m en t, th e b an krup tc y

co de an d o th er ap pl ic ab le law. Afte r th e p ro of

of c la im was fi le d, Well s Fa rg o’s o ut si de law fi rm subm it te d to W el ls Farg o a n i nv oi ce d oc um en ti ng $3 10 in fees an d e xp en se s as so ci at edwith pr ep ari ng an d fi li ng th e p ro of of c la im in th e Ja ck s’ cas e. On Oct ob er 1 7, 2 00 7, t he Jac ks fil edanAm en de d C hapt er 1 3 P la n. Th e pl ancal le d fo r th e Ja ck s t o c on ti nu e to m ak e th ei r reg ul ar m on th ly paym en t di rect ly to Well s Fa rg o. Itdi d n otli stan y arre arag e to be pa idby the tru st ee. The pl anals o n ot ed , “ Deb to rs als o m ay ha ve a po te nt ia l l aws ui t ag ai ns t Well s Fa rg o Hom e Mo rtg ag e fo r vi ol at io ns of t he au to m at ic st ay , § 5 06 an d R ul e 2 01 6 fo r as se ss in g p os t-p et it io n fe es an d c os ts whi chwere u nd is cl os edon th e p ro of of cl ai m an d/ orm ay

ha ve a po te nt ia l d ecl arat ory jud gm en t ac ti on reg ard in g l an gu ag e us edinth e p ro of

of c la im as b ei ng un ne ces sa ry

or d ecep ti ve . The Deb to rs he reb y wis h t o p res erv e sa idcau se s o f act io n i n t he ir b an krup tc y cas e.” The ba nkrupt cy jud ge en te reda co nf

irmatio n o rd er o n Dec em be r 28 , 20 07
. On J ul y 29 , 20 08 , th e Ja ck s fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t Well s Fa rg o i n t he U.S. Ban krup tc y

Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a. The J ack s, cl ai m in g to acton be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d acla ss of s im il arl y si tu at edm ortg ag or s, al le ge d 4W el ls Farg o v io la te d s ev eral pro vi si on s o f th e Ban krup tc y Co de an d fa il edto co m pl y with t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ban krup tc y Pro cedur e b y

im pr op erl y

“ ch arg [in g], ass es s[ in g], im po s[ in g] an d/ orco ll ect [in g] im pe rm is si bl e fee s” on th e pl ai nt iff s’ andsi m il arl y

si tu at edm ortg ag or s’ acco un ts . In t he Jac ks ’ cas e, th ey al le ge d Well s Fa rg o h ad“ ch arg edor a ss es se d” $3 10 inba nkrupt cy -rel at edfees to th e Ja ck s’ acco un t wi th ou t d is cl os in g t he se fees in th e p ro of of c la im or s eek in g ap pr ov al fro m

th e b an kr

up tc y co urt. The co m

pl ai ntfurth er al le ge d Well s Fa rg o was “ at te m

pt in g t o c ol le ctth is am ou ntor wi ll co ll ectth is am ou ntdu rin g t he pe nd en cy of t he cas e, on ce the Debt or s h av e rec ei ve d the ir d is ch arg e, oron ce the y are d is m is se d fr om

th e cas e, whi ch ev er o ccu rs fir st .” The $3 10 in fees ha d b een reco rd edon th e Ja ck s’ “ Cu st om er Acco un t Acti vi ty Stat em en t” as t wo ch arg es in th e am ou ntof $ 15 0 e ach an d o ne ch arg e fo r $1 0 p os te d o n Oct ob er 2 5, 2 00 7. A li ti ga ti on rep res en ta ti ve forW el ls Farg o ex pl ai ne d i n h er d ep os it io n t es ti m on y th atth e Cu st om er Acco un t Act iv it y St at em en t t rack s p aym en ts an d d is bu rs em en ts rel at edto th e se rv ic in g o f a l oa n, in cl ud in g b an krup tc y -rel at edfees an d e xp en se s. Itm ay in cl ud e fee s p ai d b y

W el ls Farg o t ha t ar e p ro vi si on al ly ass es se d t o t he lo anfor bo ok ke ep in g p ur

po se s. In th is
cas e, th e fee s wer e atto rn ey ’s fees an d o th er co st s p ai d b y W el ls Farg o t o i ts

5at to rn ey s t o re vi ew th e Ja ck s’ ban krup tc y pl anan d t o p rep are Well s Fa rg o’s p ro of of cla im
. The reco rdrefl ect s tha t t he Jac ks be cam e aware of the pro of of c la im fees whe n the Cu st om er Acco un t Act iv it y Sta te m en t was sen t t o S an dr a Ja ck s af te r sh e cal le d Well s Fa rg o t o re qu es t t he act iv it y hi st ory on he r acc ou nt . The Cu st om er Acco un t Act iv it y

Sta te m en t i s t he on ly doc um en t i n e vi de nc e th atli st s t he $3 10 in fees . San dr a Ja ck s s ta te d i n h er d ep os it io n s he ha d n ev er b een bi ll edforor a sk ed to pa y th e ch arg es or t ol d s he wou ldbe expe ct edto pa y th em . Sim il arl y , Terry Ja ck s t es ti fie d Well s Fa rg o h adne ve r do ne an yth in g t o a tt em ptto co ll ectth es e fees
. W el ls Farg o c on ti nu edto sen d s ta te m en ts forth e reg ul ar m on th ly paym en t du e u nd er the m ortg ag e an d d idno t ad d a ny add it io na l ch arg es to th es e st at em en ts . The ba nkrupt cy

co urt ad dr es se d t he m eri ts of t he Jac ks ’ cl ai m pri or to co ns id eri ng cla ss cert ifi cat io n a nden te redsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r W el ls Farg o o n al l co un ts . The d is tri ctco urt af firm ed
. 2 II. DISCUSS ION

At the district court, the Jacks’ c ase w as consolidated w ith that of another se t of 2 plaintiffs–Alan a

nd Cy nthia I som. These c ases origina lly rema ined consolidated on a ppeal to this Court, however, this Court in March 2010 dismissed the I soms’ appea l after concludingwe lacke d jurisdiction. 6The Jac ks co nt en d o n app eal th e d is tri ctco urt erredin affi rm in g the

ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t o n: (1) th ei r cl ai m s tha t Well s Farg o v io la te d t he au to m at ic st ay pro vi si on s i n 1 1 U.S.C. § 36 2; (2) th ei r cl ai m s th atW el ls Farg o v io la te d 1 1 U.S.C. § 50 6( b) an d B an krup tc y Ru le 20 16 by fail in g to di sc lo se th e fee s; an d (3 ) th ei r ob jecti on to th e p ro of

of c la im . “ As the sec on d
co urt o f rev ie w of aba nkrupt cy co urt’s jud gm en t, thi s co urt ex am in es in de pe nd en tl y

th e b an krup tc y

co urt’s . . . det erm in at io ns ” an d e m pl oys th e sa m e st an da rdof r ev ie w as the di st ric t co urt. In re Clu b As so cs . , 95 1 F .2d12 23 , 12 28 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e rev ie w de n ov o a n o rd er gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t. Id
. at 1 22 9. A. Clai ms f

or Vio la ti on s o

f the Aut oma ti c Sta

y Upo n the fil in g o f a b an kr up tc y pe ti ti on , 11 U.S.C. § 3 62 (a) i m po se s, subjec t t o c ert ai n e xc ep ti on s, anau to m at ic st ay of v ari ou s ac ts th atare at te m pt s t o en fo rce p rep et it io n c la im s o r th atwou ldot he rwis e aff ector i nt erfe re wi th pro pe rty of th e es ta te or d eb to r. Co ll ie r o n Ba nk ru pt cy , 16 th ed ., 3-3 62 , ¶ 36 2.0 1. Se ct io n 36 2 “ is on e o f th e fu nd am en ta l d eb to r pr ot ect io ns pro vi de d b y th e b an krup tc y la ws” be cau se it“ gi ve s t he de bt ora br eathi ng sp el l fr om hi s cr ed it or s,” “ st op s al l
co ll ect io n e ffo rts , all ha ras sm en t, an d a ll for ecl os ur e act io ns ,” an d “ pe rm it s the de bt orto att em

pta rep aym en t o r reo rg an iz at io n p la n.” H.R. Rep . No. 9 5- 59 5, at 734 0 (1 97 8) . The au to m at ic st ay als o p ro te ct s cr ed it or s b y pre ve nt in g arace forth e de bt or ’s ass et s an d e nabl in g an o rd erl y li qu id at io n p ro ces s. Id
. The Jac ks cla im

W el ls Farg o v io la te d t hr ee s ep arat e au to m at ic st ay pr ov is io ns : (1 ) se ct io n 3 62 (a)( 3) , whi ch pro hi bi ts “ an y actto ob ta in po ss es si on of pr op erty of t he est at e o r of

pro pe rty from

th e es ta te or t o e xe rci se co nt ro l o ve r pr op erty of t he est at e; ” (2 ) se ct io n 3 62 (a)( 5) , whi ch pro hi bi ts “ an y actto crea te , pe rfec t, o r en fo rce a ga in stpro pe rty of the de bt oran y li ento th e ex te ntth atsu ch li ensec ur es a cl ai m

th ataro se be fo re the co m m en cem en t o f th e cas e u nd er thi s ti tl e; ” an d (3 ) se ct io n 3 62 (a)( 6) , whi ch pro hi bi ts “ an y actto co ll ect , ass es s, o r reco ve r a cl ai m

ag ai ns t the de bt orth ataro se be fo re the co m m en cem en t o f th e cas e un de r th is ti tl e.” Wells Farg o c on te nd s t he Jac ks can no t es tabl is h a ny aut om at ic st ay vi ol at io n b ecau se th e m ere r eco rd at io n o f ch arg es onth e Cu st om er Acco un t Acti vi ty Stat em en t i s n otan“ act ” in vi ol at io n o f th e au to m at ic st ay . W e co ns id er ea ch of the Jac ks ’ au to m at ic st ay vi ol at io n c la im s b el ow, an d
as to each cla im , we affi rm th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of W el ls Farg o. 1. Se ct io n 3 62 (a)( 3)
. As s ta te d abo ve , 11 U.S.C. § 3 62 (a)( 3) pro hi bi ts “ an y actto ob ta in po ss es si on of p ro pe rty of the est at e o r of pro pe rty from

th e es ta te or t o e xe rci se 8co nt ro l o ve r pr op ert y of t he est at e.” The Jac ks cla im W el ls Farg o a ct edto pro te ct it s s ecu rit y

in te res t i n t he ho us e–whi ch was p ro pe rty of the est at e p rio r to th e co nf irmatio n o f th e Ja ck s’ pl an–b y pa y in g alaw fi rm

to fil e cl ai m s i n t he ba nkrupt cy

cas e. Acco rd in g t o t he Jac ks , th es e fee s the n b ecame a lie n o n t he ir ho m e b y vi rtu e o f th e te rm s o f th e m ortg ag e. As s uc h, t he Jac ks arg ue , W el ls Farg o a ct edto ob ta in po ss es si on of p ro pe rty of the est at e o r ot he rwis e ex erci se co nt ro l o ve r pr op ert y

of t he est at e. As Well s Fa rg o p oi nt s o ut , ho wev er, wh il e th e lo ando cum en ts m ay gi ve it th e ri gh t t o m od ify the m ortg ag e to in cl ud e th e fee s atis su e, th ere i s n o e vi de nc e W el ls Farg o h as actua ll y

ex erci se d t hi s ri gh t b y

ad di ng th es e fee s t o t he lo an ba la nc e, no r is th ere e vi de nc e itha s o th erwi se co ll ect edor a tt em pt edto co ll ectth e $3 10 in ba nkrupt cy -rel at edfees . In fa ct , as Sand ra J ack s t es ti fie d, t he m on th ly st at em en ts sen t b y

W el ls Farg o a fte r th e fi li ng of t he ba nkrupt cy pe ti ti on refl ect ed
on ly the no rm al pa ym en t due un de r th e m ortg ag e an d d idno t i nc lu de an y ad di ti on al fees . The J ack s l earn edof the reco rd at io n o f th es e fee s o nl y be cau se San dr a Ja ck s s pe ci fic al ly requ es te d aco py of th e acc ou nthi st ory . The m ere r eco rd at io n o f fee s i nc urredby W el ls Farg o o n i ts in te rn al
reco rd s, wi th ou t an y

att em ptto co ll ectth es e fee s fr om th e d eb to r orest at e o r to
m od ify the m ortg ag e, is no t an“ act ” in vi ol at io n o f § 3 62 (a)( 3) . The Fi rs t Ci rcu it 9reac he d t hi s s am e co nc lu si on in co ns id eri ng th e cl ai m s o f de bt or s wh o l earn ed

th ro ug h re co rd s o bt ai ne d i n adi sc ov ery pr oc eed in g t ha t the ir m ortg ag e le nd er h ad po st edba nkrupt cy -rel at edfees to it s i nt ern al reco rd s. Se e Ma nn v. Ch as e Man ha tt an Mor tg . Cor

p. , 31 6 F .3d1, 3 (1s t Ci r. 20 03 ). As tha t co urt ex pl ai ne d,

“ un il at eral accrua ls of a m ou nt s as se rte dl y du e, bu t i n n o m an ne r co m m un ic at edto th e d eb to r, th e d eb to r’s ot he r cre di to rs , th e b an krup tc y co urt, n oran y

th irdpa rty, pl ai nl y are n otth e so rt o f ‘act’ Con gr es s s ou gh t t o p ro sc rib e.” Id .; se e a ls o Kerne y v. Ca pi ta l On e Fin . Cor

p. (I n r e Sims ) , 27 8 B .R. 45 7, 4 71 (Ban kr . E.D. Ten n. 20 02 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata cred it or“ co ul d p ro du ce al l k in ds of p ap erwo rk whi ch if
co m m un ic at edto th e d eb to r ora th irdpa rty woul d v io la te th e st ay , bu t ab se ntth at co m m un ic at io n, s om e o ve rt a ct , or re su lt in g e ffec t o n t he de bt or , no vi ol at io n h as oc cu rred ”). Nei th er p os se ss io n n orco nt ro l o f th e p ro pe rty was aff ect edby W el ls Farg o’s en try of the fees on it s i nt ern al reco rd s. Ab se ntso m e o th er o ve rt a tt em pt by W el ls Farg o t o re co ve r th es e fee s fr om th e es ta te or t o g ai n a dv an ta ge ov er ot he r cre di to rs , th e en tri es on th e Cu st om er Acco un t Act iv it y Sta te m en t d o n ot co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f th e au to m at ic st ay . W e th eref or e co nc lu de W el ls Farg o was en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . 2. Se ct io n 3 62 (a)( 5)
.

10The Jac ks als o c la im W el ls Farg o v io la te d § 36 2( a)(5 ), whi ch pro hi bi ts “ an y actto crea te , per fect , or e nf or ce ag ai ns t p ro pe rty of the de bt oran y li ento th e ex te ntth atsu ch li ensec ur es a cl ai m th ataro se be fo re the co m m en cem en t o f th e cas e u nd er thi s t it le .” Thi s cl ai m su ffer s fr om

th e sa m e d efi ci en cy

as t he Jac ks ’ cl ai m un de r § 3 62 (a)( 3)
. Whi le th e Ja ck s m ay face po te nt ia l fu tu re l iabi li ty for the ch arg es un de r th e te rm s o f th e m ortg ag e, th ey ha ve no t o ffer edan y

ev id en ce tha t W el ls Farg o h as actua ll y

un de rta ke n any act t o m od ify the li en . “ [A] m ere po te nt ia li ty of fu tu re l iabi li ty reaso nabl y can no t b e co ns id eredth e ‘creat io n’ of a
ne w anden la rg edli en .” Man n , 31 6 F .3dat 4 . As su ch , W el ls Farg o was en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . 3. Sect io n 3 62 (a)( 6)
. Sect io n 3 62 (a)( 6) pro hi bi ts “ an y actto co ll ect , ass es s, o r rec ov er a cl ai m ag ai ns t t he de bt or

th ataro se be fo re the co m m en cem en t o f th e cas e und er thi s ti tl e.” As a n i ni ti al m at te r, we no te so m e d oubtov er wh ethe r th is sec ti on–wh ic h ap pl ie s t o a ct io ns reg ard in g p re-p et it io n c la im s– ap pl ie s t o a ct io ns in co nn ect io n wit h fe es th ataccrue d p os t-p et it io n. In an y cas e, ho wev er, the Jac ks ’ cl ai m un de r § 3 62 (a)( 6) fai ls forth e sa m e rea so n a s t he ir o th er cl ai m s fo r vi ol at io ns of t he
au to m at ic st ay : Well s Fa rg o h as no t co m m it te d a ny “ act ” in vi ol at io n o f th e st ay .

11Sect io n 3 62 (a)( 6) “pr ev en ts cred it or s fr om att em pt in g i n any way

to co ll ect a p rep et it io n d eb t.” H.R. Re p. No . 95 -5 95 , at 3 42 (19 78 ). As ex pl ai ne d abo ve , W el ls Farg o h as no t at te m pt edto co ll ectth e p ro of

-o f-cl ai m fees fro m

th e Ja ck s. It ha s m erel y

reco rd edon in te rn al do cu m en ts fees itin cu rredin ass oc ia ti on with t he Ja ck s’ acco un t. Itha s n otch arg edth es e fee s ag ai ns t t he Jac ks ’ acco un t, ad de d th em to th e b al an ce due onth e m ortg ag e, or co m m un ic at edth em

to th e Ja ck s i n an y form th atco ul d b e co ns tru edas a n a tt em ptto co ll ect . W el ls Farg o was

3 th eref or e en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . B. Clai ms Relat in g t o Well s Fa rg o’ s Fa il ur e to Dis cl os e th e Pro of of Cla im Fees The Jac ks cla im

th atdi st ric t co urt erredin affi rm in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Well s Fa rg o o n t he ir c la im s t ha t Well s Fa rg o v io la te d t he Ban krup tc y Co de an d R

ul es by recor di ng th e fee s wi th ou t d is cl os in g t he m . Sp eci fic al ly, th e Ja ck s co nt en d Well s Fa rg o’s fa il ur e to di sc lo se th e p os tp et it io n fe es vi ol at ed
The Jacks cite to seve ral ba nkruptcy court c ases f

or the proposition that a c reditor’ s 3 place ment of a c harg e on its books can amount to a violation of the automatic stay . Unlike the fac ts here, those case s involved fee s that had bee n charg ed to the bala nce on thedebtor’s a ccount. See M cCormack

v. Fe d. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. ( In re M cCormack ) , 203 B.R. 521, 524-525 (B ankr. D . N.H. 1996) ( noting the f ees ha d been a dded to the neg ative esc row ba lance and we re ref lected in year -end state ments and adjusted monthly mortg ag e pay

ment amounts); Dean v . First Union Mortg. Corp. (

In re Harris) , 280 B.R. 876, 883 (S.D. Ala . 2001) (notingthe “major relief to be ac corde d [the debtor s] i s to have the f ee wiped off their account balances ”) ( emphasis added) . Her e, ther e is no indication that the fe es have ever been a dded to the bala

nce of the J acks’ mortg ag e loan or

otherwise “ charg ed” to their acc ount. 12Sect io n 5 06 (b ) of th e Ban krup tc y

Co de an d B an kr

up tc y Ru le 20 16
. The J ack s

4
se ekbo th da m ag es an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. Sect io n 5 06 ad dr es se s t he “ Dete rm in at io n o f se cu redst atus ” o n acred it or ’s cl ai m s. Subs ect io n (b ) pr ov id es :

To th e ex te nt th at an al lo wed se cu red cl ai m is s e c u r e d by pr op ert y th e va lu e of w h i c h , aft er an y reco ve ry un de r subs ect io n (c) of th is se ct io n, is gr eat er th an th e am ou nt of su ch cl a i m, th ere sh al l be al lo wed to th e ho ld er of su ch cl ai m , in te res t on su ch cl ai m , an d an y reas on ab le fees , co st s, or ch arg es pr ov id ed fo r un de r th e ag reem en t or St at e st atut e u nd er wh ic h s uc h c la im aro se . Ru le 20 16 (a) g ov ern s an “ App li cat io n fo r co m pe ns at io n o r rei m

bu rs em en t.” It r equi res , “ An en ti ty seek in g i nt eri m or f in al co m pe ns at io n fo r se rv ic es , or rei m bu rs em en t o f ne ces sa ry

ex pe ns es , fro m

th e es ta te sh al l fi le anap pl ic at io n se tt in g fo rth a de ta il edst at em en t o f (1 ) th e se rv ic es ren de red , ti m e ex pe nd edan d
ex pe ns es in cu rred , and(2) th e am ou nt s re qu es te d.” Ban kr . Rul e 2 01 6( a). Acco rd in g t o t he Jac ks , th es e p ro vi si on s p ro m ot e th e Ban kr up tc y Co de ’s go al of g iv in g d eb to rs a “ fres h s ta rt.” Se e Ma rr ama v. Cit iz en s Ba nk of Mas s. , 54 9 U.S. 36 5, 3 67 ; 1 27 S. Ct. 1 10 5, 1 00 7 (2 00 7) (“ The pri nc ip al pu rp os e o f th e
The Jacks also claim that Wells Farg o’s fa ilure to disclose the fe es in the proof of cla im 4 violated B ankruptc y

Rule 3001(f). T his provision simply g overns the e videntiary

eff ect of a properly filed proof

of cla im. The district court did not err in affir ming the ba

nkruptcy court’s grant of summar

y judgme nt on this claim. 13Ban kr

up tc y Co de is to granta fres h s ta rt t o t he ho ne stbu t u nf ortu na te de bt or .”) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The J ack s cl ai m th is “ fres h s tart” can no t b e ach ie ve d, ho wev er, i f W el ls Farg o o r ot he r si m il arl y si tu at edcred it or s m ay

av oi d d is cl os in g fees th atco ul d b e tr eat edas p artof t he arre arag e cl ai m pa y ab le th ro ug h t he ba nkrupt cy

pl an . In the ab se nc e o f di sc lo su re, a d eb to r m ig htpa y all th e am ou nt s ne ces sa ry to cu re the arre arag e o nl y to em erg e fro m

bankrupt cy

to di sc ov er h e is faci ng ad di ti on al fees he kn ew no th in g abo ut . Se e In re Wat so n , 38 4 B .R. 69 7, 70 7 (B an kr . D. Del. 20 08 ) (“ If the Co urt an d C hapt er 1 3 Tru st ee fu ll y adm in is te r a cas e th ro ug h c om

pl et io n o f a . . . Chap te r 13 pl an , on ly to h av e th e d eb to r pr om pt ly re-fil e o n a cco un t o f acc ru ed , un di sc lo se d fe es an d c ha rg es onhe r m ortg ag e, itco ul d fa irl y

be sai d t ha t we h av e al l b eenona fo ol ’s erran d . . . .”). The Jac ks rel y

ona li ne of b an krup tc y

co urt d eci si on s t ha t, i n v arying de gr ees , supp ort t he pro po si ti on th atpu rs ua ntto § 5 06 (b ), Ru le 20 16 , or b oth o f th es e p ro vi si on s, a s ecu redcred it orm us t d is cl os e an d o bt ai n c ou rt app ro va l o f po stpe ti ti on leg al ex pe ns es . Se e, e.g . , Jo ne s v. Well s Fa rg o Ho me Mor tg . (In re Jo ne s) , 36 6 B .R. 58 4, 5 94 (Ban kr . E.D. La. 20 07 ) (co nc lu di ng po stpe ti ti on ch arg es th atm ay

be in cl ud edin th e d eb ts ne ces sa ry to cu re a d efau ltun de r a ba nkrupt cy

pl an“ m us t b e d is cl os edan d a re s ub ject t o re vi ew by the ba nkrupt cy co urt fo r rea so nabl en es s” ); Dean v. Fir st Uni on Mor tg . Cor

p. (I n r e Har ris) , 28 0 14B.R. 8 76 , 88 4 (B an kr . S.D. Ala. 20 01 ) (co nc lu di ng “ cred it or s ca nn otob ta in

po stpe ti ti on / p reco nf

irmatio n fe es fro m

ch ap te r 13 de bt or s wi th ou t d is cl os ur e”). Ban kr up tc y co urts th atha ve ad dr es se d t he is su e, ho wev er, h av e n otun ifo rm ly
reac he d t hi s co nc lu si on . As W el ls Farg o n ot es , at l eas t o ne ba nkrupt cy co urt h as co nc lu de d “ wha te ve r m eri ts [] th e p ol ic y arg um en ts m ay

ha ve ,” ne it he r § 5 06 (b )
no r Ru le 20 16 (a) app li es to a se cu redcred it orwho in cu rs po stpe ti ti on leg al
ex pe ns es ch arg eab le to th e d eb to r un de r th e te rm s o f th e m ortg ag e whe n t he cred it orm ak es no att em

ptto ob ta in pa y

m en t fo r th es e ex pe ns es du rin g the ba nkrupt cy

cas e. Padil la v. GMAC Mor tg . Cor p. (I n r e Padil la

) , 38 9 B .R. 40 9, 43 7- 43 (Ban kr . E.D. Pen n. 2 00 8)
. Alt ho ug h we e xp res s n o o pi ni on as t o t he sp eci fic ho ld in gs inth os e cas es , we no te m an y

of t he cas es on whi ch th e Ja ck s re ly inv ol ve d c red it or s wh o h ad actua ll y co ll ect edor a tt em

pt edto co ll ectth e u nd is cl os edfees eit he r du rin g t he ba nkrupt cy

or upo n d is ch arg e. Se e, e.g . , Rod ri gu ezv. Co un tr

ywi de Home Lo an s, In c. (In re Ro dr ig ue

z) , 42 1 B .R. 35 6, 3 72 (Ban kr . S.D. Tex. 20 09 ) (n ot in g the
m ortg ag e h ol de r “ adm it s t ha t i t at te m pt edto co ll ectfees an d e xp en se s, wh ic h
accrue d dur in g t he Pla in ti ffs ’ cas es , af te r th e Pl ai nt iff

s h adem erg edfro m ba nkrupt cy ” an d t ha t i t “ th reat en edfor ecl os ur e o n a cco un t o f th e u np ai d fe es an d
ex pe ns es ” (fo ot no te om it te d) ); In r e Jo nes , 36 6 B .R. at 5 94 (no ti ng th e 15un di sc lo se d a tt orne y ’s fees “ were unwi tt in gl y pa idby D eb to r th ro ug h t he ap pl ic at io n o f ei th er Tru st ee p aym en ts or De bt or ’s di rectm ortg ag e p aym en ts ”). Here, o n t he ot he r ha nd , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e Wells Farg o h as co ll ect edor at te m pt edto co ll ectth e fee s dur in g t he pe nd en cy of t he Jac ks ’ ba nkrupt cy . Ass um in g ar

gu en do th at§ 5 06 (b ) an d R ul e 2 01 6( a) re qu ire di sc lo su re o f po stpe ti ti on fees in so m e ci rcu m st an ces , we ho ldth os e p ro vi si on s ar e n otvi ol at ed whe n acred it orm erel y

reco rd s co st s i t h as in cu rredin ass oc ia ti on with a
m ortg ag ee’s b an krup tc y

forin te rn al bo ok ke ep in g p ur po se s an d m ak es no att em pt to co ll ectth e fee s o r ot he rwis e ad d t he m to th e d eb to r’s ba la nc e. Ther efo re, t o t he
ex te ntth e Ja ck s’ di sc lo su re cl ai m s re ly on e ve nt s t ha t h av e o ccurreddu rin g t he
co ur se of t he ir C hapt er 1 3 c as e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in affi rm in g t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n Well s Fa rg o’s fa vo r. 5 Thi s co nc lu si on do es no t en ti rel y res ol ve th e Ja ck s’ di sc lo su re cl ai m s, ho wev er, b ecau se th e Ja ck s cl ai m th e fai lu re t o d is cl os e th e fee s re nd ers th em un co ll ect ib le at a ny po in t, i nc lu di ng when th ei r cas e is eit he r di sc ha rg edor

We note that the J acks a lso raise the issue of whether the bankr uptcy court e rre d in 5 deter mining § 105(a) could not be use d to awar d damag es for alleg ed violations of these provisions. Bec ause w e find no violation of these provisions has occur red, w e do not addr ess the parties’ arguments reg ardingthe bankr uptcy court’s a uthority to provide re lief for

these violations, or the appropriate scope of such r elief, pur suant to its § 105(a) powe rs. 16di sm is se d. As su ch , inad di ti on to reque st in g d am ag es , th e Ja ck s al so reque st edan

in jun ct io n p ro hi bi ti ng W el ls Farg o fr om co ll ect in g the se fees in th e fu tu re. W e d o n otreac h t he se arg um en ts be cau se we co nc lu de th es e cl ai m s ar e n ot rip e fo r ad

jud ic at io n. “ The rip en es s d oc tri ne rai se s b ot h ju ris di ct io na l an d prud en ti al co nc ern s.” Ch ef fe r v. Ren o , 55 F.3d15 17 , 15 24 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). “ It
as ks whet he r th ere i s s uf

fic ie ntin jury to m eetArti cl e III’s re qu ire m en t o f a cas e o r co nt ro ve rs y

an d, i f so , whet he r th e cl ai m is su ffi ci en tl y

m atur e, an d t he is su es su ffi ci en tl y

de fin edan d c on cret e, to pe rm iteffe ct iv e d eci si on m ak in g b y th e co urt.” Id
. In d eci di ng whet he r a cl ai m is rip e, we co ns id er: “ (1 ) th e fi tn es s o f th e is su es forjud ic ia l d eci si on , and(2) th e h ard sh ip to th e p art ie s o f wit hh ol di ng co urt co ns id erat io n.” Id
. (ci ti ng Abb ot t La bs . v. Gardn er , 38 7 U.S. 1 36 , 14 9, 8 7 S . Ct. 15 07 , 15 15 (19 67 ). A clai m is no t ri pe when itis ba se d o n s pe cu la ti ve po ss ib il it ie s. Bow en v. Fir st Fami lyFin . Ser vs ., Inc
. , 23 3 F .3d13 31 , 13 41 n.7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. Here, we d o n otkn ow wh ethe r th e Ja ck s’ ban kr up tc y wil l en d i n adi sc ha rg e ora di sm is sa l. We no te th atW el ls Farg o re pr es en ts on ap pe al th atitwil l n otsee k to co ll ectth e ch arg es if t he Jac ks su cces sf ul ly com pl et e th ei r Ch ap te r 13 pl anan d
rece iv e a d is ch arg e. Altho ug h we a re “ rel uc ta ntto acce ptm ere b al d a ss ur an ces . . . it ca nn otbe sai d wi th an y co nf id en ce tha t [Well s Fa rg o’s] col le ct io n e ffo rts are 17in ev it ab le .” See Man n , 31 6 F .3dat 6 n.8 . In ad di ti on , we no te th atanatt em ptto co ll ectth e u nd is cl os edfees po st -d is m is sa l m ay pre se ntleg al is su es di st in ctfro m th os e rai se d b y

anatt em ptto co ll ectpo st -d is ch arg e. There fo re, t o t he ex te ntth e 6 Ja ck s’ cla im s ar e b as edon ev en ts th atm ay tak e p la ce i n t he futur e, th es e cl ai m s are d is m is se d fo r la ck

of ju ris di ct io n. Se e, e.g ., Green br ia r, Ltd. v. Ci tyof Ala ba st er , 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 74 n.7 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (“ [R]ip en es s g oe s t o wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to he ar the cas e.”). C. Obj ect io n t o the pr oo

f o f cl ai m Fi na ll y , th e Ja ck s co nt en d t he bankrupt cy co urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n Well s Farg o’s fa vo r on th ei r ob jecti on to th e p ro of

of c la im . Sect io n 50 2 g ov ern s t he “ All owa nc e o f cl ai m s o r in te res ts .” Sect io n 5 02 (a) m ak es cle ar,

“ A cla im or i nt eres t, p ro of

of wh ic h i s fi le d u nd er s ect io n 5 01
. . . is de em ed al lo wed , un le ss a pa rty in i nt eres t . . . ob jects .” Sect io n 5 02 (b )(1 ), th e p ro vi si on on whi ch th e Ja ck s re ly, pr ov id es th atif a n o bjec ti on is m ad e, th e co urt s ho ul d de te rm in e th e am ou ntof t he cla im an d “ sh al l al lo w su ch cla im in su ch am ou nt , ex cep t t o t he ex te ntth at[] su ch cla im is un en fo rceabl e ag ai ns t t he de bt oran d
For example, Wells Fa

rg o argues the Jacks would not be entitled to the “f resh star t” 6 aff orded by the B ankruptc y

Code if they

fail to fully

comply with their bankruptc y

plan and the case is dismi ssed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 349. See 11 U.S.C. 349(b); S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 49 (“The basic purpose of [this ] subs ection is to undo the bankruptc y case , as fa

r as pr actica

ble, and to restore all proper

ty rights to the positi on in which they wer e found at the commence ment of the ca se.”)
. 18pr op erty

of t he de bt or , un de r an y

ag reem en t o r ap pl ic ab le law fo r a rea so n o th er th anbe cau se su ch cla im

is co nt in ge ntor u nm atur ed .” The b an krup tc y co urt co nc lu de d Well s Fa rg o’s fa il ur e to di sc lo se fees in th e p ro of of c la im was n ota va li d b as is foranob

jecti on . Becau se th e am ou ntcla im edin th e p ro of of c la im di d
no t ac tu al ly inc lu de th e al le ge dl y im pr op er p ro of

of c la im fees , th e b an krup tc y co urt co nc lu de d, t he re was no th in g i n t he pro of of c la im forth e Ja ck s t o o bjec t t o. W e ag ree Well s Fa rg o’s fa il ur e to in cl ud e th e p ro of of c la im fees on th e pr oo f of cla im do es no t p ro vi de a va li d b as is foranob jecti on . Und er § 50 2( b) (1 ), a cl ai m ass ert edin a pr oo f of

cla im is all owe d i n t he am ou ntass ert ed“ ex cep t t o th e ex te ntth at[] su ch cla im is un en fo rceabl e.” “ Su ch cla im ” ref ers to th e cl ai m actua ll y ass ert edon th e p ro of

of c la im . As to th is am ou nt–i n t hi s ca se , $1 62 ,20 5.5 7– th e Ja ck s h av e id en ti fie d n o re as on why su cham ou ntis
un en fo rceabl e. W el ls Farg o was th eref or e en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t. III. CONCLUSION To the ex te ntth e Ja ck s’ cla im s ar e b as edonev en ts th atha ve oc curred du rin g t he pe nd en cy

of the ir b an krup tc y , we ho ldth atW el ls Farg o was en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t i n i ts fav oron th es e cl ai m s. To th e ex te ntth e Ja ck s p rem is e cl ai m s o n e ve nt s t ha t h av e n oty etoc curred , we con cl ud e th es e cl ai m s ar e n otrip e, an d we d is m is s t he m . 19AFFIR MED in pa rt a ndDISMIS SED inpa rt.

20