Opinion ID: 2971947
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preservation of the issue for appeal

Text: The assertion that “[t]here were no documents filed with the November 25, 2002 proof of claim” was not raised as an objection to the validity of the proof of claim in the bankruptcy court. “It is well settled law that this court will not consider an error or issue which could have been raised below but was not.” Niecko v. Emro Mktg. Co., 973 F.2d 1296, 1299 (6th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). This principle is no less true in bankruptcy proceedings. See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 459 (2004) (noting that, “[o]rdinarily, under the Bankruptcy Rules as under the Civil Rules, a defense is lost if it is not included in the answer or amended answer”); see also In re Harshbarger, 66 F.3d 775, 777 n.3 (6th Cir. 1995) (observing that where a particular defense was not raised before the bankruptcy court, the district court properly “refused to address it for that reason,” and declining to consider the argument because of “the long-standing general rule of this circuit that appellate courts are not to address issues not raised for the first time in the trial court”) (quotation marks omitted). The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, as well as the relevant sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically require that the type of defense now raised by the Oakses must first be raised at the trial level. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(b) (“Rule 12(b)-(h) F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2) (“A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . . . may be made in any pleading --4- 4- No. 04-5116 Oaks v. Bank One Corp. permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a) [which delineates the forms of pleadings allowed at trial], or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.”) Furthermore, the circumstances of the bankruptcy court proceedings strongly suggest that the Oakses’ attorney intentionally waived this objection. Both the judge and the Oakses’ attorney acknowledged that the second proof of claim did not have the lease agreement attached, yet neither suggested that the claim might be invalid for that reason. A copy of the initial proof of claim was retrieved from the clerk’s office during a discussion between the judge and the Oakses’ attorney, creating the clearest possible contrast between a correctly filed proof of claim and the allegedly incorrectly filed one. Under these circumstances, the Oakses had ample opportunity to present their improper-filing objection to the bankruptcy court. There is no reason to permit them to litigate this objection for the first time on appeal. Cf. Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 445 (“No reasonable construction of complaint-processing rules would allow a litigant situated as [the debtor] is to defeat a claim, as filed too late, after the party has litigated and lost the case on the merits.”)