Court Opinion

ID: 2964185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:50.029562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.101679
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 18, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1007 

                                   ROGER S. DAVIS,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                     HAROLD BROWN, D/B/A HAMILTON REALTY COMPANY,

                                      Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Roger S. Davis and Davis & Rubin, on brief pro se.
            ______________     _____________
            Robert  Somma, David J.  Reier and  Goldstein &  Manello, P.C., on
            _____________  _______________      __________________________
        brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   Appellant-claimant Roger S. Davis  appeals
                 __________

            pro se from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy
            ___ __

            court's denial  of his  motion to reconsider  disallowance of

            his claim against  the appellee-debtor, Harold  Brown, D/B/A/

            Hamilton Realty Co. ("Brown").   "We independently review the

            bankruptcy court's  decision, applying the  clearly erroneous

            standard to its findings  of fact and  de novo review to  its
                                                   __ ____

            conclusions  of law." Jeffrey  v. Desmond,  70 F.3d  183, 185
                                  _______     _______

            (1st Cir. 1995).

                 "A  denial  of  receipt   is  insufficient  to  rebut  a

            presumption that proper notice was given, but it does raise a

            factual issue." In re Eagle Bus Mfg., Inc., 62  F.3d 730, 735
                            __________________________

            (5th Cir.  1995); see also In  re Bucknum, 951  F.2d 204, 207
                              ___ ____ ______________

            (9th Cir. 1991); In  re Longardner & Assocs., Inc.,  855 F.2d
                             _________________________________

            455, 459 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1015 (1989);
                                      ____________

            In  re Northeast  Office &  Commercial Properties,  Inc., 178
            ________________________________________________________

            B.R. 915, 918 n.1 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995); but see In re Yoder
                                                      ___ ___ ___________

            Co.,  758  F.2d  1114,  1118  (6th  Cir.  1985)(holding  that
            ___

            testimony of nonreceipt standing alone is sufficient to rebut

            the presumption of receipt).

                 In response to Davis'  denial of receipt, the bankruptcy

            court properly addressed the  factual question of whether the

            notices  were properly  mailed.   The  court  found that  "an

            independent  mailing agency was used, using  the matrix.  The

            address is correct.  . . .  I assure you  that lots of  other

                                         -2-

            people  got those  notices.  . .  ."  On the  basis of  those

            findings, which are not disputed by Davis, it was not clearly

            erroneous for the district court to conclude that the notices

            were properly mailed.  See Eagle Bus Mfg., 62 F.3d  at 735-36
                                   ___ ______________

            ("To determine if  a mailing was accomplished  the courts may

            consider whether the notice  was correctly addressed, whether

            proper postage  was affixed, whether it  was properly mailed,

            and  whether a  proper  certificate of  service was  filed").

            Accordingly, the  bankruptcy court did not err in ruling that

            Davis failed to rebut the presumption that he received notice

            of  the  objections  to his  claim  and  the  hearing on  the

            objections.  There was no due process violation.  

                 The  bankruptcy  court's  denial of  Davis'  motion  for

            reconsideration is affirmed.
                               ________

                                         -3-