Yet Another Round of Rule Changes

By Nima Ghazvini, Staff Attorney for Martha G. Bronitsky, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Northern District of California, Oakland Division
The United States Supreme Court has adopted changes to Bankruptcy Rules 1007, 2015, 3001, 7054, and 7056. The amendments were transmitted to Congress on April 24, 2012, and barring any Congressional intervention or rejection, will take effect on December 1, 2012. So rather than waiting for the Holidays, take a look at the changes now and analyze whether or not they will affect your practice.
The amendments range in significance from simple house-keeping, stylistic changes to significant issues which may actually have an impact on your practice.

Bankruptcy Rule 1007
The major proposed change to this Rule is “technical and conforming.” The previous amendment to Rule 1007(a) created an inconsistency which is eliminated by the new amendment to Rule 1007(c). Specifically, the inconsistency stemmed from Rule 1007(a)(2) containing a 7 day deadline for the filing of the list of creditors in involuntary cases and Rule 1007(c) containing a 14 day deadline for the filing of the same. The amendment which will likely take effect this December now strikes the reference to Rule 1007(a)(2) from 1007(c) altogether. As a result, the deadline to file a list of creditors in an involuntary case will be governed by Rule 1007(a)(2) and halved from 14 days, to within 7 days after entry of the order for relief.
Bottom Line: The list of creditors in an involuntary case will have to be filed within seven (7) days after entry of the order for relief.

Bankruptcy Rule 2015
Once again the proposed amendment to this amendment is technical and conforming. The 2005 amendments to the Code broke up 11 U.S.C. § 704 into subsections. For example, the pre-2005 amendment § 704(8) is now § 704(a)(8). However, Rule 2015 continues to make reference to § 704 in its pre-2005 amendment form.
Bottom Line: This amendment will likely have no effect on bankruptcy practice beyond possibly correcting any Rule 2015 or § 704 references in pleadings.

Bankruptcy Rule 7054
Subdivision (b) of Rule 7054 is amended to allow more time for a party to respond to the prevailing party’s bill of costs in adversary proceedings. The Rule currently allows one day’s notice for the clerk to tax costs. One days’ notice was found to be unrealistically short. The amendment also extends from five (5) to seven (7) days the time to serve a motion for court review of the clerk’s action. This will conform to other changes throughout the rules changing five (5) day deadlines to seven (7) days.

Bottom Line: This is obviously a sigh of relief to any losing party who now has 14 days to respond to the bill of costs. One days’ notice is just unrealistic.
The United States Supreme Court has adopted changes to Bankruptcy Rules 1007, 2015, 3001, 7054, and 7056. The amendments were transmitted to Congress on April 24, 2012, and barring any Congressional intervention or rejection, will take effect on December 1, 2012.

Bankruptcy Rule 3001

For claims based on an open-end or revolving credit agreement, new paragraph (c)(3) now requires that a statement be filed with the proof of claim to provide additional information. The statement should contain the name of the entity from whom the account was purchased, name of entity to whom the debt was owed at the time of last transaction, the date of the account holder’s last transaction, the date of last payment on the account, and the charge off date.
As the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure’s Report found, claims of this type (i.e. credit card debts) are frequently sold. As a result, the claim filer is often an entity entirely unknown to a debtor. This amendment’s purpose is to provide debtors with enough information to associate a claim with an account. They can also obtain a copy of the writing on which the claim is based by requesting it in writing; claim holders have 30 days to respond. A claimant’s failure to respond could subject the claimant to sanctions.

Bottom Line: The amendment is meant to provide more information than provided under current practice. Debtor’s attorneys and bankruptcy judges have argued that revolving credit agreement claimants, many of whom purchase their claims in bulk, have little information about the claims they file. This amendment may bring some relief by requiring additional information, but whether it is adequate to deal with a widespread problem remains to be seen. Note, also, that this rule change is not applicable to home equity lines of credit.

Bankruptcy Rule 7056

Bankruptcy Rule 7056 makes Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 applicable to filing motions for summary judgment in adversary proceedings. The Rule imposes a 30 day deadline before the initial date set for an evidentiary hearing on any issues for which summary judgment is sought. Rule 7056 does not apply if a local rule or the court sets a different deadline.
Bottom Line: Check your calendars! Time is of the essence.

 


—————————————————-

Nima Ghazvini is a Staff Attorney for Martha G. Bronitsky, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, Northern District of California, Oakland Division. He graduated with a B.A. in Political Science from University of California at Berkeley and received his J.D. at Southwestern University School of Law. Nima is admitted to practice in the State of California and the United States District Court, Northern and Central Districts of California.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

August 1, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) While the debtors failed to meet the high threshold to establish excusable neglect to permit their claim filed on behalf of a creditor after the bar date to be allowed, where a Chapter 13 case is dismissed and then reinstated prior to the expiration of the bar date, the...
Members
March 7, 2021
By Dynele Schinker-Kuharich, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Canton, OH) I vividly remember getting the call that I was to be appointed as a Standing Chapter 13 Trustee (effective October 1, 2018). I was so honored, and humbled, and excited. At the time I was a panel Chapter 7 Trustee, but my heart had always been in Chapter 13. As corny...
Academy Circle Logo Final
Recently, the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) commented on “How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Negligent Bankruptcy Counsel”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared and unreasonable creditor counsel. CREDITOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ISSUES Several ETC Trustees list the following as problematical during their tenure. Attorney claims lack of authority from creditor...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
March 20, 2022
Chris Hawkins was sworn in as a bankruptcy judge for the Middle District of Alabama on March 14, 2022, succeeding Judge William R. Sawyer. Before his appointment, Chris was a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, where he focused exclusively on bankruptcy and insolvency matters. For over twenty years, he represented debtors and creditors in out-of-court restructurings, commercial and...
August 2, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Dismissal with 180-day bar affirmed. The debtors had filed eight Chapter 13 cases over eight years, with each dismissed, and in 2019 the spouses filed three more cases. A mortgage creditor moved for relief from the automatic stay and dismissal in each of the cases. The cases were dismissed with a 180-day bar...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
September 17, 2023
Recently Upsolve printed an article titled: “Why is Chapter 13 Probably A Bad Idea” by Jonathan Petts, July 27, 2023. In a nutshell the article says an unsuccessful Chapter 13 can leave you in worse financial shape. Further it states that it costs more than Chapter 7 and is less likely to be successful. Additional points by Upsolve are: Chapter...
Members
William-1_print_2019
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plan proposal to create an asbestos trust through Chapter 11 bankruptcy was “insurance neutral,” and the debtor’s insurer was not a party in interest under Code § 1109(b), which contains a noncomprehensive list of parties in interest to a Chapter 11 case. Whether the insurer was a party in interest determined whether...
tonydiab
June 25, 2023
Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits: 4 Cases to Know (This is the only free article we could find on Litigation Practice Group a/k/a Phoenix Law and disbarred Tony Diab.  He has been disbarred from both Nevada and California.)
September 15, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Chapter 13 debtor had no authority under § 544. Discussing the split of authority, the Court adopted the majority view that the Code gives § 544 avoidance authority exclusively to the trustee, and the Chapter 13 debtor could not use that power to avoid a mortgage lien. In re Dobbs, _________B.R._________, 2019 WL...
Members
February 17, 2019
Offering time-saving alternatives to a telephone call, the IRS reminds taxpayers they can get fast answers to their refund questions by using the “Where’s My Refund?” tool available on IRS.gov and through the IRS2Go app. The IRS issues nine out of 10 refunds in less than 21 days, and the fastest way to get a refund is to use IRS...

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: