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

joseph 12-2024
June 30, 2024
When a below median debtor’s plan is based on best interest of creditor’s test, will future increase in income expose the debtor to a motion to modify to capture increase?
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
The bankruptcy rights of an ex-member of anunmarrieddomestic couple, now separated are not the same as those of an ex-spouse; the language of a domestic arbitration can clearly dictate if property is vested in the ex or is a simple money judgment. (Hamilton) In re Harshaw, 2022 WL 533701 (7th Cir. February 23, 2022) Case Summary Donald Harshaw was married...
Members
July 14, 2019
By Beverly M. Burden, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee (Lexington, KY) An unscheduled creditor without notice of the bankruptcy case was denied an extension of time to file a proof of claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) in a recent opinion from the Eastern District of Kentucky. In the case of In re Fryman,1 the debtor did not include creditor Kentucky...
Members
July 28, 2019
Tiffany M. Cornejo was appointed as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of New Mexico on December 1, 2017. She took the reins from retiring Kelley Skehen. Ms. Cornejo received her Bachelor of Science in Journalism (B.S.J.) degree at the University of Kansas in Lawrence in 2002 and remained there to obtain her Juris Doctor in 2005. She...
September 29, 2019
By The Honorable Guy R. Humphrey, Southern District of Ohio It is with heavy hearts that we in Dayton, Ohio say our farewells to Jeff Kellner as our Chapter 13 Trustee. Jeff will be concluding his duties as the Trustee on September 30th and handing the reins over to John Jansing on October 1st. Listing Jeff’s contributions to the bankruptcy...
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debt buyer was debt collector under FDCPA. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Third Circuit that an entity purchasing consumer debts qualified as a debt collector under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6), even though it outsourced the actual debt collection activity. McAdory v. M.N.S. & Assoc., LLC, 952 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir....
Members
Hayes Jury
July 7, 2024
Bailey v. Glover 1874 - When the trustee is required to bring an action to avoid a fraudulent conveyance within two years of the bankruptcy filing, does the active concealment of the transfer by the debtor and the transferees toll the running of the two-year statute of limitations to bring the action?
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 7, 2024
Court lacks authority to extend stay in a case with a one-time repeat filer within a year of the previous case especially where the matter is tardily raised.
Members
Hale-Andrew-Antico
January 29, 2023
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...
Members
August 18, 2019
Taxpayers with expiring individual taxpayer identification numbers should renew their number ASAP. There are nearly 2 million ITINs set to expire at the end of 2019. Taxpayers with an expiring number should renew before the end of this year. This will help avoid unnecessary delays related to their tax refunds next year. ITINs are used by taxpayers required to file...

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: