The Rock Creek International School

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
THE ROCK CREEK INTERNATIONAL
SCHOOL,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00272
(Chapter 11)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING DEBTOR
TO SUPPLEMENT OBJECTION TO CLAIM OF MARLIN LEASING CORP.
The debtor, Rock Creek International School, has filed an
objection to the claim of Marlin Leasing Corp. (“Claimant”).
I
The debtor has neglected to attach to the objection to the
claim evidence in admissible form to rebut the prima facie
correctness of the proof of claim (having attached a letter
without an affidavit authenticating the letter, and the letter
itself having not acknowledged that payment went through).
Accordingly, the debtor will be required to supplement its
objection to the claim.
II
Because the alleged payment here was made postconfirmation,
the debtor could simply treat the claim as paid, without the
The Memorandum Decision and Order below is hereby signed.
Dated: October 10, 2008.
______________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00272 Doc 239 Filed 10/14/08 Entered 10/14/08 08:40:43 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

1 	If the claim had been paid postpetition but
preconfirmation, then the debtor might feel compelled to obtain
an order disallowing the claim because it was an allowed claim as
of the confirmation date (absent an objection to the claim), and
was literally required to be paid if it remained an allowed claim
(even though already paid). 	As a practical matter, however, the
creditor would recognize that it had been paid and cease pressing
the claim, and acknowledge that no obligations remained to it
under the confirmed plan.
2
necessity of obtaining a disallowance of the claim. 	The
confirmation order imposed on the debtor the obligation to pay
those claims that were allowed claims in the case, meaning,
implicitly, those allowed claims as of the confirmation date.
Upon the claim being paid, it was satisfied, and that similarly
satisfied the debtor’s obligation under the plan to pay the
allowed claim. 1
Nevertheless, if a creditor is contending that it has an
allowed claim when the claim has already been paid, an objection
to the claim is an appropriate vehicle for disposing of that
dispute. 	Upon an objection to claim being made, the amount of
the claim is determined as of the petition date. 	11 U.S.C. §
502(b). 	But such a claim is not to be allowed to the extent that
“such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of
the debtor, under . . . applicable law for a reason other than
because such claim is contingent or unmatured.” 	11 U.S.C. §
502(b)(1). 	That provision should be read as meaning that the
estate is entitled to invoke any defense it would have to paying
the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 558, including any defense the debtor
Case 07-00272 Doc 239 Filed 10/14/08 Entered 10/14/08 08:40:43 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

2 	When a confirmed plan did not call for full payment of an
allowed claim, an objection to claim based on the required plan
payment having been made is really a request for a determination
that the debtor’s obligation under the plan regarding paying the
allowed claim has been satisfied, not an objection that the
allowed amount of the claim has been paid. 	It is not clear that
an objection to claim would be the appropriate vehicle for
determining such a dispute. if the payment of the claim required
under the plan was less than the allowed amount of the claim.
But here the payment was for the full amount of the allowed
claim.
3
would have based on payment of the claim in full. 	That is the
interpretation that F.R. Bankr. P. 3007(d)(5) incorporates in
providing that objections to claims may be on the ground that the
claims “have been satisfied or released during the case in
accordance with the Code, or applicable rules, or a court order,”
and thus that disallowance of a claim based on payment is not
tested as of the petition date. 2
III
It is thus
ORDERED that by November 5, 2008, the debtor shall file a
supplementation to its objection to the proof of claim of Marlin
Leasing Corp. rebutting the prima facie validity of that proof of
claim, if such rebuttal evidence is available, and if no such
supplementation is filed, the claim will be allowed as of the
petition date, without prejudice to the debtor’s position that it
paid the claim postpetition.
[Signed and dated above.]
Case 07-00272 Doc 239 Filed 10/14/08 Entered 10/14/08 08:40:43 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Rock Creek International School - Order to Supplement Objection to Marlin Leasing Claimv2.wpd
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney; Office of United States
Trustee; Patrick J. Potter, and:
Marlin Leasing Corp.
300 Fellowship Road
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Acct. No. 1-87327-3
Bill Arnold
Marcher Consultants, Inc
8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 610
Vienna, VA 22182
Case 07-00272 Doc 239 Filed 10/14/08 Entered 10/14/08 08:40:43 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4