Jacqueline L. Hunt-Shannon and Eric A. Shannon

1 The debtors have filed a request for withdrawal of the
objection (Docket Entry No. 44) to NASA FCU's first proof of
claim (Claim Number 21) filed on January 27, 2006. The second
claim (Claim Number 22) is distinct from the first claim (Claim
Number 21). The first claim states that it relates to Account
Number 272927-0 (perhaps the account number used by R.A. Rogers,
Inc., the entity to whom notices are to be sent), seeks
$8,737.85, and attaches a Fact Sheet showing that it related to
NASA FCU Account Number 63060-21. The second claim states that
it relates to Account Number 272927-1, seeks $18,825.72, and
attaches a Fact Sheet showing that it related to NASA FCU Account
Number 63060-24.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
JACQUELINE L. HUNT-SHANNON
and ERIC A. SHANNON,
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 05-02202
(Chapter 13)
ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT OBJECTION TO
SECOND PROOF OF CLAIM (CLAIM NO. 22) FILED BY NASA FCU
The debtors have filed an objection (Docket Entry No. 45) to
the second proof of claim (Claim Number 22) filed on January 27,
2006, on behalf of NASA FCU which shows a debt of $18,825.72 owed
by Jacqueline L. Hunt-Shannon.1 The debtors' objection to Claim
Number 22 (as in the case of the objection to Claim Number 21)
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: May 04, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-02202 Doc 61 Filed 05/05/06 Entered 05/05/06 15:04:39 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2 On behalf of NASA FCU, R.A. Rogers, Inc. (albeit not
through counsel as required when a corporation responds to an
objection to claim) filed a response to the objection to Claim
Number 21 explaining that a deficiency exists. The debtors have
requested the withdrawal of their objection to Claim Number 21.
2
states that “the debtor is not financially obligated to the
creditor, because the debtor's vehicle was repossessed.” The
creditor has not responded to the objection to Claim Number 22.2
That failure to respond, however, is insufficient to sustain
the debtors' objection to Claim Number 22. First, as in the case
of the other claim, if there had been a repossession, that would
not mean that the loan (including repossession costs) was
necessarily fully paid. (Moreover, because Claim Number 22's Fac
Sheet refers to the claim as regarding “LOAN”--and not “DEF
BALANCE” as in the case of Claim Number 21--it is not at all
clear that there was a repossession.)
Second, the debtors must file an affidavit or affidavits
rebutting any prima facie validity of the claim. A properly
executed and filed proof of claim constitutes “prima facie
evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.” F.R. Bankr.
P. 3001(f). Essentially, Rule 3001(f) treats a proof of claim,
executed under penalty of perjury, as the equivalent of an
affidavit supporting the creditor's claim, casting the burden on
the objecting party to adduce contrary evidence.
Under Rule 3001(f), the court may direct that the debtor
file affidavits to overcome the prima facie evidence of the
Case 05-02202 Doc 61 Filed 05/05/06 Entered 05/05/06 15:04:39 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
validity and amount of a claim. See Garner v. Shier (In re
Garner), 246 B.R. 617 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2000); In re Nejedlo, 324
B.R. 697, 700 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2005) (evidence rebutting prima
facie validity of claim may come “in the form of an affidavit or
declaration, especially when the claimants themselves do not
respond or appear at the hearing on the Objections,” citing
Garner). The debtors have not contended that Rule 3001(f) is
inapplicable to NASA FCU's proof of claim.
An argument exists that the proof of claim was not properly
executed and filed, and thus that the proof of claim is not
entitled under Rule 3001(f) to be treated as prima facie evidence
of the validity and amount of the claim. No writing upon which
the claim was based (assuming a writing of that character, such
as a promissory note, exists) has been attached to the proof of
claim as contemplated by Rule 3001(c).
However, the debtors have not contended that a debt was
incurred and do not attack the proof of claim as inconsistent
with any writing upon which it is based. Instead, the debtors
appear to think that the claim has been paid. A debtor bears the
burden of proof on the affirmative defense of payment of a loan.
See Weidenfeld v. Pacific Imp. Co., 43 F.2d 817, 820 (2d Cir.
1930); Haughton v. Haughton, 394 N.E.2d 385, 390 (Ill. 1979);
Petter v. Jackson, 298 S.W.2d 289 (Ky. 1957). Furthermore, the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure were not intended to alter
Case 05-02202 Doc 61 Filed 05/05/06 Entered 05/05/06 15:04:39 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\JUDGEFIL\Claims\3001(f) Discretion to Order Affidavits Even if Rule 3001(f) Inapplicable.wpd
burden of proof rules. Raleigh v. Illinois Dep't of Revenue, 530
U.S. 15 (2000).
Finally, the objection does not itself lay out a
sufficiently clear statement of facts demonstrating that the
claim has been satisfied. Even if the proof of claim did not
comply with Rule 3001(c), and were not entitled to be treated as
prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim, the
court has the discretion to require that affidavits be submitted
to demonstrate that no debt is owed.
In accordance with the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that within 25 days after entry of this order, the
debtors shall file and serve on the affected creditor an
affidavit or affidavits demonstrating that no claim is owed. It
is further
ORDERED that to the extent the debtors fail to file an
affidavit regarding the claim, the court will overrule the
objection as to the claim without prejudice to a renewed
objection to the claim.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtors; Debtors' Attorney; Cynthia A. Niklas; and
R.A. Rogers, Inc.
PO Box 3302
Crofton, MD 21114-0302
Case 05-02202 Doc 61 Filed 05/05/06 Entered 05/05/06 15:04:39 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4