Margaret J. Aho

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
In re: 	)
) 	Chapter 13
MARGARET J. AHO, 	) 	Case No. 09-41949-JBR
)
Debtor. 	)
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On November 16, 2009, the Court entered a Memorandum of Decision and an
accompanying Order [docket ## 45 and 46, respectively] on debtor Margaret Aho’s Amended
Objection to Claim 3 [docket # 29], and the response [docket # 36] of U.S. Bank National
Association, as trustee, on behalf of the holders of CSMC Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-5 (hereinafter “U.S. Bank”). Now before the Court is U.S. Bank’s
Motion to Reconsider and for Rehearing pertaining to that matter (hereinafter the “Motion to
Reconsider”) [docket # 50], and debtor Margaret Aho’s response thereto [docket # 52].
A hearing on the Amended Objection to Claim was held on September 29, 2009, before
and after which the parties filed evidentiary documents in support of their positions. By its
Motion to Reconsider, U.S. Bank now asserts it is entitled to another hearing on the Amended
Objection to Claim. In support of its claim, U.S. Bank cites Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 9014 and the order scheduling the September 29 hearing, which stated:
The above hearing shall be nonevidentiary. If, in the course of the nonevidentiary
hearing, the court determines the existence of a disputed and material issue of
fact, the court will schedule a further evidentiary hearing.
[docket #22] (emphasis in original). U.S. Bank’s claim of entitlement is misguided.
Case 09-41949 Doc 53 Filed 12/10/09 Entered 12/10/09 16:17:26 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

1 In fact, the Court granted U.S. Bank’s request, made at the November 29 hearing, for
additional time to supplement the documents it submitted prior to hearing in support of its
Response to the Amended Objection. See Transcript at 19-20 [docket # 39].
2
U.S. Bank is correct in stating that the September 29 hearing was characterized as
nonevidentiary. And as the language of the scheduling order makes clear, the Court was
prepared, either sua sponte or upon motion of either party, to order additional presentation of
evidence to flesh out any disputed and material issue of fact remaining after the first hearing.1
But the Court’s language at hearing–and in a separate order served on the parties–that the matter
was “taken under advisement” provided the parties with ample notice that the Court was
prepared to rule without further presentation of evidence, and in the period of more than a month
and a half between the September 29 hearing and the November 16 decision, neither party
requested an evidentiary hearing. Transcript at 20 [docket # 39]; Order Regarding Amended
Objection to Claim # 3 and Objection to Confirmation [docket # 37]. Implicit in the Court’s
decision in this matter was the ruling–made after ample opportunity for the parties to convince
the Court otherwise–that no disputed and material fact existed to necessitate a further hearing.
Therefore U.S. Bank’s Motion for Reconsideration and for Rehearing is DENIED.
A separate order will issue.
Dated: December 10, 2009, 	By the Court:
______________________________
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-41949 Doc 53 Filed 12/10/09 Entered 12/10/09 16:17:26 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2