Robin Graham Andrews

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON DIVISION
IN RE:
ROBIN GRAHAM ANDREWS
DEBTOR
CASE NO.
08-00151-8-JRL
ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS
The matters before the court are the objections filed by the chapter 13 debtor, Robin Graham
Andrews, to the claims of two unsecured creditors, B-Real, LLC (B-Real) and Roundup Funding,
LLC (Roundup). The debtor maintains that both claims are barred by the statute of limitations. In
addition, she contends that the writings upon which the claims were based, or statements explaining
the circumstances of the loss or destruction of those writings, were not filed with the proofs of claim,
and, therefore, the proofs of claim filed by B-Real and Roundup do not comply with Rule 3001(c)
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. B-Real and Roundup filed responses, but at the
hearing held on July 24, 2008, in Wilmington, North Carolina, they announced that their claims had
been withdrawn.
Notwithstanding the withdrawals, the debtor requests that the court enter show cause orders
to examine the collection practices of B-Real and Roundup and to determine if these two creditors
should be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 30 day of September, 2008.
________________________________________
A. Thomas Small
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 1 of 8

2
debtor also asked that she be awarded attorney's fees for having to file objections to the claims.
Both parties filed post-hearing briefs, the last of which was filed on September 2, 2008.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2008, the debtor filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and
proposed a plan that provides for monthly payments of $300 for 24 months and $441 for 36 months,
but which pays no dividend to holders of general unsecured claims. On February 29, 2008, B-Real
filed a proof of claim (Claim No. 5) in the amount of $3,287.92 for money loaned, stating that it is
an assignee of a claim that was previously held by NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. and originally
owed to DEBT ONE. B-Real did not attach any documentation establishing that it is the assignee
or holder of a claim that the debtor may have owed to DEBT ONE, and did not, as required by Rule
3001(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, attach the writing upon which the claim was
based, or a statement explaining the circumstances of the loss or destruction of the writing.
An attachment to the proof of claim, however, did include “account information” in which
B-Real states the name of the debtor, the last four digits of the debtor’s social security number, the
last four digits of the related account number, the name of NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. as
“assignor,” the name of DEBT ONE as the “original creditor,” the “open date” of November 19,
1997, the “charge off date” of June 28, 1999, the “balance as of filing” of $3,287.92, and “money
loaned” as the “basis for claim.” The proof of claim also includes this statement:
This claim is based on an unsecured account acquired from Assignor. Pursuant to
Instruction 7, above is a redacted version of the information contained in the
computer files documenting the account.
This information substantially conforms to 11 U.S.C. § 501, Federal Bankruptcy
Rule 3001 and the Instructions to Form B10. See, e.g., In re Moreno, 341 B.R. 813
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2006); In re Cluff, 2006 WL 2820005 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006); In
re Heath, 331 B.R. 424 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2005); In re Dove-Nation, 318 B.R. 147 (8th
Cir. B.A.P. 2004); In re Guidry, 321 B.R. 712 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); In re Burkett,
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 2 of 8

3
329 B.R. 820 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005); In re Lapsansky, 2006 WL 3859243 (Bankr.
E.D. Pa. 2006); In re Irons, 343 B.R. 32 (Bankr. N.D. N.Y. 2006).
On March 10, 2008, Roundup filed a proof of claim (Claim No. 7) in the amount of
$1,405.11, stating that it is the assignee of a claim it purchased from National Credit Adjusters and
that was originally owned by HSBC. Roundup also did not attach any documentation establishing
that it is an assignee or holder of a claim that the debtor may have owed to HSBC, and did not, as
required by Rule 3001(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, attach the writing upon
which the claim was based, or a statement explaining the circumstances of the loss or destruction
of the writing. It did, however, include an attachment in the same format as the attachment to the
B-Real proof of claim, setting out “account information” in which Roundup states the name of the
debtor, the last four digits of the debtor’s social security number, the last four digits of the related
account number, the name of National Credit Adjusters as “assignor,” the name of HSBC as the
“original creditor,” the “open date" of September 2, 2002, the “charge off date” of April 30, 2003,
the “balance as of filing” of $1,405.11, and “money loaned” as the “basis for claim.”
DISCUSSION
Counsel for the debtor begins her brief with a statement that succinctly explains why the
issue before the court is so significant. The court agrees with her observation that “[w]ith such
imaginative and innocuous names, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact large-scale
consumer debt buyers like B-Real, LLC and Roundup Funding are having on the bankruptcy court
system.” Debtor’s Brief at p. 1. The debtor contends that the high volume of inadequately reviewed
and stale claims filed by bulk buyers of charged-off debts places an inordinate burden on individual
debtors and the bankruptcy system. The debtor argues further that the claims filing practices of bulk
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 3 of 8

1 The debtor contends that the number of debt buying claims is so high that they may,
through cumulative effect, undermine the Bankruptcy Rules’ important policy goals of efficient and
economical administration of the bankruptcy system. In the Eastern District of North Carolina,
during the first seven months of 2008 alone, B-Real filed 614 claims and Roundup filed 1,074
claims.
The debtor notes that Mr. Steven G. Kane is the authorized agent signing the claims at issue
in this case, and his affidavit was filed in another case in this district earlier this year regarding the
assignment of claims in In re Coates, Case No. 03-04673-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D. N.C.). In his affidavit
in that case, Mr. Kane stated that B-Line purchased 61,017 chapter 7 bankruptcy receivables from
Bank One, Delaware, NA and 77,408 chapter 7 bankruptcy receivables from Chase Manhattan Bank,
USA, NA, among which were Ms. Coates’ three accounts. B-Line then sold those 138,425 accounts
to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Roundup. Those claims are in no way at issue in this case, but are
noted here to illustrate the sheer volume of claims that are trading ownership and moving into the
bankruptcy system.
4
debt buyers undermines the Bankruptcy Code’s and the Bankruptcy Rules’ goal of promoting the
efficient and economical administration of bankruptcy estates. 1
In this case, of the twelve filed unsecured proofs of claim, five were filed by bulk claims
purchasers. 	Although the plan will not pay a dividend to unsecured creditors, the debtor felt
compelled to file objections to four of the five claims because “[i]f the debtor does not raise by
objection the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, that defense may be deemed waived
[if the case is dismissed].” Debtor’s Brief at p. 6. The four objections were identical and, after the
objections were filed, the claims were withdrawn. The debtor maintains that this is a pattern that
is becoming all too familiar in this and other districts through the country.
The phenomena of bulk debt purchasing has proliferated and the uncontrolled practice of
filing claims with minimal or no review is a new development that presents a challenge for the
bankruptcy system. The debtor contends that the remedies available under the Bankruptcy Code and
the Bankruptcy Rules are inadequate to address the problem, and proposes as a solution that the
court enter a show cause order for the purpose of examining the practices of Roundup and B-Real.
It is the debtor’s expectation that the court will find the creditors’ claim filing procedures to be
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 4 of 8

5
unacceptable and will impose sanctions that will encourage Roundup, B-Real, and other bulk claims
purchasers to change their ways.
The court agrees that the problem needs to be addressed, but disagrees that a show cause
order is the best approach. First of all, the damages sustained by a debtor whose plan pays nothing
to unsecured creditors are questionable. 	More importantly, it is not clear that the claim filing
practices of Roundup or B-Real are sanctionable under Bankruptcy Rule 9011. Many courts have
looked into this emerging issue and found that sanctions were not warranted for filing stale claims
or for filing claims without the accompanying documentation required by Rule 3001(c) of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In addition to the cases mentioned in their proofs of claim,
Roundup and B-Real cite numerous decisions to support their procedure of filing stale claims and
for filing summaries instead of the statements required by Rule 3001(c). 	See, e.g., In re Simms,
2007 WL 4468682 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2007); In re Kincaid, 388 B.R. 610 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008);
In re Kemmer, 315 B.R. 706 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004); In re Mazzoni, 318 B.R. 576 (Bankr. D.
Kan. 2004); but see In re Wingerter, 376 B.R. 221 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2007) (on appeal by B-Line
to the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel).
Whether this court agrees or disagrees with those cases, there was a substantial body of
existing case law upon which Roundup and B-Real reasonably relied, and because of their
reasonable reliance, Rule 9011 sanctions are not justified. Accordingly, the debtor’s request for a
show cause order to examine the claims filing practices of Roundup and B-Real will be denied.
If the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure do not adequately deal with the problem, the
issue should be submitted to the federal rulemaking process. The Judicial Conference of the United
States’ Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules is well qualified to examine all aspects of the
claims filing process and to determine if changes are needed.
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 5 of 8

6
The objective of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure is “to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every case and proceeding,” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001, and for the
most part the claims process has met that goal. Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code broadly
defines “claim” to include rights to payment that are contingent, unmatured, and disputed, and §
501(a) provides that any creditor may file a proof of claim. Section 502(a) provides that if a proof
of claim is filed, the claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects based on one of the
grounds specified in § 502(b). 	“A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with [the
Bankruptcy Rules] shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.”
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f).
Section 502(b)(1) provides that one of the grounds for disallowing a claim is that the claim
is unenforceable under applicable law. A statue of limitations, such as North Carolina’s three-year
statue of limitations, is the type of applicable law referred to in § 502(b)(1) that is grounds for
disallowing a claim. 	See N.C. Gen Stat. § 1-52(1). 	In many states, including North Carolina,
statutes of limitation are affirmative defenses that must be affirmatively pled. 	See Overton v.
Overton, 259 N.C. 31, 129 S.E. 2d 593 (1963). Consequently, a proof of claim based on a stale
claim will be deemed allowed under § 501(a) unless the affirmative defense is raised in a filed
objection. In re Varona, 388 B.R. 705 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2008).
Allowing claims based on unchallenged proofs of claim is efficient and economical in most
cases. 	However, requiring debtors to file objections and to raise affirmative defenses to large
numbers of stale claims filed by assignees based on a business model rather than after careful review
and evaluation is both burdensome and expensive.
A possible solution is to have a rule that requires an assignee that files a proof of claim to
disclose whether the claim violates a statute of limitations applicable in the district where the case
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 6 of 8

7
is pending. If the claim is outside the statute of limitations and the assignee does not provide a
statement explaining why the statute of limitations is not a valid defense, the lack of a statement
would constitute prima facie evidence that the defense is valid and the claim would not be allowed.
A similar approach would be to require an assignee to state in the proof of claim that no statute of
limitations defense is applicable. 	A failure to make the disclosure would constitute prima facie
evidence that the defense is valid and the claim would be disallowed.
Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a) requires that a proof of claim must substantially conform to
Official Form 10, which provides that limited information must be filed with each proof of claim,
including the basis for the claim, the date the debt is incurred, the secured or unsecured status of the
claim, and the amount of the claim. 	Rule 3001(c) provides that when a claim is based upon a
writing, “the original or a duplicate [of that writing] shall be filed with the proof of claim,” and
further that “[i]f the writing has been lost or destroyed, a statement of the circumstances of the loss
or destruction shall be filed with the claim.” Most bulk purchasers of claims, such as Roundup and
B-Real, do not file the required writings and do not file statements explaining the writings’ loss or
destruction. The consequence of that failure, however, is not the disallowance of the claim, but
rather a loss of the prima facie presumption of validity.
“Many courts have weighed in on the ramifications of a creditor’s failure to comply with
Rule 3001(c) . . . [and the] majority view is that failure to attach documents required by Rule 3001
and Official Form 10 is not, by itself, a basis for disallowance . . . .” 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶
3001.01 (Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 15th ed. rev. 2007). Moreover, bankruptcy
courts in the Fourth Circuit have held that a lack of documentation of the claim is not a basis for
disallowance. See, e.g., In re Herron, 381 B.R. 184, 190 (Bankr. D. Md. 2008); In re Simms, 2007
WL 4468682 at *2 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 2007). 	Rather, the appropriate remedy for failure to
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 7 of 8

8
properly document a claim or assignment of claim under Rule 3001 is that the claim loses its prima
facie presumption of validity and amount. 	Simms, 2007 WL 4468682 at *2. 	But, loss of the
presumption of validity is of little consequence to the debtor, who must still file an objection to the
claim to prevent the claim from being deemed allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). 	Perhaps that
result cannot be changed without changing the Bankruptcy Code, but it may be possible for the
Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules to craft a Rule to relieve the debtor from this burden.
Based on the foregoing, the debtor’s request for a show cause order to examine the claims
filing practices of Roundup and B-Real and her request for attorney’s fees are DENIED. The court
will ask the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules to consider whether changes should be made
to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and to the Official Bankruptcy Forms to alleviate the
significant burden on individual debtors and on the bankruptcy system caused by the large number
of undocumented, stale claims being filed by the bulk purchasers of charged-off debts. The briefs
prepared by counsel for both the debtor and the creditors were thorough and comprehensive, and in
light of their usefulness the court will make them available to the Advisory Committee. Finally,
because the federal rule-making process typically takes no less than three years to produce a new
rule, this issue will also be referred, with the consent of the two other judges of this district, to the
Local Rules Committee of the Eastern District of North Carolina.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 08-00151-8-JRL Doc 78 Filed 09/30/08 Entered 10/01/08 10:09:46 Page 8 of 8