Charles J Burkett, III

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	C HARLES BURKETT , III,
Debtor
Case No. 	04-34826
Judge L. S. Walter
Chapter 7
DECISION OVERRULING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO CLAIMS
DISPOSITION
The Chapter 7 Trustee filed an objection to claims of credit card claimholders requesting
disallowance of the claims primarily because of the failure to attach sufficient supporting
documentation. For the reasons set forth in this decision, the court concludes that the Trustee’s
objection is without merit. An objection to a claim based solely on lack of documentation or
deviation from the Official Form does not provide a substantive basis for disallowing the claim,
especially if a debtor acknowledges the claim as a legitimate debt in his or her schedules.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 15, 2005
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 14

- 2 -
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2005, Chapter 7 Trustee Thomas R. Noland (“Trustee”) filed an objection
to several claims in the bankruptcy case of Charles Burkett (“Debtor”). [Doc. 28.] The Trustee
primarily objects because of an alleged lack of proper documentation attached to the creditors’
proofs of claim. 1 Three credit card claimholders, Chase Manhattan fka Bank One Delaware fka
First USA (“Chase Manhattan”), American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc.
(“American Express Travel”) and American Express Centurion Bank (“American Express
Centurion”) filed responses to the Trustee’s objection. [Docs. 29, 31 and 33.] One creditor,
Chase Manhattan, also filed an amendment to its claim. [Proof of Claim # 17.]
1 The Trustee also objects to the claimants’ failure to check the box in paragraph 4 of Official Form 10 and minor
modifications to the Official Form. The full text of the Trustee’s objection to these creditors’ claims is as follows:
Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim filed by Chase Manhattan (# 4):
“Disallow – Fails to provide account number to the Trustee. Failed to provide a signed copy of the credit card
application of debtor(s), fails to provide monthly account statements covering the bankruptcy filing date and three
months prior, summary is insufficient, only shows a balance and last amount paid and date . . . .” (duplicative
language in objection omitted).
*Chase Manhattan filed an amended claim, Proof of Claim # 17, attaching additional documentary
evidence. The amended Proof of Claim reduces the claim amount from $2470.99 to $2359.62.
Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim filed by American Express Travel (# 7):
“Fails to provide Trustee the entire account number. Fails to check paragraph four despite indicating credit card
debt which involves interest and additional charges, fails to provide required itemization of all interest and other
charges. Fails to provide copy of signed credit card application by debtor(s). Fails to provide monthly account
statements covering the bankruptcy filing date and three months prior, one partial statement for January 04
provided.”
Trustee’s objection to the proof of claim filed by American Express Centurion (# 9):
“Disallow – Fails to provide to the Trustee the entire account number. Fails to check box in paragraph 4, despite
stating it is credit card debt that includes interest and other charges. Fails to attach required itemized statement of all
interest or additional charges. Altered Official Form 10, fails to provide signed copy of credit card application of
debtor(s), attempts to alter burden of filer to attach documents to support claim, representation that documents are
burdensome not supported, attempts to alter burden to comply with requirements of paragraph 4. Statement that
claim may include interest of contractual late charges is specious since this is a credit card account of over
$12,000.00. Fails to provide account statements issued to debtor(s) for the period including the bankruptcy filing
date and three months prior, statement provided gives no information re account pre-petition.”
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 14

- 3 -
In their responses to the Trustee’s objection, creditors Chase Manhattan, American
Express Travel and American Express Centurion argue that the documentation requested by the
Trustee, including the Debtor’s full credit card account number, credit card application, itemized
statement of interest, fees and other charges and monthly account statements for at least the
ninety days prior to the bankruptcy filing are not required by the Bankruptcy Code or related
rules. Consequently, they argue that the omission of these documents and information from a
proof of claim does not form a basis for disallowance of the claim. On March 17, 2005, the court
held a hearing to consider the Trustee’s objection as well as similar objections filed by the
Trustee in other bankruptcy cases. The parties filed supplemental briefs following the hearing
[Docs. 38, 43 and 45] and the court is now prepared to render its decision.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Trustee’s objection has touched on a hotly debated topic in the bankruptcy courts: 1)
what information and attached documents are required to be submitted with proofs of claim; and
2) if the required information and documents are not attached, can that deficiency be the basis for
disallowance of the claim?
A. 	Proof of Claim Requirements and Objections to Claims
The court begins its analysis with fundamental principles of claims and the claims
allowance process established in the Bankruptcy Code and applicable rules. A “claim” is
defined as nothing more than a “right to payment ….” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). A creditor
possessing a claim has the right to file a proof of claim within a debtor’s bankruptcy case. 11
U.S.C. § 501(a). A proof of claim is not defined in the Code itself, but is described in the
applicable rules as a “written statement setting forth a creditor’s claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001.
A proof of claim, once filed, is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. 11
U.S.C. § 502(a). A Chapter 7 trustee is a party in interest whose duties include reviewing proofs
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 14

- 4 -
of claim filed in a case and lodging an objection if a claim is “improper” and if the objection
would serve a purpose. 11 U.S.C. § 704(5).
If a trustee or other party objects, the court is to determine the amount of the claim as of
the date of the bankruptcy petition filing and is to allow the claim except to the extent that one of
the enumerated exceptions applies. 11 U.S.C. § 502. The enumerated exceptions stated in § 502
provide various bases for objecting to either the validity or the amount of the claim. 	See 11
U.S.C. § 502(b)(1)-(9), (d) and (e). These statutory exceptions set forth the sole bases for a party
to object to a claim. Dove-Nation v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Dove-Nation), 318 B.R. 147,
150 (B.A.P. 8 th Cir. 2004).
Significantly, neither 11 U.S.C. § 502 nor any other section of the Bankruptcy Code
authorizes the court to disallow a claim based on a lack of supporting documentation. Nor, for
that matter, does the Bankruptcy Code describe what documentation, if any, must be attached to
a proof of claim.
Instead, these matters are provided for in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
(“Rules”) and related Official Bankruptcy Forms (“Official Forms”) that govern procedure
within bankruptcy cases. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001. The purpose of the Rules and Official Forms
is to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every case and proceeding.” Id.
Rule 3001 and Official Form 10 govern the form, content and required attachments for
proofs of claim. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). Rule 3001(c) requires that a creditor with a
claim based on a “writing,” attach the original or duplicate of that writing to the proof of claim
unless it has been lost or destroyed, in which case a statement of the circumstances of the loss
must be filed with the claim. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c).
Official Form 10, complementing Rule 3001, further instructs the claimant to “attach
copies of supporting documents, such as promissory notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 14

- 5 -
statements of running accounts, contracts, court judgments, mortgages, security agreements, and
evidence of perfection of liens.” Official Form 10. 	The creditor is to explain any failure to
attach documents based on a lack of availability. Id. In addition, if the required documents are
too voluminous, the creditor may attach a summary. Id. Official Form 10 further requires the
claimant to specify whether the claim includes “any interest or other charges in addition to the
principal amount of the claim,” and if so, to attach an “itemized statement of all interest or
additional charges.” Id.
The creditor’s reward for complying with the requirements of Rule 3001 and Official
Form 10 is that its proof of claim “shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and
amount of the claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). In other words, the party objecting to such a
claim has the initial burden of going forward with evidence to refute the claim even though the
creditor retains the ultimate burden of persuasion with regard to the validity of the claim. See
Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re Armstrong, 320 B.R. 97,
104 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2005). See also In re Sandifer, 318 B.R. 609, 611 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
2004) (holding that a creditor who establishes the prima facie validity of the claim may refrain
from presenting additional documentation). When, however, a proof of claim fails to comply
with Rule 3001 and Official Form 10, the claimant cannot, in response to an objection, rest on its
proof of claim and must instead come forward with sufficient evidence of the claim’s validity
and amount. In re Stoeker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir. 1993); Armstrong, 320 B.R. at 104.
The purpose behind Rule 3001 and Official Form 10’s documentary requirements and the
shifting burden of going forward is two-fold. First, the attachments required by the rule and
form are intended to enable the debtor or trustee to evaluate the claim’s amount and validity and
to challenge, when necessary, portions of the claim that may be inaccurate. Sandifer, 318 B.R. at
611. Second, and as significant, the rules governing claims are intended to simplify the claims
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 14

- 6 -
allowance process and provide a fair and inexpensive process for all parties including creditors.
In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799, 814 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004).
Unfortunately, ambiguities in the rule and form leave some important questions
unanswered, and it is in addressing those questions that courts have diverged. For example, is a
credit card debt based on a “writing” and if so what is the writing on which it is based – the
credit card application signed by the debtor or documentation of each of the debtor’s
transactions? Furthermore, when does documentation become so voluminous that the creditor
need only attach a summary to the proof of claim? If a summary is attached, what must be
included in the summary?
Indeed, the increasing number of decisions regarding these issues attests to the fact that
the process is by no means simple and is subject to abuse or misapplication by creditors, debtors
and even trustees. Many credit card claimants, or their assignees, have whittled down the
documentary evidence attached to their proofs of claim to the very bare minimum, often
providing no more than a one page “summary” containing the debtor’s name, a minor amount of
account information, and a monetary value purporting to be the balance owed on the date of the
bankruptcy filing. See In re Crowe, 321 B.R. 729, 731 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2005) (noting the
recent surge of creditors fighting “with even more zeal to avoid having to file even minimal
support for their claims”); Shank, 315 B.R. at 810 (describing a summary attached to a credit
card proof of claim as containing no more information than the conclusory allegations set forth
on Official Form 10 itself). On the other hand, debtors and trustees have filed objections to
claims based solely on a lack of certain attachments, even when the debt to the creditor is
acknowledged by the debtor in his or her schedules. Crowe, 321 B.R. at 731 (describing how
debtors use objections as a sword to “disallow perfectly legitimate unsecured claims when there
is no reasonable justification for disputing the claims”); Shank, 315 B.R. at 813-14.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 14

- 7 -
In this case, the Trustee objects to the claims for the creditors’ lack of compliance with
Official Form 10 and their failure to attach documentation beyond a short summary providing a
purported balance at the date of the bankruptcy filing. The Trustee argues that the creditors have
even redacted full account numbers making the claims more difficult to verify. The Trustee
further explains what items he feels should be attached in order to aid in the Trustee’s analysis of
claims: the full credit card account number, the credit agreement, an itemization of fees, interest
and charges in addition to the principal amount of the claim, proof of ownership of the claim if
the claimant is an assignee and at least three months of account statements or other proof of
account activity for the ninety days prior to bankruptcy.
The court recognizes that the Trustee has found cases supporting many of the detailed
documentation requirements he cites in his objections. However, courts disagree about specific
document requirements and, more significantly, the impact of a creditor failing to meet them. 2 In
making its own determination, the court is guided by two principles. First, the exclusive bases
for disallowing a proof of claim are not contained in either Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 or Official
Form 10, but in 11 U.S.C. § 502. 	None of the bases for disallowing claims provided in § 502
includes a lack of documentary evidence nor can Rule 3001 and Official Form 10 expand on
these statutory bases for disallowance. 28 U.S.C. § 2075 (stating that the bankruptcy rules
2 A majority of courts hold that a failure to attach documents purportedly required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 and
Official Form 10 is not, by itself, a basis for disallowance of a claim. Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620
(9 th Cir. 1991) (noting that the filing of a proof of claim is some evidence as to its validity and amount and is strong
enough to overcome a mere formal objection); Dove-Nation v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Dove-Nation), 318 B.R.
147 (B.A.P. 8 th Cir. 2004); In re Relford, 323 B.R. 669 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2005) (as amended following
reconsideration); Isom v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Isom), 321 B.R. 756 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2005); In re Guidry,
321 B.R. 712 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); In re Shaffner, 320 B.R. 870 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2005); In re Armstrong,
320 B.R. 97 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2005); In re Mazzoni, 318 B.R. 576 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2004); In re Kemmer, 315 B.R.
706 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004); In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004); In re Jorczak, 314 B.R. 474
(Bankr. D. Conn. 2004); In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D. Utah 2004).
Other courts reach the contrary conclusion that a failure to attach documents required by Rule 3001 or Official Form
10 can, by itself, form a basis for disallowance. In re Vann, 321 B.R. 734 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2005); In re Blue,
2004 WL 1745786 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. July 30, 2004) (unreported); In re Henry, 311 B.R. 813 (Bankr. W.D. Wash.
2004). The Henry case, in particular, describes exactly what type of documents the court determines must be
attached to a proof of claim based on credit card debt. 311 B.R. at 818. The court notes that in the absence of this
minimum evidentiary presentation, “the creditor’s claim should be disallowed.” Id.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 14

- 8 -
proscribed by the Supreme Court shall not “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”);
In re Guidry, 321 B.R. 712, 714 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005) (holding that “a bankruptcy rule cannot
create a ground for disallowance of claims not set out in the Code”); Shank, 315 B.R. at 812.
Second, full conformance with Official Form 10 has never been required for allowance of
a claim. Rule 3001(a) provides that a proof of claim need only “conform substantially” to the
appropriate form. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001; In re Shaffner, 320 B.R. 870, 874 (Bankr. W.D. Mich.
2005). These principles support the conclusion that a creditor’s mere failure to fully comply
with Rule 3001 and Official Form 10’s documentary requirements does not form the basis for
objecting to, or disallowing, a claim. 	See Guidry, 321 B.R. at 715; In re Mazzoni, 318 B.R. 577,
578-79 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2004); Shank, 315 B.R. at 812; In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323, 337 n.47
(Bankr. D. Utah 2004).
Instead, this court agrees with the growing number of courts concluding that, for
allowance purposes, the proof of claim need only be sufficient to establish the validity,
ownership and amount of that claim. See Mazzoni, 318 B.R. at 579; Shank, 315 B.R. at 812; In
re Hughes, 313 B.R. 205, 212 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2004). 	If there is no underlying factual
dispute as to the validity, ownership or amount of a claim, a debtor or trustee has no basis for
filing an objection for lack of documentation unless the debtor or trustee alleges a basis that
would require reduction or disallowance under § 502.3 Guidry, 321 B.R. at 715-16; Shaffner,
320 B.R. at 876; Shank, 315 B.R. at 812 (noting that if there is no legitimate dispute about a
3 In addition to documentation to verify the amount of the claim, the Trustee in this case requests other documents
to be attached to proofs of claim including account statements dating back at least ninety days from the date of the
bankruptcy filing. The apparent purpose for requiring account statements dating back ninety days is to assess
whether all or part of the claim would be subject to turnover to the estate via a preference recovery or other
adversary proceeding and disallowance under 11 U.S.C. § 502(d). However, the Rules do not contemplate trustees
using the documentary requirements for proofs of claim as a method of discovery for adversary proceedings.
Instead, the Rules have structured a simplified claims allowance system “without all the trappings of normal civil
litigation” in order to make the process efficient. Shank, 315 B.R. at 814. The court concludes that neither the
Bankruptcy Code nor the Rules specifically require ninety days of account statements to be attached to proofs of
claim. The Trustee must use other available methods to conduct discovery for adversary proceedings.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 14

- 9 -
claim’s validity or amount, there is no reason to penalize a claim holder for failure to meet all the
technical requirements of the bankruptcy rules intended to govern the fair determination of
disputes).
Unfortunately, the actual documentary evidence needed to establish and verify the claim
cannot be reduced to a bright-line test and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Sandifer,
318 B.R. at 611. Nevertheless, there are evidentiary guidelines that aid the court in making its
determination. In many instances, a claim verified by a debtor’s schedules may require no
documentation whatsoever. If a proof of claim correlates to a debt listed by the debtor in his or
her schedules, this may be sufficient, by itself, to establish the prima facie validity of the proof of
claim. In re Relford, 323 B.R. 669, 676 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2005) (as amended following
reconsideration); Jorczak, 314 B.R. at 481-82 (noting that the scheduling of a debt is a judicial
admission by the debtor); Cluff, 313 B.R. at 340. Of course, a debtor’s scheduling of a debt does
not constitute an admission by a trustee, but as a sworn statement and admission against interest,
it is nevertheless strongly probative of the claim’s validity.4
On the other hand, if a proof of claim lacking proper attachments does not correlate to a
debt scheduled by the debtor, or aspects of the claim differ from the scheduled debt, this may
give rise to a valid objection by the debtor or trustee for lack of verification of ownership and/or
the amount of the claim.5 Because the creditor did not attach documentation meeting the
requirements of Rule 3001 and Official Form 10, the creditor’s claim would not be entitled to the
Rule 3001(f) presumption of validity. Guidry, 321 B.R. at 715; Shank, 315 B.R. at 815.
4 The court recognizes circumstances where the debtor’s scheduling of a debt will have much less probative value
such as when the debtor schedules an insider’s claim or the possibility of collusion exists. The probative value of
the debtor’s schedules has not been questioned in this case.
5 Of course, if the only basis for a debtor or trustee’s objection to a proof of claim is that the monetary amount of the
claim does not match the amount scheduled by the debtor, the proper objection is that the claimant has not
established its claim to the extent it is in excess of the amount that the debtor admits is owed and not a request for
complete disallowance merely because of inadequate documentation. Shank, 315 B.R. at 815.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 14

- 10 -
Consequently, a failure to respond to the objection could lead to disallowance of the claim and,
even if the creditor does respond, the creditor will carry the burden of going forward as well as
the ultimate burden of proof to establish its claim at the hearing on the substantive objection.
Guidry, 321 B.R. at 715; Shank, 315 B.R. at 815-16.
If a creditor whose claim cannot be fully substantiated against a debtor’s schedules
wishes to dispense with this risk of an objection and a hearing requiring the creditor to proceed
with the burden of going forward, the creditor need only attach the required documents described
in Rule 3001 and Official Form 10 that establish the claim’s prima facie validity. Other courts
analyzing credit card claims have concluded that claimholders will establish the prima facie
validity of their proofs of claim when their attachments verify the following: 1) the amount of
the debt as of the date of the bankruptcy filing; and 2) if the claim includes charges such as
interest late fees and attorney fees, a breakdown of the calculation of these elements. Crowe,
321 B.R. at 732; In re Kemmer, 315 B.R. 706, 715 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2004); Cluff, 313 B.R. at
335. In some instances, documentation of proof of ownership of the claim may also be
necessary.6 The documents required to substantiate this information may be copies of the
original documents, like account statements, or if the originals are too voluminous, a summary of
the information may be adequate if provided in a reliable format such as a business record.
Kemmer, 315 B.R. at 715; Cluff, 313 B.R. at 335. 	This corroborating evidence should provide
the trustee, debtor and other interested parties with sufficient information to ascertain the basis
and accuracy of the creditor’s claim. As such, attaching documentary evidence or a reliable
6 This requirement is most often relevant when a claim has been transferred or assigned and the assignee has
attached no proof of actual ownership of the claim nor is the assignee’s ownership of the claim substantiated by a
debtor’s schedules. See In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005) (describing the problems involved
with a transferred claim when the new owner of the claim has no documentary proof of the actual transfer or any
original and reliable documents verifying the balance due on the claim); Hughes, 313 B.R. at 212 (noting that an
assignee must prove its contractual basis for a right to payment when its right to payment is questioned).
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 14

- 11 -
summary is the best way for a creditor to avoid objections to its claim, and possible disallowance
of the claim, regardless of whether the claim is substantiated by the debtor’s schedules.7
The court feels it is necessary to separately address one final piece of information that
many courts require to be disclosed on a credit card proof of claim: the account number used by
the creditor to identify the account of the debtor. See, e.g., Crowe, 321 B.R. at 732; Kemmer,
315 B.R. at 715; Cluff, 313 B.R. at 335. Indeed, the Trustee in this case has cited the omission of
full account numbers as the basis for many of his objections. However, the court disagrees with
courts requiring this information to be revealed on a proof of claim and refuses to oblige the
Trustee’s demand. Providing a full credit card account number on a public document like a
proof of claim violates recent laws enacted to protect individuals’ privacy and prevent identity
theft. In conjunction with the enactment of the E-Government Act of 2002, the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio established Administrative Procedures for
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF Procedures”) which require, among other things, that parties redact
sensitive private information, including financial account numbers, from all documents and
pleadings filed with the court. See ECF Procedure 13 (Privacy). Creditors may provide only the
last four digits of account numbers on their proofs of claim. ECF Procedure 13(d). In addition,
Official Form 10 has been revised to require disclosure of only the last four digits of an account
number. See Revised Official Form 10 changed as part of the “Interim Rules and Official Forms
7 The Trustee may continue to feel that such minimal requirements for proofs of claim will allow creditors or claims
buyers to engage in a routine practice of filing unlawful claims or claims that improperly charge post-petition
interest, post-petition fees or other unauthorized charges. However, as noted previously, an objection to a claim may
well be justified when the amount of the claim is not substantiated by a debtor’s schedules. Furthermore, the
criminal penalty for presenting a fraudulent claim is a fine of up to $500,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five
years. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 3571; Official Form 10. These serious criminal sanctions, as well as sanctions
available under the Bankruptcy Code and Rules, are the proper remedies to be applied to creditors who file unlawful
claims. Isom v. eCast Settlement Corp. (In re Isom), 321 B.R. 756, 757 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2005); Shank, 315 B.R. at
815. Creditors, or their assignees, who file overstated claims in the expectation that they will not be scrutinized or
verified against the debtor’s schedules, “do so at their own peril.” Shank, 315 B.R. at 815-16.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 14

- 12 -
Implementing the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.”8 The
court concludes that credit card claimholders should not disclose a debtor’s full account number
on a proof of claim nor is that information needed to establish prima facie evidence of the
validity of the creditor’s claim.
B. 	Application of Law to Trustee’s Objection to Claims Filed in This Case
Applying the law to this case, the court will begin by emphasizing once again that a
trustee’s objection to claims based on the omission of a complete account number is without
merit. The court will not require a full credit card account number on a public document filed
with this court. Such a requirement not only compromises a debtor’s privacy, but also conflicts
with current laws protecting sensitive financial information as well as the court’s own
Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing and revisions to Official Form 10.
The Trustee’s remaining bases for objecting to the three claims at issue in this case are
not substantive in nature and do not question the validity, ownership or amount of the claims.
Instead, the objection primarily focuses on the lack of appropriate documentation attached to the
proofs of claim as purportedly required by Rule 3001 and/or Official Form 10 and the failure to
precisely comply with the Official Form. [See Doc. 28.] As noted previously, lack of
documentation, alone, is not a statutory basis for disallowance of a claim nor can Rule 3001 and
Official Form 10 expand on the statutory bases for disallowance. Guidry, 321 B.R. at 714
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); Shank, 315 B.R. at 812. Furthermore, all three claims may be verified
against the Debtor’s schedules in which the Debtor acknowledged the validity of his debts to
these claimants. [See Doc. 1, Schedule F.]
8 The Interim Rules and Official Forms Implementing the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005 are located on the court’s website at www.ohsb.uscourts.gov.
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 14

- 13 -
The court holds that the Trustee’s objection based on a lack of documentation attached to
proofs of claim does not provide the court with a basis for disallowing the claims. The court
concludes that the Trustee’s objection is without merit and is overruled.
For future guidance, the court recommends that trustees compare the proofs of claim filed
in a case against the debtor’s schedules. To the extent they do not match, and the proofs of claim
are not substantiated by attachments, a trustee may have a basis for a substantive objection based
on the dissimilarities. However, the substantive basis for the objection must be described clearly
in the trustee’s objection.
WHEREFORE, the court overrules the Trustee’s objection to the proofs of claim filed
by Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, NA [Proof of Claim # 4 as amended by Proof of Claim # 17],
American Express Travel [Proof of Claim # 7] and American Express Centurion [Proof of Claim
# 9].
SO ORDERED.
cc:
Thomas R Noland
Fifth Third Building
110 N Main Street, Suite 1520
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 222-1090
Fax : (937)222-1046
Email: notices@shsedayton.com
Phyllis Ulrich
24755 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44122-5690
(216) 360-7200
Fax: (216) 360-7212
Email: bankruptcy@carlisle-law.com
Robert D Ross
7925 Paragon Road
Dayton, OH 45459
(937) 433-4090 Ext 33
Fax: (937) 433-1510
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 13 of 14

- 14 -
Email: rross@midam-title.com
Geoffrey E Albrecht
673 Mohawk Street, Suite 203
Columbus, OH 43206
(614) 445-8811
Thomas D Berry
1839 East Stroop Road
Kettering, OH 45429
(937) 294-7398
Email: tberry@woh.rr.com
Asst US Trustee (Day)
Office of the US Trustee
170 North High Street
Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215-2417
614-469-7411
# # #
Case 3:04-bk-34826 Doc 48 Filed 09/15/05 Entered 09/16/05 13:52:35 Desc Main
Document Page 14 of 14