SAMUEL QUINONES ZAMBRANA

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
SAMUEL QUINONES ZAMBRANA,
Debtor.
CASE NO. 25-03137 MAG13
Chapter 13
FILED & ENTERED ON 9/25/2026
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 11, 2025, Samuel Quinones Zambrana (the “Debtor”) filed a petition for relief
under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Dkt. #1. The Debtor thereafter moved to convert the
case to chapter 13 on August 7, 2025, and the court granted the motion the following day. Dkts.
## 10, 11.
Before the court is the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to unsecured Claim No. 5-1 filed
by Esther Rivera Ortiz (the “Creditor”) solely on the ground that the claim was filed after the
applicable claims bar date. Dkt. # 61. The Creditor opposed the Trustee’s objection. Dkt. # 62.
For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the Trustee’s objection and deems Claim No. 5-
1 timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(7).
I. 	JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1334 and 157(a), L. Civ. R. 83K(a), and the General Order of Referral of Title 11 Proceedings
to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, dated July 19, 1984
(Torruella, C.J.). This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 7

2
II. 	BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2025, the Debtor filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code. Dkt. #1. On August 7, 2025, the Debtor moved to convert the case to one under chapter
13. Dkt. #10. On August 8, 2025, the court granted the Debtor’s conversion request. Dkt. #11.
In the schedules filed with the petition, the Debtor identified the Creditor as a nonpriority
unsecured creditor. Dkt. # 1, p. 21 & 49. The Debtor used the following address for the Creditor:
“Urbanización Fuentes de Coamo, 1352 Bld. San Blas, Coamo, PR 00769.” The Debtor also
listed attorney Orlando Camacho Padilla, P.O. Box 879, Coamo, Puerto Rico 00769-0879, as an
additional notice recipient.
On August 11, 2025, the court issued the Notice of Conversion to Chapter 13, which
established November 10, 2025, as the deadline for nongovernmental creditors to file proofs of
claim. Dkt. # 16. The certificate of service for that notice was entered on August 14, 2025, and
was sent to the Creditor to: Urbanización Fuentes de Coamo, 1352 Bld. San Blas, Coamo, PR
00769-9322. Dkt. #17.
On January 27, 2026, attorney for the Creditor, Maria Vicens Rivera, entered an
appearance in the case. Dkt. # 41. On January 30, 2026, the Creditor filed unsecured Claim No.
5-1 in the amount of $59,600 attaching a Puerto Rico state-court judgment as the basis for the
claim. Claims Register # 5-1.
On April 30, 2026, the court confirmed the Debtor’s amended chapter 13 plan. Dkt. ##
57, 59.
On August 10, 2026, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed the objection to Creditor’s claim based
on the claim being filed after the November 10, 2025, claims bar date. Dkt. # 61.
On August 13, 2026, the Creditor opposed the Trustee’s objection. Dkt. # 62. In an
unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury, the Creditor asserted that she did not receive
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 7

3
notice of the bankruptcy case or of the claims bar date because the address listed in the Debtor’s
schedules was not her correct mailing address. The Creditor identified her correct mailing
address as “Urbanización Las Fuentes, 1351 Boulevard San Blas, Coamo, PR 00769-9322.” The
Creditor further represented that she did not learn of this bankruptcy case through notice from
the Bankruptcy Court. Rather, she learned of the case when she independently contacted the
Bankruptcy Court to inquire whether the Debtor had filed for bankruptcy. The Creditor states
that thereafter she promptly retained bankruptcy counsel and filed Claim No. 5-1.
Also on August 13, 2026, the Debtor filed an informative motion asserting that the
address listed for the Creditor in the schedules was accurate because it was the mailing address
that the Creditor used in a 2021 complaint filed against the Debtor in the Puerto Rico Court of
First Instance. Dkt. # 63, Ex. A. The 2021 complaint identifies the Creditor’s mailing address as
“Urbanización Fuentes de Coamo, 1352 Bld. San Blas, Coamo, Puerto Rico 00769.” The Debtor
also asserts that notice to attorney Orlando Camacho Padilla should be imputed to the Creditor
because Mr. Camacho Padilla represented the Creditor in the prepetition state-court collection
action. The Debtor further relies on state-court docket entries showing wage-garnishment activity
from October 2025 through July 2026 to argue that the Creditor had knowledge of this
bankruptcy case.
On August 17, 2026, the court ordered the Creditor to address within fourteen (14) days
the Debtor’s motion to inform. Dkt. # 64.
On August 21, 2026, the Creditor complied with the court’s order. Dkt. # 68. The
Creditor maintains that the discrepancy between the scheduled address and her asserted mailing
address is material and that the record does not establish that she personally received notice of
the bankruptcy case or the claims bar date. She further contends that the record does not establish
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 7

4
that attorney Camacho Padilla represented her in this bankruptcy case, received notice of the
claims bar date on her behalf, or had an attorney-client relationship with her sufficient to impute
such notice to her.
III. 	APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
“In chapter 13 cases, a timely filed proof of claim is a precondition to allowance of the
claim and the creditor's right to receive a distribution.” Mondriguez-Torres v. Lopez (In re
Lopez), 629 B.R. 322, 327-328 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Vicenty v. San Miguel Sandoval
(San Miguel Sandoval), 327 B.R. 493, 512 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2005)). The bar date for filing proofs
of claim in chapter 13 cases is governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c), which provides that a
proof of claim is timely if filed within seventy (70) days after the order for relief.
Absent a recognized exception, an untimely proof of claim must be disallowed. See 11
U.S.C. § 502(b)(9). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c) affords no discretion to extend this deadline for
unsecured claims, except under the limited exceptions set forth in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(1) –
(7). The exceptions in subsections (1) through (6) pertaining to governmental units, infants or
incompetent persons, post-petition judgments, rejected executory contracts or unexpired leases,
notice of newly available assets, and claims secured by a debtor’s principal residence are
inapplicable in this case.
However, the Creditor contends that that she did not receive adequate notice of the bar
date to file her proof of claim. This contention falls under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(7), which
provides as follows:
(7) Extending the Time to File. On a creditor's motion filed before or after the time
to file a proof of claim has expired, the court may extend the time to file by no more
than 60 days from the date of its order. The motion may be granted if the court finds
that the notice was insufficient to give the creditor a reasonable time to file.
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 7

5
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(7). See also, 9A Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, Collier on
Bankruptcy ¶ 3002.03[7] (16th ed. 2026). Further, as the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First
Circuit explained, strict enforcement of Rule 3002’s claims deadline presupposes that the
creditor received the required notice; where notice was materially deficient or misleading, a late-
filed claim may be permitted. In re San Miguel Sandoval, 327 B.R. at 508.
This exception accords with the requirements of due process. A creditor is entitled to
notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise it of the bankruptcy
proceeding and to afford it an opportunity to protect its rights. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank &
Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Accordingly, an “objection to a late claim cannot
constitutionally be sustained and the creditor's claim barred if the debtor's failure to list, or
inaccurate listing of, the creditor causes the creditor to miss the proof of claim deadline.” In re
San Miguel Sandoval, 327 B.R. at 507.
The court concludes that Fed. R. Bankr. 3002(c)(7) applies in this case. The Creditor was
a known creditor. The Debtor scheduled the Creditor’s claim, but the notice sent to the Creditor
was directed to an address that she disputes and that differs from the address she identifies as her
proper mailing address. The Creditor has represented under penalty of perjury that she did not
receive notice of the case or the claims bar date, and that she acted promptly after independently
learning that the Debtor had filed bankruptcy.
The Debtor’s reliance on the mailing address in a 2021 state-court complaint does not
alter this conclusion. That historical address may support the contention that the Debtor used that
address in good faith. But the relevant inquiry under Fed. R. Bankr. 3002(c)(7) is whether the
notice used in this case was sufficient under the circumstances to provide the Creditor a
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 7

6
reasonable opportunity to file a timely proof of claim. On the present record, the court cannot
find that it was.
Nor does the record establish that notice to attorney Camacho Padilla constitutes notice to
the Creditor for purposes of a Fed. R. Bankr. 3002(c)(7) inquiry. Notice received by an attorney
may, in appropriate circumstances, be imputed to a creditor where the attorney’s representation
bears a sufficiently close nexus to the claim or where the attorney is authorized to receive notice
on the creditor’s behalf. In re San Miguel Sandoval, 327 B.R. at 508. The record before the
court, however, does not establish that Mr. Camacho Padilla represented the Creditor in this
bankruptcy case, received the pertinent notice in a representative capacity concerning the
Creditor’s claim, or was otherwise authorized to receive notice of the claims bar date on behalf
of the Creditor.
Similarly, while the postpetition state-court garnishment entries may suggest continued
collection activity, they do not ultimately demonstrate that the Creditor received the official
notice of the bankruptcy case or had timely knowledge of the November 10, 2025 claims bar
date. Accordingly, the court declines to equate evidence of collection activity with proof that the
Creditor received sufficient notice of the deadline for filing a proof of claim for purposes of a
Fed. R. Bankr. 3002(c)(7) inquiry.
The Creditor represented that she filed Claim No. 5-1 after she acquired actual
knowledge of the bankruptcy case. Because the court finds that notice was insufficient under the
circumstances to provide the Creditor a reasonable time to file a proof of claim, the court will
grant the limited relief authorized by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(7) and deem Claim No. 5-1
timely filed.
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 7

7
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Because the court finds that the Creditor did not receive sufficient notice of the bar date
for filing proofs of claim, the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection to claim at Dkt. # 61 is denied and
Claim No. 5-1 is deemed timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(7).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In Ponce, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of September 2026.
María de los Ángeles González
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case:25-03137-MAG13 Doc#:69 Filed:09/25/26 Entered:09/25/26 16:12:53 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 7