Shawnequee T. Latimer

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
SHAWNEQUEE T. LATIMER,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00652
(Chapter 13)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
STRIKING MOTION TO ALLOW UNTIMELY CLAIM
Great Lakes Higher Education Guarantee Corporation has filed
a motion to allow its late-filed claim because Great Lakes was
not notified of this bankruptcy case until August 12, 2008, well
after the April 6, 2008 deadline for the filing of proofs of
claims (Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 64, filed August 13, 2008). 	The
chapter 13 trustee has filed an objection, and asks that the
claim be disallowed as untimely filed (DE No. 67, filed August
28, 2008).
The court will strike the motion to allow because it was not
filed by an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar
of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
of which this bankruptcy court is a unit, as required for a
corporate entity to appear before this court, nor was the motion
The order below is hereby signed.
Signed: October 03, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00652 Doc 70 Filed 10/06/08 Entered 10/06/08 12:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
served on parties in interest. 	Even if the motion had been
properly filed and served, however, the court would nevertheless
sustain the chapter 13 trustee’s objection to the claim as
untimely because, assuming without deciding that Great Lakes did
not receive timely notice of this bankruptcy case, as alleged,
Great Lakes’ claim will pass through this bankruptcy unaffected,
and Great Lakes can seek relief from the automatic stay to resume
collection efforts during the pendency of the debtor’s case.
First, there is no provision in the Bankruptcy Code or the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for allowing Great Lakes to
file a proof of claim out of time in a chapter 13 case, and the
court lacks the equitable power to alter the deadline for filing
the proof of claim despite the lack of notice. 	See In re Nwonwu,
362 B.R. 705 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re Jensen, 333 B.R. 906
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005); United States v. Meyer, 2004 WL 2203403
(N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2004); In re Barnes, 2004 WL 3135459 (Bankr.
D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2004); In re McNeely, 309 B.R. 711 (Bankr. M.D.
Pa. 2004); In re Wright, 300 B.R. 453, 458-59 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.
2003); In re Namusyule, 300 B.R. 100 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2003); In re
Bennett, 278 B.R. 764, 765-66 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001); In re
Brogden, 274 B.R. 287 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2001).
As previously observed by this court in the case of In re
Houston, 2008 WL 104076 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2008), and in
keeping with the decisions cited to above, disallowance of Great
Case 07-00652 Doc 70 Filed 10/06/08 Entered 10/06/08 12:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Laura\ORDERS\Obj to Claim\Order - strike motion to allow claim passes through bankruptcy unaffected_Latimer.wpd
Lakes’ claim will have no impact on the claim other than to bar
its being paid through plan payments, and thus disallowance of
the claim will not deny Great Lakes due process despite its lack
of notice of the case because the claim will not be discharged.
As explained in Houston, 2008 WL 104976, *1 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan.
4, 2008):
First, based on the debtor’s failure to insure that
[the creditor] received notice of the case, the claim
cannot be discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(c) as
having been “provided for” by the plan. 	Second,
although [the creditor’s] claim is being disallowed as
untimely under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9), and a claim
disallowed under § 502 is generally discharged under §
1328(c), [the creditor’s] claim is of a kind described
in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) and hence falls within the
exception to discharge under § 1328(c)(2). 	Because the
claim will not be discharged, [the creditor] can seek
relief from the automatic stay, to the extent necessary
to treat [the creditor] fairly in comparison to other
creditors who were given proper notice of the case, so
that it may proceed with collection.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Great Lakes’ Motion to Allow (DE No. 64) is
STRICKEN, but this Order is without prejudice to the debtor’s
right to file a motion under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) to enlarge
the time for the debtor to file a proof of claim under Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 3004 setting forth the creditor’s claim.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney; Chapter 13 Trustee;
Great Lakes Higher Education Guarantee Corp.
P.O. Box 7858
Madison, WI 53704-7858
Case 07-00652 Doc 70 Filed 10/06/08 Entered 10/06/08 12:56:20 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3