Sonya Laraye Owens

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
SONYA LARAYE OWENS,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-00547
(Chapter 13)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE DEBTOR’S
OBJECTION TO PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES’ CLAIM AND
DIRECTING DEBTOR TO INCLUDE WITH ANY RENEWED OBJECTION
TO CLAIM AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THAT NO CLAIM IS OWED
The debtor has filed an Objection to Portfolio Recovery
Associates’ proof of claim (Claim No. 5) (Docket Entry (“DE”) No.
85, filed April 8, 2008). 	Portfolio Recovery has not filed a
response. 	The debtor, however, served her objection on Portfolio
Recovery at the following address:
Portfolio Recovery
POB 12914
Norfolk, VA 23541
[Emphasis added.] 	Portfolio Recovery’s proof of claim, on the
other hand, indicates that all notices are to be sent to the
following name and address:
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
POB 41067
Norfolk, VA 23541
The Memorandum Decision and Order below is hereby
signed. Dated: July 1, 2008.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 07-00547 Doc 106 Filed 07/03/08 Entered 07/03/08 10:16:39 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
[Emphasis added.] 	Accordingly, Portfolio Recovery has not been
properly served and the court will dismiss the debtor’s objection
to claim.
Furthermore, in the event the debtor re-files and properly
serves a renewed objection to Portfolio Recovery’s claim, the
court will require the debtor to include with that objection an
affidavit or affidavits demonstrating that no claim is owed. 	A
properly executed and filed proof of claim constitutes “prima
facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim.” 	Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 3001(f). 	Essentially, Rule 3001(f) treats a proof of
claim, executed under penalty of perjury, as the equivalent of an
affidavit supporting the creditor’s claim, casting the burden on
the objecting party to adduce contrary evidence. 	Under Rule
3001(f), the court may direct that the debtor file an affidavit
to overcome the prima facie evidence of the validity and amount
of a claim. 	See Garner v. Shier (In re Garner), 246 B.R. 617
(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000); In re Nejedlo, 324 B.R. 697, 700 (Bankr.
E.D. Wis. 2005) (evidence rebutting prima facie validity of claim
may come “in the form of an affidavit or declaration, especially
when the claimants themselves do not respond or appear at the
hearing on the Objections,” citing Garner).
Without deciding whether Portfolio Recovery’s claim was
properly executed and filed and therefore entitled to a
Case 07-00547 Doc 106 Filed 07/03/08 Entered 07/03/08 10:16:39 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

1 	The debtor’s objection to claim contends that Portfolio
Recovery is an unknown entity and that the debtor has never had
any relations, contractual or otherwise, that would give rise to
an obligation owing to Portfolio Recovery. 	Portfolio Recovery’s
proof of claim, however, clearly states that Portfolio Recovery
is the successor in interest to Sherman Acquisition LLC (Sears -
Sears Premier Card). 	In the event the debtor elects to renew her
objection to claim, that objection should address not only
whether the debtor incurred any obligation to Portfolio Recovery,
but also whether she incurred any obligation to Portfolio
Recovery’s predecessor in interest.
3
presumption of validity under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f), the
court observes that the debtor’s objection in its current form
does not contend that Rule 3001(f) is inapplicable to Portfolio
Recovery’s proof of claim. 1 	In order to expedite the court’s
disposition of any renewed objection to claim, the court deems it
appropriate to require the debtor to include with any renewed
objection an affidavit demonstrating that no claim is owed,
without which the court may be unable to sustain the debtor’s
objection to claim even if the creditor again fails to respond.
It is thus
ORDERED that the debtor’s objection to Portfolio Recovery’s
claim (DE No. 85) is DISMISSED without prejudice to the debtor’s
re-filing of an objection to claim that is properly served. 	It
is further
ORDERED that, to the extent the debtor elects to renew her
objection to Portfolio Recovery’s claim, she shall also file and
serve on Portfolio Recovery an affidavit or affidavits
demonstrating that no claim is owed. 	If she fails to do so, and
Case 07-00547 Doc 106 Filed 07/03/08 Entered 07/03/08 10:16:39 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\TEEL\Laura\ORDERS\Obj to Claim\Objectin to claim - order to file affidavit - chapter 13 - Owens_Portfolio_v2.wpd
even if Portfolio Recovery does not file a response to the
debtor’s renewed objection to claim, the court will overrule the
objection as to Portfolio Recovery’s claim without prejudice to a
renewed objection to the claim.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Chapter 13 Trustee;
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
POB 41067
Norfolk, VA 23541
Case 07-00547 Doc 106 Filed 07/03/08 Entered 07/03/08 10:16:39 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4