Jane Bullock Parker

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILSON DIVISION
IN RE:
JANE BULLOCK PARKER
DEBTOR
CASE NO.
09-09335-8-SWH
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM
Pending before the Court is the debtor’s Objection to Claim No. 4 of eCAST Settlement
Corporation (“eCAST”) and the response of eCAST thereto. A hearing was held in Raleigh, North
Carolina, on January 26, 2011.
On October 26, 2009, debtor Jane Bullock Parker filed a petition for relief under chapter 13
of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”). In addition to other unsecured claims included on schedule F,
debtor listed an unsecured claim owed to Chase in the amount of $14,231.00 for credit card debt.
The debtor did not designate the Chase claim as “disputed.”
On December 30, 2009, eCAST Settlement Corporation, assignee of Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
filed its original proof of claim in the amount of $14,231.41, based on credit card charges
purportedly made by the debtor. This original proof of claim was accompanied by an account
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 09 day of March, 2011.
________________________________________
Stephani W. Humrickhouse
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 1 of 6

summary that listed the debtor’s name, the last four digits of the account number, the account open
date, the charge off date, the last pay date, and the amount due as of the filing date. An “Assignment
of Accounts and Waiver of Notice of Transfer of Claims” between Chase Bank USA, N.A. and
eCAST, dated December 17, 2010, and executed by Rachelle Riggins as “Team Leader” on behalf
of Chase Bank, as well as an “Explanation of Unavailable or Voluminous Documentation Not
Attached” were also attached to the proof of claim. The debtor filed an objection to the proof of
claim on November 23, 2010, in which she asserts that the claim should be disallowed because
1) the proof of claim does not include a copy of the writing upon which it is based pursuant to Rule
3001(c), 2) there is no verification that eCAST was in any way connected to the establishment or
maintenance of the account, 3) eCAST failed to include an itemization of credit to cover individual
transactions precluding a finding of an account stated under North Carolina law, and 4) eCAST
failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115(5).
On December 21, 2010, eCAST filed an amended proof of claim that contains the following
documentation: the affidavit of sale executed by Dustin Smurdon, as an officer of Chase Bankcard
Services, Inc., an affiliate of Chase Bank USA, confirming that the debtor had a credit card with
Chase, that the account was sold to eCAST on or about December 9, 2009, and that the amount due
was $14,231.41, and several monthly credit card account statements dated January 2009 through
August 2009. 	The account statements indicate previous balances owed, payments and credits,
finance charges, late fees, and over limit fees. Counsel for eCAST stated the claim was amended
as soon as his client received additional documents from Chase that had been difficult to procure.
2
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 2 of 6

On January 8, 2010, John Logan, the chapter 13 trustee, moved for confirmation of a plan
which provides for a payout to unsecured creditors in the amount of $35,851.80. On February 5,
2010, the court entered an order confirming the chapter 13 Plan.
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the debtor acknowledged at the hearing that the facts of the current
case establish the existence of an account stated under North Carolina law. See In re Forrest, Case
No. 06-01967-8-RDD (Bankr. E.D.N.C. May 22, 2009). The debtor limits her objection to what she
contends is eCAST’s failure to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115.
Section 502 of the Code governs the allowance of claims. Pursuant to §502(a), a properly
filed proof of claim is deemed allowed unless the debtor files an objection. Section 502(b) specifies
that if an objection is filed, the court shall determine the amount of such claim and shall allow the
claim in that amount except to the extent the claim falls into certain enumerated categories. Section
502(b)(1) provides for disallowance if “[a] claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property
of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is
contingent or unmatured.” In this context, “applicable law” has been interpreted as encompassing
state law. See e.g., In re Forrest; In re Andrews 394 B.R. 384 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2008).
In her objection to eCAST’s proof of claim, the debtor alleges that the debt is unenforceable
under the North Carolina Consumer Protection Act of 2009, codified at N.C. Gen. Stat. §58-70-115,
and thus should be disallowed under § 502(b)(1). 	The statute provides that no collection agency
shall collect or attempt to collect any debt by use of any unfair practices. Such unfair practices
include:
3
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 3 of 6

When the collection agency is a debt buyer or acting on behalf of a debt buyer,
bringing suit or initiating an arbitration proceeding against the debtor, or otherwise
attempting to collect on the debt without (i) valid documentation that the debt buyer
is the owner of the specific debt instrument or account at issue and (ii) reasonable
verification of the amount of the debt allegedly owed by the debtor. For purposes of
this subdivision, reasonable verification shall include documentation of the name of
the original creditor, the name and address of the debtor as appearing on the original
creditor's records, the original consumer account number, a copy of the contract or
other document evidencing the consumer debt, and an itemized accounting of the
amount claimed to be owed, including all fees and charges.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115(5). The debtor contends that eCAST, as a debt buyer, has failed to
produce all documents required by this statute, as to both ownership and amount of the debt, and
thus should have its claim disallowed. As is more fully set forth below, the court finds eCAST has
produced both valid documentation that it is the owner of the account at issue and reasonable
verification of the amount of the debt, in satisfaction of the statutory requirements.
Burden of Proof
Section 502 provides a statutory basis for the allowance/disallowance of claims. Rule 3001
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure sets forth the required form and content of a proof of
claim. Rule 3001(a) defines a proof of claim as a “written statement setting forth a creditor’s claim”
and (c) states that “[w]hen a claim is based on a writing, the original or a duplicate shall be filed
with the proof of claim. If the writing has been lost or destroyed, a statement of the circumstances
of the loss or destruction shall be filed with the claim.” Subsection (f) of Rule 3001 establishes that
proofs of claim which are filed and executed in accordance with the rules constitute prima facie
evidence of the validity and the amount of the claim. The burden of proof applicable to the claims
allowance process was explained in In re Harford Sands Inc., 372 F.3d 637, 640 (4th Cir. 2004):
4
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 4 of 6

The creditor's filing of a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the
amount and validity of the claim. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). The
burden then shifts to the debtor to object to the claim. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). 	The
debtor must introduce evidence to rebut the claim's presumptive validity. Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 9017; Fed. R. Evid. 301. If the debtor carries its burden, the creditor has
the ultimate burden of proving the amount and validity of the claim by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Citations omitted. 	eCAST’s original proof of claim complied with Rule 3001 and this constituted
prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. However, the debtor rebutted the
claim’s presumptive validity by introducing the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115(5) in
its objection. 	Therefore, 	eCAST must establish its compliance with the state statute by a
preponderance of the evidence in order to prove its claim.
Ownership of the Debt
Debtor contests the validity of the assignment attached to eCAST’s original proof of claim.
Debtor contends that Rachelle Riggins, in her capacity as “Team Leader,” did not have proper
authority to execute the assignment on behalf of Chase. 	eCAST amended its proof of claim to
include the affidavit of Mr. Smurdon, an officer of Chase, which confirmed ownership of the debt
by eCAST. The debtor did not dispute the Smurdon affidavit nor introduce any evidence to
substantiate its attack on the validity of the assignment. Therefore, eCAST has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that it is the owner of the account at issue.
Verification of the Amount of the Debt
The debtor contends that eCAST has not provided reasonable verification of the amount of
its debt. “Reasonable verification” includes documentation of the name of the original creditor, the
5
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 5 of 6

name and address of the debtor, the original consumer account number, a copy of the contract or
other document evidencing the consumer debt, and an itemized accounting of the amount claimed
to be owed, including all fees and charges. See N.C. Gen .Stat. § 58-70-115(5). The debtor argues
that the failure to provide a copy of the signed original contract is itself sufficient to preclude a
finding of reasonable verification. The court rejects such a rigid construction of the statute. 	The
statute requires “a copy of the contract or other document evidencing the consumer debt.” N.C. Gen.
Stat.. § 58-70-115(5) (emphasis added). There is no real dispute concerning the amount of the debt.
The debtor has listed eCAST on her schedule F as the holder of an undisputed claim in an amount
nearly identical to that indicated on the statements and affidavit attached to eCAST’s amended proof
of claim. Such “other documents” satisfy the statutory requirement.
The debtor additionally contends that there is no itemized accounting of every fee and charge
included in either proof of claim as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115(5). However, the court
finds that the account statements attached to eCAST’s proof of claim which state the balance and
indicate fees and charges to the account, when viewed in light of the debtor’s undisputed scheduling
of the debt in the same amount, satisfy that statutory requirement as well. Therefore, eCAST has
discharged its burden to provide reasonable verification as to the amount of the debt.
CONCLUSION
There being no basis for disallowance under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-70-115(5) or §502(b)(1)
of the Code, debtor’s objection to proof of claim number 4-2 filed by eCAST is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
6
Case 09-09335-8-SWH Doc 30 Filed 03/09/11 Entered 03/09/11 09:41:31 Page 6 of 6