The Briefest of Briefs.

[tigergem]

I read this on PACER. The Trustee objected to a creditor's claim and gave no reason for the objection. He just said "I object", with negative notice language. End of story. lol. Life is so unfair. You know darn well none of us pro se people would get away with that.

But I was wondering... how could the creditor even respond to that? If they didn't know what the objection was to argue it?

By the way, this wasn't one of my claims. I was researching.

[Goldfish]

Hi guys,

Your query reminds me of this. I was once served with a Complaint on a Promissory Note, a student loan. If I were to choose to delay the whole thing (because 20 days is rather short time to know what to do), I would object to the [whatever]. I was informed that if one were in State district court, then you could either summarily object; or object particular by particular.

It seems, I would think, this is all just a delaying tactic, because nothing is resolved by it. So, you will still need your day in court to settle the matter, or settle some other way. Are you suggesting that instead if the Trustee simply objects, that the matter over?

A couple of questions:
What is "negative notice language"
I don't follow the comparison betw. a trustee and a pro se. I guess the best way to ask the question is: What does the trustee have to gain by objecting to a creditor? I'm confused about on whose behalf he/she is acting.

gf

PS, finished the census job tonight.

[justbroke]

Well, hopefully the Court would catch this. It is very well settled that you can't be granted any relief, if you never state grounds upon which relief can be granted. In other words, you need to state some part of the Code which allows you to request the relief, and you must, with some specificity, state the cause that allows you to request such relief.

I hate it when anyone abuses the system like that. For a Judge to rubber stamp a "default" on that type of pleading, is just as wrong.

[tigergem]

Right, when I wrote my objection, I cited a statute and corresponding case law. That is what I understood to be the proper form of an argument, right? He does request a dismissal in full, but not on any basis.

I read this somewhere...

Form of Claim Objection

The written objection must be in a form that makes it clear to the claimant that it is an objection to a claim. The objection should identify the claim. It should also state facts necessary to support the objection and provide a description of the theories on which it is based.

Making the Objection

One original copy of the objection must be filed with the court. The allegation of jurisdiction must contain a reference to the name, number and chapter of the case under the Bankruptcy Code. It must also state the district and division where the case is pending. The objection must contain a statement that the proceeding is a core proceeding, which is one that can arise only in a bankruptcy case. It must be signed by the attorney for the debtor and include the attorney's office address and telephone number.


I did all of that. And mine looks so overdressed compared to some of the objections on file with the court.

GF, the reason I said the Trustee can get away with it and not a pro se person, is because the court tends to hold us more strictly to procedure than it does attorneys. In fact, my trustee made a couple of "frivolous" objections to my plan that I had to take the time to respond to and defend, but it was all because of clerical errors in the Trustee's office.

But I went back and looked at this one more carefully. I see what happened. The creditor filed an amended claim but did not withdraw their original claim. So the Trustee objected to the first claim they filed. I see. This follows my understanding that every action that takes place in the court must have a logical written basis for occurring. The court couldn't just pull the first claim unless somebody objected. It had to have something to act upon. Notice of the objection still had to be made, but no response to it was anticipated.

Sorry. No cause for alarm. That one just looked weird on its face.

[Goldfish]

Tiger, thanks for the reply. My question is so crude; I'm confused at the most fundamental level.
I don't know where the enemy lines are.
The trustee is acting on behalf of the creditor.
Trustee can object to a debtor's plan without adequate justification.
Debtor cannot object to [creditor's claim?? ] without painstaking work.
[Still unclear who's fighting who. Why would a trustee object to a creditor's claim? Isn't that acting on behalf of the debtor?]

JB, you were saying relief requires justification. You may be speaking about the very specific rules for a chpt 13, but in my chpt 7 the only justification provided for relief was my financial stmts.

gf

[justbroke]

Well, claims enjoy prima facie

[tigergem]

Is that referencing UCC-1 filings? Just want to make sure I understand what "chattel with the State ...Secured Transaction Registry" means. I searched UCC-1 filings in four states to figure out if a transfer had taken place between entities and couldn't find any.

[justbroke]

Is that referencing UCC-1 filings? Just want to make sure I understand what "chattel with the State ...Secured Transaction Registry" means. I searched UCC-1 filings in four states to figure out if a transfer had taken place between entities and couldn't find any.

You get the gold fish... err... gold star. Yes, it's a UCC-1 thing. This objection to claim was for a claim submitted by American General who apparently purchased an installment loan from Citifinancial. They even took a recording fee (charged me it), but never actually recorded anything. Oops!

[tigergem]

Thanks. That helps confirm that I am on the right track with my objection. I really appreciate that! *hugs*