Ali Kamran Qureshi

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama
DecidedApril 11, 2023
Docket22-12654
StatusUnknown

This text of Ali Kamran Qureshi (Ali Kamran Qureshi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ali Kamran Qureshi, (Ala. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: * * CASE NO.: 22-12654-JCO ALI KAMRAN QURESHI, * CHAPTER 13 * Debtor. *

MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

This matter came before the court on the Debtor’s Objection (doc. 16) to the Proof of Claim filed by American Express National Bank and the Response thereto (doc. 19). Proper notice was given and appearances were noted by Attorney Stephen L. Klimjack as counsel for the Debtor, Ali Kamron Qureshi, and Attorney Michael A. Harrison as counsel for American Express National Bank. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the record, the proof of claim as amended, and the arguments of counsel, this court finds that the Debtor’s Objection to Claim is due to be overruled for the reasons below. JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157 and 1334 and the Order of Reference of the District Court dated August 25, 2015. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(B). FACTS

The Debtor, Ali Kamran Qureshi, filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on December 23, 2022. American Express National Bank (“Creditor”) filed a proof of claim (“Claim”) on January 19, 2023. (ECF Claim No. 1-1). The Claim asserts an unsecured debt in the amount of $3252.82 based on a credit card account. (Id.) The attachments to the claim include: (1) a “Traditional Green Card” statement rendered to the Debtor indicating an outstanding balance due of $3252.82 as of March 27, 2018; and (2) a claim balance itemization reflecting that the last payment on the account was in January 2018. (ECF Claim No. 1-1 at 4-6). The Creditor thereafter amended its Claim to provide more documentation including a statement with a closing date of January 26, 2018 reflecting that: (1) the Debtor had exceeded the $3000.00 credit limit; (2) the account was past due; (3) the last payment of $100.00 was received by agency remittance on January 26, 2018; (4)

cancellation of the account charging privileges; and (5) a total balance remaining outstanding. (ECF Claim No. 1-2 at 4-10) The Debtor listed the $3262.00 unsecured debt owed to the Creditor as undisputed in the bankruptcy schedules.(Doc. 1 at 27). Additionally, the Debtor has not disputed: (1) that the Creditor sent the account statements attached to the Claim; (2) the amounts claimed therein; or (3) the transaction dates reflected. The sole basis for the Debtor’s Objection to the Claim is that

collection of the debt is time-barred because the three-year statute of limitation expired pre- petition. In response, the Creditor asserts that the Claim is due to be allowed because the applicable statute of limitation is six years. ANALYSIS

Prima Facie Validity of Proof of Claim When a proof of claim contains all the information required under Rule 3001, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount thereof. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(f). The burden then shifts to the objecting party to “ ‘come forward with enough substantiations to overcome the claimant's prima facie case.’ ” In re Walston, 606 F. App'x 543, 548 (11th Cir. 2015)(citing Benjamin v. Diamond (In re Mobile Steel Co.), 563 F.2d 692, 701 (5th Cir.1977) (quoting 3A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 63.06 (14th ed.1976)). If the objecting party overcomes the prima facie

case, then the burden of proof falls to the party that would bear the burden outside of bankruptcy. Id; Raleigh v. Ill. Dep't of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 20, 120 S.Ct. 1951, 147 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000); 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3001.09[2] (16th ed.2015). Here, the Creditor timely filed its fully completed and executed Claim on the appropriate form with supporting documentation. The Debtor has not disputed: (1) the sufficiency of the claim forms; (2) the validity of the account charges as of the statement dates; (3) that the account

statements were timely rendered; or (4) that the last payment on the account was in January 2018. Thus, the Creditor’s Claim is sufficient to establish its prima facie validity and the remaining issue to be determined is whether the Debtor’s affirmative defense alleging expiration of the statute of limitation is meritorious. Applicable Statute of Limitations

The applicable statute of limitation depends on whether the obligation is an open account, account stated, or general contract. Under Alabama law, debts based on “open accounts” are subject to a three-year statute of limitation while collection actions on “accounts stated” and general contracts may be commenced within six years. See Ala. Code §6-2-37 (1975)(providing that actions to recover money due by open or unliquidated account must be commenced within three years from the date of the last item of the account or from the time when, by contract or usage, the account is due); Ala Code §6-2-34 (1975)(providing that actions for recovery of money

upon a loan, upon a stated or liquidated account and actions upon any simple contract must be commenced within six years). Partial payment on an account before expiration of the applicable statute of limitation re-starts the running of the time period. Ala. Code §6-2-16 (1975). Thus, the type of debt dictates how long the creditor has to collect it. Determining the type of debt is not always an easy undertaking. See In re Taylor, 2015 WL 5919872, at 2 (Bankr. M. D. Ala. 2015)(explaining that the task of determining the statute of limitations on a revolving credit agreement “. . .is somewhat akin to placing a square peg into a round hole ” because the terms “account stated” and “open account” originated in the mid-19th century well before the advent of modern-day credit cards); H & H Design Builders, Inc., v. Travelers' Indem. Co., 639 So. 2d 697, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(“[i]t is not as easy as it should be to identify what does – or does

not – constitute a cause of action for ‘open account’ ”). Open Accounts An open account is one in which some term of the contract is not settled and remains open

for adjustment. N. Alabama Ry. Co. v. Wilson Mercantile Co., 9 Ala. App. 269, 273–74, 63 So. 34, 36 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913). “For example, if a number of articles be sold and delivered at the same time, and the price, amount, and time of payment agreed on, this would not be an open account, because all the terms of the contract are agreed on and settled” while “[o]n the other hand, if a single article be sold and delivered, and the price or time of payment be left in uncertainty-this is an open account, because there is a term of the contract to be ascertained-the account is therefore unliquidated; it is open.” Id. To proceed on an open account theory, it must be proven by competent evidence that some term of the contract was left open and undetermined by the parties. Nance v. Countess, 16 Ala.App. 434, 78 So. 464 (1918). A contract which is definite in all of its terms, when nothing, under the terms of the contract, is left for future adjustment, whether it be evidenced

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Raleigh v. Illinois Department of Revenue
530 U.S. 15 (Supreme Court, 2000)
University of South Alabama v. Bracy
466 So. 2d 148 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1985)
Home Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Williams
158 So. 2d 678 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1963)
Car Center, Inc. v. HOME INDEM. CO., INC.
519 So. 2d 1319 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
H & H DESIGN BUILDERS v. Travelers Indem.
639 So. 2d 697 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Christopher Allen Walston v. PYOD, LLC
606 F. App'x 543 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
Nance v. Countess
78 So. 464 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Joseph, Gaboury & Co. v. Southwark Foundry & Machine Co.
99 Ala. 47 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1891)
Northern Alabama Railway Co. v. Wilson Mercantile Co.
63 So. 34 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Union Naval Stores Co. v. Patterson
60 So. 807 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
In re Templeton
538 B.R. 578 (N.D. Alabama, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ali Kamran Qureshi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-kamran-qureshi-alsb-2023.