Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. v. Tudor (In Re Tudor)

282 B.R. 546, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 899, 40 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 6, 2002 WL 1974018
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia
DecidedAugust 22, 2002
Docket19-30017
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 282 B.R. 546 (Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. v. Tudor (In Re Tudor)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. v. Tudor (In Re Tudor), 282 B.R. 546, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 899, 40 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 6, 2002 WL 1974018 (Ga. 2002).

Opinion

ORDER

JOHN S. DALIS, Chief Judge.

Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. (hereinafter “Fleet”), by motion seeks to vacate this Court’s order disallowing its claim for $3,721.31. Jack Tudor (hereinafter “Debt- or”) in response requests that Fleet’s motion be denied. Fleet asserts that service of Debtor’s objection was improper under Bankruptcy Rules 3007 1 , 9014 2 , *548 7004(b)(3) 3 and 7004(h) 4 . The Debtor argues that 1) his objection meets the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3) and 2) Bankruptcy Rule 7004(h) does not apply because Fleet is not an FDIC-insured institution. Fleet’s motion to vacate is denied. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter as a core bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

The facts are as follows. The Debtor filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy relief on March 2, 2001. Fleet timely filed a proof of claim for $3,721.31. The proof of claim in pertinent part to the matter before me sets out the following:

Name and address where notices should be sent:
Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P.
P.O. Box 1016
Horsham, PA 19044

The Debtor objected claiming that Fleet failed to serve a copy of the proof of claim with attachments upon Debtor’s counsel as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3001-l. 5 Upon the filing of this case, the Clerk of this Court caused to be issued and served on Fleet a “Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors & Deadlines.” This notice contained the following on the front: “All creditors and their counsel who filed a proof of claim are required to serve by first class mail a true copy of such proof of claim and all attachments thereto upon the Debtor’s Counsel *549 of Record whose address is shown on the Notice of the Meeting of Creditors.” The same basic language was again set forth on the reverse of this notice. Upon the filing of the objection, the Clerk issued the following notice to Debtor’s Counsel for service on the holder of the objected to claim.

NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO CLAIM
Movant has objected to your claim filed in this bankruptcy case.
If you have legal grounds to oppose the objection, or if you wish the Court to consider your views on the objection, you must file a written request for a hearing with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court before the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date stated in the certificate of service.
If you mail your request for a hearing to the court, you must mail it early enough so that it will be received within the time referenced above.
Any request for a hearing must also be mailed to the moving party and all other persons indicated in the certificate of service attached to these pleadings.
If a timely request is filed, you will receive a notice of the date, time and place of hearing.
If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the Court will decide that you do not oppose the objection to your claim and will enter an order reducing, modifying or eliminating your claim....

The completed notice filed with the Clerk was dated July 11, 2001 and signed by Debtor’s counsel.

According to the July 11, 2001 certificate of service, the objection and notice of objection to claim was served by first class U.S. mail to the following:

Fleet Credit Card Serv
ATTN: Managing Agent
PO Box 1016
Horsham, PA 19044

Fleet did not respond. I entered an order disallowing Fleet’s claim on August 20, 2001.

On December 4, 2001, Fleet filed this motion to vacate the order disallowing its claim and a hearing was held on March 4, 2002. Fleet asserts that the Debtor failed to serve the objection in compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3). Insofar as Fleet meets the definition of entities described in this rule, Debtor was required but failed to name an individual agent or officer. In addition, Fleet argues that the Debtor should have served the objection in compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 7004(h) because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fleet Bank, which is an FDIC-insured institution.

Objections to claims are contested matters and therefore must be served in compliance with Bankruptcy Rule 7004. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014; 7004; see United States v. Archer (In re Archer), Chapter 13 Case No. 92-60571 slip op. at 3 (Bankr.S.D. Ga. Statesboro Division, September 30, 1993)(J. Dalis). A partnership may be served by first class mail provided that notice is addressed to “the attention of an officer, a managing or general agent.” Fed. R. BaNke. P. 7004(b)(3). Fleet argues that the Debtor failed to give adequate notice pursuant to Rule 7004(b)(3) because no individual agent or officer was named.

Courts are divided as to whether notice may be addressed simply to an unspecified officer or agent or if the notice must be addressed , to an named individual. Schwab v. Associates Commercial Corp. (In re C.V.H. Transport, Inc.), 254 B.R. 331, 332 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.2000). Fleet relies upon Addison v. Gibson Equipment Co., Inc. (In re Pittman Mechanical Contractors, Inc.), 180 B.R. 453 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995), holding that because “na *550 tionwide service of process by first class mail was a rare privilege,” notice addressed to “President or Corporate Officer” was improper because no individual was named. Id. at 454, 456-57, citing In re Schoon, 153 B.R. 48, 49 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1993). Other courts have held that addressing notice to “officer” or “agent” meets the literal requirements of Rule 7004(b)(3). In re C.V.H. Transport, Inc., 254 B.R. at 333. In C.V.H. Transport, the debtor mailed a summons addressed to an “officer, managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process Associates Commercial Corporation.” Id. at 332. The C.V.H. Transport, Inc. court reviewed the advisory committee notes for prior bankruptcy rule 704(c), which is nearly identical to the current Rule 7004(b)(3).

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

Related

TAYLOR v. LoanCare, LLC
M.D. Tennessee, 2020
Citizens Bank v. Decena
562 B.R. 202 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Denke v. PNC Bank, N.A (In re Denke)
524 B.R. 644 (E.D. Virginia, 2015)
SunTrust Bank v. Braden (In re Braden)
516 B.R. 672 (S.D. Georgia, 2014)
In re Chastagner
498 B.R. 376 (S.D. Georgia, 2013)
Kennedy v. CitiBank South Dakota, NA (In Re Kennedy)
403 B.R. 363 (D. South Carolina, 2009)
Carlo v. Orion Omniservices Co. (In Re Carlo)
392 B.R. 920 (S.D. Florida, 2008)
In Re Anderson
330 B.R. 180 (S.D. Texas, 2005)
York v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re York)
291 B.R. 806 (E.D. Tennessee, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 B.R. 546, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 899, 40 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 6, 2002 WL 1974018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleet-credit-card-services-lp-v-tudor-in-re-tudor-gasb-2002.