1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
3 IN RE: CASE NO. 14-02142 (ESL)
4 JULIO ANGEL RIVERA RAMOS CHAPTER 13 5 LUZ MINERVA RIVERA FIGUEROA
6 Debtor 7 OPINION AND ORDER 8 9 This case is before the court upon the “Trustee’s Objection 10 to Proof of Claim Number 8” filed by Debtors on behalf of 11 Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito Oriental’s (hereinafter, 12 “Cooperativa”) and “Debtor’s Response and Opposition to Trustee’ 13 Objection To Claim #8”. The chapter 13 Trustee argues that 14 Debtors did not contract with Cooperativa, and thus, the Debtors 15 are not obligated with this financial entity since the same does 16 17 not have a claim against the Debtors. The Debtors contends that 18 the collateral of Cooperativa’s claim is property of the estate 19 because is possessed, and paid by the debtors despite the 20 Financing Agreement is between Cooperativa and a third party. 21 For the reasons stated below, the Trustee’s objection to proof 22 of claim number 8 is granted. 23 I. FINDINGS OF FACTS 24 Before, the commencement of the captioned case, on August 25 26 5, 2010, joint debtor’s mother, Mrs. Josefina Figueroa Carrillo 27 purchased a 2010 Toyota Yaris registered under number 10001030 1 from Naguabo Auto Sales. In the Sales contract, she agreed to 2 pay Cooperativa for the vehicle. See Claim No. 8, Exhibit 3. 3 Figueroa Carrillo and Cooperativa subscribed a Financing 4 Agreement for the financing of the 2010 Toyota Yaris on August 5 5, 2010. See Claim 8, Exhibit 3. Also, per the car’s 6 registration, the vehicle is titled to Figueroa Carrillo and is 7 duly encumbered by a lien held by Cooperativa. See Claim 8, 8 Exhibit 2. 9 10 Joint debtor, Luz Minerva Rivera Figueroa (“Rivera 11 Figueroa”) is not a party in the Financing Agreement subscribed 12 by Figueroa Carrillo and Cooperativa. See Claim 8, Exhibit 3. 13 On March 19 2014, Debtors, Mr. Julio Angel Rivera Ramos and 14 Rivera Figueroa ("Debtors") filed a bankruptcy case under 15 Chapter 13. (See Docket No. 1) The Debtors in Schedule B 16 included a 2010 Toyota Yaris with an estimated value of 17 18 $7,000.00. See Docket No. 1. 19 On July 18, 2014, the Debtors amended the Schedule B to 20 include the 2013 tax refund and to amend the description of the 21 2010 Toyota Yaris. See Docket No. 51. In the description of the 22 vehicle, Debtors stated that the “interest in vehicle is 23 property of the estate pursuant to section 541(c) (1) although 24 titled of the vehicle is to third party …” Id. 25 On July 28, 2014, the Debtors filed on behalf of 26 27 Cooperativa the proof of claim number 8. See Claim 8-1. 1 On April 23, 2015, the Trustee filed Trustee's Objection to 2 Proof of Claim #08-1 filed by Coop A/C Oriental. See Docket No. 3 100. The Trustee objected the proof of claim number 8 because 4 the supporting documents attached to the proof of claim does not 5 refer to the Debtors of this case. The proof of claim was filed 6 by the Debtors on behalf of Cooperativa. Id. 7 On May 15, 2015, Debtors filed their Response and 8 Opposition to Trustee’s Objection to Claim #8. See Docket No. 9 10 106. The Debtors argues that the proof of claim filed by them 11 on behalf of Cooperativa is allowable because the vehicle 12 secured by Cooperativa is property of the estate despite the 13 financing by creditor to a third party. See Docket No. 106. 14 After several procedural stages in the case, on March 9, 15 2016, Debtors filed an amended Plan dated March 9, 2016. See 16 Docket No. 143. The proposed Plan provides for the payment in 17 18 full of the car loan to Cooperativa as a secured claim. Id. 19 On March 22, 2015, the Trustee objected the confirmation of 20 the Plan dated March 9, 2016. See Docket No. 147. The Trustee 21 objected, among other things, the treatment provided in the Plan 22 to Cooperativa because it is not a creditor in the captioned 23 case and does not have a claim against Debtors. See Docket No. 24 147. 25 Furthermore, throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, 26 27 Cooperativa has objected the plan confirmation, arguing that, 1 since the abovementioned 2010 Toyota Yaris is not property of 2 the estate, Cooperativa is not a creditor in this case. See, 3 Dockets No. 24, 43, and 80. 4 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 a. Whether Cooperativa is a creditor in the captioned case 6 and holder of a claim, in the captioned case with a right of payment through the Plan. 7 Section 101 (12) of the Bankruptcy Code defines “debt” as a 8 liability on a claim. 11 U.S.C. §101(12). 9 10 A claim is a right to payment, whether or not such right is 11 reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, 12 contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, 13 equitable, secured, or unsecured; or…. 11 U.S.C. §101(5)(A). 14 The word “claim” is interpreted broadly under the Bankruptcy 15 Code. See In re Mazzeo, 131 F.3d 295, 302 (2d Cir.1997): In re 16 Okura & Co. (Am.), Inc., 249 B.R. 596, 602 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 17 18 2000) 19 While the term “claim” was drafted to be read broadly, it 20 is not unlimited. In order for a claim to arise there must be a 21 “right to payment.” See Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 218, 22 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998) (quoting Pennsylvania 23 Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559, 110 24 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990)). And, a “right to payment” 25 is nothing more than an enforceable obligation. Id. In re Okura 26 27 & Co. (Am.), Inc., 249 B.R. 596, 602 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000) 1 11 U.S.C. §101(10) defines the term “creditor” under the 2 Bankruptcy Code. The same states, as follows: 3 (10) The term “creditor” means—
4 (A) entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for 5 relief concerning the debtor; 6 (B) entity that has a claim against the estate of a 7 kind specified in section 348 (d), 502 (f), 502 (g), 502 (h) or 502 (i) of this title; or 8 (C) entity that has a community claim. 9
10 Cooperativa is not a creditor in the instant case because 11 it does not have a claim against the debtors that arose at the 12 time of, or, before the order of relief, or in the kind 13 specified in sections 348(d), 502(f), 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) 14 of the Bankruptcy Code. 15 b. Whether Cooperativa has an enforceable obligation against 16 Debtors in the captioned case with a right of payment through the Plan. 17
18 In order to determine whether Cooperativa is a holder of a 19 claim, and by implication a creditor, it is necessary to 20 determine whether it has an enforceable obligations against 21 Debtors under applicable non-bankrtupcy law. See In re 22 Chateaugay Corp., 53 F. 3d. 478, 497 (2d Cir, 1995). 23 24 In Puerto Rico, obligations are created by law, by 25 contracts, by quasi contracts, and by illicit acts and omissions 26 or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs. 31 27 L.P.R.A. § 2992. Obligations arising from contracts have legal 1 force between the contracting parties, and must be fulfilled in 2 accordance with their stipulations. 31 L.P.R.A. § 2994 3 An obligation may be modified by the change of their object 4 or principal conditions, by substituting the person of the 5 debtor or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the 6 creditor. 31 L.P.R.A. §3241.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
3 IN RE: CASE NO. 14-02142 (ESL)
4 JULIO ANGEL RIVERA RAMOS CHAPTER 13 5 LUZ MINERVA RIVERA FIGUEROA
6 Debtor 7 OPINION AND ORDER 8 9 This case is before the court upon the “Trustee’s Objection 10 to Proof of Claim Number 8” filed by Debtors on behalf of 11 Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito Oriental’s (hereinafter, 12 “Cooperativa”) and “Debtor’s Response and Opposition to Trustee’ 13 Objection To Claim #8”. The chapter 13 Trustee argues that 14 Debtors did not contract with Cooperativa, and thus, the Debtors 15 are not obligated with this financial entity since the same does 16 17 not have a claim against the Debtors. The Debtors contends that 18 the collateral of Cooperativa’s claim is property of the estate 19 because is possessed, and paid by the debtors despite the 20 Financing Agreement is between Cooperativa and a third party. 21 For the reasons stated below, the Trustee’s objection to proof 22 of claim number 8 is granted. 23 I. FINDINGS OF FACTS 24 Before, the commencement of the captioned case, on August 25 26 5, 2010, joint debtor’s mother, Mrs. Josefina Figueroa Carrillo 27 purchased a 2010 Toyota Yaris registered under number 10001030 1 from Naguabo Auto Sales. In the Sales contract, she agreed to 2 pay Cooperativa for the vehicle. See Claim No. 8, Exhibit 3. 3 Figueroa Carrillo and Cooperativa subscribed a Financing 4 Agreement for the financing of the 2010 Toyota Yaris on August 5 5, 2010. See Claim 8, Exhibit 3. Also, per the car’s 6 registration, the vehicle is titled to Figueroa Carrillo and is 7 duly encumbered by a lien held by Cooperativa. See Claim 8, 8 Exhibit 2. 9 10 Joint debtor, Luz Minerva Rivera Figueroa (“Rivera 11 Figueroa”) is not a party in the Financing Agreement subscribed 12 by Figueroa Carrillo and Cooperativa. See Claim 8, Exhibit 3. 13 On March 19 2014, Debtors, Mr. Julio Angel Rivera Ramos and 14 Rivera Figueroa ("Debtors") filed a bankruptcy case under 15 Chapter 13. (See Docket No. 1) The Debtors in Schedule B 16 included a 2010 Toyota Yaris with an estimated value of 17 18 $7,000.00. See Docket No. 1. 19 On July 18, 2014, the Debtors amended the Schedule B to 20 include the 2013 tax refund and to amend the description of the 21 2010 Toyota Yaris. See Docket No. 51. In the description of the 22 vehicle, Debtors stated that the “interest in vehicle is 23 property of the estate pursuant to section 541(c) (1) although 24 titled of the vehicle is to third party …” Id. 25 On July 28, 2014, the Debtors filed on behalf of 26 27 Cooperativa the proof of claim number 8. See Claim 8-1. 1 On April 23, 2015, the Trustee filed Trustee's Objection to 2 Proof of Claim #08-1 filed by Coop A/C Oriental. See Docket No. 3 100. The Trustee objected the proof of claim number 8 because 4 the supporting documents attached to the proof of claim does not 5 refer to the Debtors of this case. The proof of claim was filed 6 by the Debtors on behalf of Cooperativa. Id. 7 On May 15, 2015, Debtors filed their Response and 8 Opposition to Trustee’s Objection to Claim #8. See Docket No. 9 10 106. The Debtors argues that the proof of claim filed by them 11 on behalf of Cooperativa is allowable because the vehicle 12 secured by Cooperativa is property of the estate despite the 13 financing by creditor to a third party. See Docket No. 106. 14 After several procedural stages in the case, on March 9, 15 2016, Debtors filed an amended Plan dated March 9, 2016. See 16 Docket No. 143. The proposed Plan provides for the payment in 17 18 full of the car loan to Cooperativa as a secured claim. Id. 19 On March 22, 2015, the Trustee objected the confirmation of 20 the Plan dated March 9, 2016. See Docket No. 147. The Trustee 21 objected, among other things, the treatment provided in the Plan 22 to Cooperativa because it is not a creditor in the captioned 23 case and does not have a claim against Debtors. See Docket No. 24 147. 25 Furthermore, throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, 26 27 Cooperativa has objected the plan confirmation, arguing that, 1 since the abovementioned 2010 Toyota Yaris is not property of 2 the estate, Cooperativa is not a creditor in this case. See, 3 Dockets No. 24, 43, and 80. 4 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5 a. Whether Cooperativa is a creditor in the captioned case 6 and holder of a claim, in the captioned case with a right of payment through the Plan. 7 Section 101 (12) of the Bankruptcy Code defines “debt” as a 8 liability on a claim. 11 U.S.C. §101(12). 9 10 A claim is a right to payment, whether or not such right is 11 reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, 12 contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, 13 equitable, secured, or unsecured; or…. 11 U.S.C. §101(5)(A). 14 The word “claim” is interpreted broadly under the Bankruptcy 15 Code. See In re Mazzeo, 131 F.3d 295, 302 (2d Cir.1997): In re 16 Okura & Co. (Am.), Inc., 249 B.R. 596, 602 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 17 18 2000) 19 While the term “claim” was drafted to be read broadly, it 20 is not unlimited. In order for a claim to arise there must be a 21 “right to payment.” See Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 218, 22 118 S.Ct. 1212, 140 L.Ed.2d 341 (1998) (quoting Pennsylvania 23 Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 559, 110 24 S.Ct. 2126, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990)). And, a “right to payment” 25 is nothing more than an enforceable obligation. Id. In re Okura 26 27 & Co. (Am.), Inc., 249 B.R. 596, 602 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2000) 1 11 U.S.C. §101(10) defines the term “creditor” under the 2 Bankruptcy Code. The same states, as follows: 3 (10) The term “creditor” means—
4 (A) entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for 5 relief concerning the debtor; 6 (B) entity that has a claim against the estate of a 7 kind specified in section 348 (d), 502 (f), 502 (g), 502 (h) or 502 (i) of this title; or 8 (C) entity that has a community claim. 9
10 Cooperativa is not a creditor in the instant case because 11 it does not have a claim against the debtors that arose at the 12 time of, or, before the order of relief, or in the kind 13 specified in sections 348(d), 502(f), 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) 14 of the Bankruptcy Code. 15 b. Whether Cooperativa has an enforceable obligation against 16 Debtors in the captioned case with a right of payment through the Plan. 17
18 In order to determine whether Cooperativa is a holder of a 19 claim, and by implication a creditor, it is necessary to 20 determine whether it has an enforceable obligations against 21 Debtors under applicable non-bankrtupcy law. See In re 22 Chateaugay Corp., 53 F. 3d. 478, 497 (2d Cir, 1995). 23 24 In Puerto Rico, obligations are created by law, by 25 contracts, by quasi contracts, and by illicit acts and omissions 26 or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs. 31 27 L.P.R.A. § 2992. Obligations arising from contracts have legal 1 force between the contracting parties, and must be fulfilled in 2 accordance with their stipulations. 31 L.P.R.A. § 2994 3 An obligation may be modified by the change of their object 4 or principal conditions, by substituting the person of the 5 debtor or by subrogating a third person in the rights of the 6 creditor. 31 L.P.R.A. §3241. 7 The novation whether it refers to parties or the object of 8 the obligation is not presumed and for the same to exist there 9 10 must be an express declaration of the contracting parties of 11 their intention to enter into a novation or that there be a 12 complete incompatibility between both obligations. Colon & Cia. 13 Inc. v. Registrador de la Propiedad de Ponce, 88 P.R.R. 77, 1963 14 PR Sup. LEXIS 310 (P.R. 1963); Salgado v. Villamil et al., 14 15 P.R.R. 437, 1908 PR Sup. LEXIS 74 (P.R. 1908). 16 A novation that consist of the substitution of a debtor in 17 18 the place of the original one may be made without the knowledge 19 of the original debtor, but not without the consent of the 20 creditor. 31 L.P.R.A. § 3243 21 The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico concluded in Teacher 22 Annuity vs. Marital Community, 115 D.P.R. 277 (1984), that 23 novation by substitution of the Debtor can only take place with 24 the creditor’s consent. Such consent must be patent and 25 manifest. Id. The mere acceptance by the creditor of payments 26 27 made by a third party does not constitute the acceptance of a 1 new debtor. Id. 9 In this case, Debtors are not party in the Financial 3 |;Agreement, hence, they did not enter in any contractual 4 ||relationship with Cooperativa, and are not legally obligate 5 llwith such entity. In re Irving- August Building Corporation, 100 6 F.2d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1938) (“Liability for debts is traceable to contractual origin.”). Furthermore, Cooperativa has objecte the confirmation of the Plan, rejecting Debtors as the obligate
10 party in their contact, and therefore, a novation has not 1] || occurred. 12 Debtors have failed to establish by means of evidence that 13 ||Cooperativa has a right of payment. Debtors are not obligate 14 with this financial entity since the same does not have a clai 1S against Debtors, thus, there is not a debt in which the debtors 16 are responsible. 17 18 For the reasons stated herein, the proof of claim number 8
19 filed by the Debtors on behalf of Cooperativa de A/C Oriental is 29 || disallowed. 21 It is so ordered. 22 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th of June, 2016. 23 24
unitdd states Bankruptey Judge 27
-7-