In re Millie S. Crayton

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois·Decided November 17, 2025·No. 24-05142·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE MILLIE S. CRAYTON, ) Chapter 13 ) Debtor. ) Case No. 24-05142 ) ) Hon. Deborah L. Thorne

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes to be heard on the Debtor’s objection to the amended claim filed by the Chicago Post Office Employees Credit Union (Credit Union). The original claim was filed on May 22, 2025, nearly one year after the June 18, 2024 bar date for non-governmental creditors. The Debtor objects to the allowance of the late-filed claim. The Credit Union argues that it did not have proper notice of the petition date and the bar-date and therefore its claim should be allowed. The court reviewed the response filed to the objection and heard the arguments of counsel. The matter has now been taken under advisement, and the court holds that the Credit Union received actual and effective notice, and its claim is barred under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9), as explained below. Factual Background On March 20, 2018, Eric Gibbs, Credit Manager of the Credit Union, submitted a signed EBN Noticing Agreement to Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing Customer Service requesting that future bankruptcy notices be sent electronically from the Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) to the Credit Union at collections@cpoecu.com. On March 22, 2018, Eric Gibbs received an email from Electronic Bankruptcy Notice (EBN) confirming that the Credit Union requested the free noticing service and thanking it for agreeing to receive notices electronically. The Notice required that the Credit Union reply to make sure that the agreement would be activated.1 A copy of the EBN Noticing Agreement this court received after request from BNC is attached to this Memorandum.

On April 9, 2024, the Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition. The creditor matrix, also filed on April 9th, listed the Credit Union as a creditor. Its name appeared as follows: Chgo Po ECU 10025 S. Western Chicago, IL 60643

(Dkt. 1, page 46). Notice was provided to creditors listed on the creditor matrix on April 10, 2024, and the Proof of Service filed by the BNC states that the Credit Union received it via email at collections@cpoecu.com. (Dkt. 8). The Notice listed June 18, 2024 as the deadline to file a claim and other general information about the meeting of creditors and the deadline to file a complaint to determine whether a claim was nondischargeable. If the email to the creditor “bounces back” because it cannot be delivered, the BNC reports that on the docket. No docket entry was filed in this case, indicating that the email notifications were all successfully sent to those creditors requesting electronic notice. On May 2, 2025, nearly one year after the June 18, 2024 bar date, the Credit Union filed its claim.2 In August 2025, the Debtor objected to the Credit Union’s claim arguing it was not

1 The EBN Agreement, a copy of which was requested by this court from the BNC is attached to this Opinion. When a debtor lists a creditor who has agreed to electronic notice, BNC matches the name with the requested email and notice is emailed to the creditor. In this case, the notice was electronically transmitted within 24 hours to the Credit Union on April 10, 2024. 2Although it is not entirely clear to the court, during the arguments of counsel, the Credit Union’s lawyer stated that he contacted the Debtor’s lawyer in the Spring of 2025 asking him to file the proof of claim for the Credit Union. Apparently, the Debtor’s lawyer was willing to do so, under the belief that the Credit Union had not received notice of the case. Once the Debtor’s lawyer reviewed the docket and saw that the Credit Union had received timely notice on April 10, 2024, he did not file the claim for the Credit Union. Apparently several weeks later, the lawyer for the Credit Union filed the May 2, 2025 claim. timely filed. The Credit Union insists it did not receive notice because the name on the notice from the BNC lists its name as “Chgo Po ECU.” Discussion A. Notice was reasonable.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(g) requires notice to be addressed as the entity or its authorized agent provided in its last request filed in the case. Section 342 of the Bankruptcy Code provides little guidance “as to what is the proper address of a creditor, [but] it is clear that such an address must provide the creditor reasonable notice of the bankruptcy proceeding.” In re Glenwood Med.Grp., Ltd., 211 B.R. 282, 285 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997). Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent.Hanover Bankr & Tr. Co., 399 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). Courts “must look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether notice was reasonable. What constitutes ‘reasonable notice’ . . . varies according to the knowledge of the parties.” In re O’Shaughnessy, 252 B.R. 722, 729-30

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

In re Millie S. Crayton, (Ill. 2025).

In re Millie S. Crayton (In re Millie S. Crayton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re O'Shaughnessy
252 B.R. 722 (N.D. Illinois, 2000)
In Re Glenwood Medical Group, Ltd.
211 B.R. 282 (N.D. Illinois, 1997)
In Re marchFirst, Inc.
345 B.R. 866 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
In re Pajian
785 F.3d 1161 (Seventh Circuit, 2015)