John M Germanis

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky
DecidedJune 5, 2020
Docket19-10588
StatusUnknown

This text of John M Germanis (John M Germanis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John M Germanis, (Ky. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY IN RE: ) ) JOHN M. GERMANIS ) CASE NO. 19-10588(1)(13) ) Debtor(s) ) MEMORANDUM-OPINION This matter is before the Court on the Objection of Debtor John M. Germanis (“Debtor”) to the Post-Confirmation Amendment to Proof of Claim of Creditors Harold Burton, the Estate of Jean Burton and ten other Creditors (“Creditors”) as Amended Proof of Claim Number 2. The Court considered the Debtor’s Objection, the Response to the Debtor’s Objection of the Creditors and the comments of counsel for the parties at the hearing on the matter. For the following reasons, the Court will OVERRULE the Debtor’s Objection to the Creditors’ Post-Confirmation Amendment to Proof of Claim Number 2. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 17, 2019, Debtor filed his Voluntary Petition seeking relief under Chapter 13 of the

United States Bankruptcy Code. On Schedule D to his Petition, Creditors Who Have Claims Secured by Property, Debtor scheduled the Creditors’ secured claim in the amount of $20,000 based on a Land Sale Contract with the claim secured by a residence at 308 Montague Street, Franklin, Kentucky 42134 (“the Property”). Debtor also filed his Chapter 13 Plan on June 17, 2019, in which he proposed to pay the Creditors’ claim valued at $20,000 in monthly installments of $365.02, with interest at 3% for a total payout of $21,536.18. On July 24, 2019, Creditors, by attorney Timothy Crocker, filed Proof of Claim Number 2 indicating that the Creditors had a secured claim in the amount of “$21,043.08 plus costs, interest and attorney’s fees” based on a “Real Estate Contract for a house.” The interest was listed as 3%. On August 29, 2019, Creditors through Mark I. Mandrell, one of the ten Creditors and an

agent for all Creditors listed, amended the Creditors’ Proof of Claim, listing the amount of the claim as $23,360.67 as of June 17, 2019. The claim was itemized as $22,109.21 of principal, $1,069.46 for taxes and insurance advanced by the Creditors, and $182.00 for late fees. The Amended Proof of Claim states the amount included 12 monthly payments of $531.00 each which represented pre- petition arrearage on monthly payments, insurance and taxes advanced and late fees. The Amended Proof of Claim stated that on October 1, 2019, 2019 ad valorem taxes would come due, and the insurance on the Property would lapse on December 17, 2019. A copy of the Real Estate Contract on the Property was attached to the Amended Proof of Claim. Debtor did not object to the Amended Proof of Claim.

Pursuant to the terms of the Real Estate Contract on the Property, any party breaching the Contract agreed “to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs incurred by the non-breaching party” arising from any legal proceeding caused by the default or breach of the agreement. On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an Order confirming the Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. The Plan provided the Creditors’ secured claim of “$23,360.67 would be paid at 3% interest and an Adequate Protection Payment of $233.00 a month would be paid with attorney’s fees. Debtor’s attorney has 60 days to object.” On October 15, 2019, the Debtor filed the Schedule of Allowed Claims which indicated

Creditors’ claim would be paid in accordance with the Order of Confirmation. -2- On November 11, 2019, Creditors filed a Second Amendment to Proof of Claim Number 2. This Amendment listed the claim total as $30,600.37. The amount necessary to cure the default was $14,863.16. The breakdown on the claim was as follows: principal owed as of June 17, 2019: $22,109.21; unpaid advances for taxes and insurance: $1,069.46; late fees: $182.00; attorney’s:

$7,239.00 for a total claim of $30,600.37. Attached to the Amended Proof of Claim is a bill for attorney’s fees from the law firm of Crocker and Crocker dated September 30, 2019 detailing attorney’s fees and costs and worked performed in connection with legal proceedings filed by the Creditors based on the Debtor’s default under the Real Estate Sales Contract from August 31, 2017 to March 26, 2019 in the amount of $7,239.70. The legal fees incurred by Crocker and Crocker were in connection with a foreclosure action filed by the Creditors against Debtor in Simpson Circuit Court. The Creditors filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Order of Sale of the Property on May 17, 2019 in that action. Prior to the scheduled hearing date on that Motion, Debtor instituted this Chapter 13 case.

On January 15, 2020, Debtor filed his Objection to the Second Amended Proof of Claim of the Creditors contending the Order of Confirmation finally adjudicated the Creditors’ claim and it cannot be amended post-confirmation. Debtor further claims that there is no evidence of an enforceable debt for attorney’s fees owed by him to Mark Mandrell. On February 5, 2020, the Creditors filed their Response to the Debtor’s Objection. The Creditors contend that they did not receive the statement for attorney’s fees until after the filing of the Amended Proof of Claim and that the Debtor breached the Real Estate Contract and attorney’s fees should be allowed pursuant to the terms of the Real Estate Contract.

-3- LEGAL ANALYSIS Debtor objects to the Creditors’ Second Amended Proof of Claim because the amendment was filed post-confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan. Debtor contends that since Creditors did not object to the Debtor’s Plan and the Plan was confirmed, Creditors are prohibited from further

amending their claim post-confirmation. Debtor also objects to the Amended Proof of Claim because it incorporates a claim for $7,219.70 for attorney’s fees billed by attorney Timothy Crocker to Mark Mandrell and that there is no evidence that this is an enforceable claim against the Debtor. The Court will first address the second claim by Debtor that this is not an enforceable debt against the Debtor. The evidence of record demonstrates that Mark Mandrell was one of ten Creditors with whom Debtor entered into a Real Estate Purchase Contract for the Property. Debtor is in default of this Contract. The terms of the Contract allow the Creditors to recover their

attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing Debtor’s breach of the Contract. Attorney Crocker filed the foreclosure action on behalf of the Creditors against Debtor in Simpson Circuit Court based on Debtor’s default under the Contract. This clearly is an enforceable claim against the Debtor. A review of the record demonstrates that the funds sought to be recovered by the Creditors in their pre-confirmation Proofs of Claim and the post-confirmation Proofs of Claim, all result from the Debtor’s default of the Real Estate Purchase Contract and are recoverable under the terms of that Contract due to the Debtor’s default. Creditors did not object to the Plan because at the time the Plan was confirmed, they had not yet received the bill for the attorney’s fees incurred in the Simpson Circuit Court foreclosure proceeding. However, Debtor did not object to either the initial Proof of

Claim filed by Creditors or the Amended Proof of Claim, both of which identified the secured claim -4- in the amount of the default at the time the Proof of Claim was filed, “plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees.” An amendment relates back to a timely filed Proof of Claim. The determination of whether to permit an amendment to a timely filed Proof of Claim rests within the discretion of the Court.

In re Outdoor Sports Headquarters, Inc., 161 B.R. 414, 421 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993). Amendments to proofs of claim that were initially timely filed are to be freely allowed where they specify the amount due under a previously asserted right to payment or simply to cure technical defects in the original claim. In re Galindez, 514 B.R. 79, 88 (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico 2014), citing In re Hemmingway, 954 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1992) and In re Crane Rental, 341 B.R.

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

Related

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa
559 U.S. 260 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Dewsnup v. Timm
502 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 1992)
In Re Outdoor Sports Headquarters, Inc.
161 B.R. 414 (S.D. Ohio, 1993)
In Re McLemore
426 B.R. 728 (S.D. Ohio, 2010)
In re Crane Rental Co.
341 B.R. 118 (D. Massachusetts, 2006)
In re Galindez
514 B.R. 79 (D. Puerto Rico, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John M Germanis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-m-germanis-kywb-2020.