UNITED STATESBANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
In re: CaseNo. 25-30384-CLH Chapter13 TIFFANY MONIQUE LEWIS Debtor.
MEMORANDUMOPINION ANDORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION AND DISALLOWING CLAIM#4 OF HMC FINANCE CORP.
On June 4, 2025, this matter came before the Court for hearing on the Objection to Claim # 4 of HMC Finance Corp. (the “Objection to Claim”) [Doc. No. 16]1 filed byTiffany Lewis (the “Debtor”) and the Response to the Objection to Claim (the “Response”) [Doc. No. 18] filed by HMC Finance Corp. (“HMC”). For the reasons below, the Objection to Claim is SUSTAINED and Claim # 4 is DISALLOWED. JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and the General Order of Reference entered by United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on April 25, 1985. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). This is a core proceeding under28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). BACKGROUNDAND PROCEDURALHISTORY
OnDecember17,2004, HMCobtainedajudgmentintheamountof$5,277.92againstthe Debtor in the District Court of Montgomery County (the “District Court”). [Claim No. 4-1].2 Approximately ten years later, HMC renewed its judgment against the Debtor on February 25, 2015. [Claim No. 4-1]. On September 30, 2021, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under 1“Doc.No.”referstothedocketnumberforafilingintheinstantbankruptcycase,CaseNumber25-30384. 2 “Claim No.” refers to the claim number for a proof of claim filed in the claims register of the instant bankruptcy case,CaseNumber25-30384. Chapter 13 in this Court (the “Prior Case”). [Prior Case Doc. No. 1].3 HMC filed an unsecured claim in theamount of $27,659.96, comprised of aprincipal balanceof $4,589.50, post-judgment interest of $21,942.69, fees of $688.42, and costs of $150.00. [Prior Case Claim No. 1]4. The CourtconfirmedtheDebtor’sAmendedPlanonMarch14,2022. [PriorCaseDoc.No51]. Under the confirmed plan, non-priority unsecured claims, including HMC’s claim, received no
distribution. [PriorCaseDoc.No.47]. OnFebruary7,2025,thePriorCasewasdismisseddueto theDebtor’s failureto makeplan payments. [PriorCase Doc. No. 77]. On February 19, 2025, the Debtor filed this case. [Doc. No. 1]. HMC filed an unsecured claim in the amount of $32,027.23 (the “HMC Claim”), accounting for additional interest that accrued sincethePriorCase. [Claim No. 4-1]. OnApril 21, 2025, the Debtor filedthe Objection to Claim, asserting that the HMC Claim is satisfied, or, in the alternative, that the HMC Claim is staleunderAlabamaCode§6-9-190. [Doc.No.16]. OnMay19,2025,HMCfileditsResponse, arguing that Alabama Code § 6-9-190 is inapplicable.5 [Doc. No. 18]. At the hearing, HMC introduced the additional argument that the HMC Claim is preserved under 11 U.S.C. § 108(c).
LEGALANALYSISAND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW
A. HMC Finance Corp.’s Proof of Claim Satisfies Rule 3001 and Serves as Prima Facie Evidenceof the HMC Claim and ItsAmount.
Under Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, proofs of claim must substantiallyconformtoForm410and,inthecaseofindividualdebtors,mustattachan“itemized statementoftheprincipalamountandanyinterest,fees,expenses,orotherchargesincurredbefore 3“PriorCaseDoc.No.”referstothedocketnumberforafilingintheDebtor’spriorbankruptcycase,CaseNumber 21-31729. 4“PriorCaseClaimNo.”referstotheclaimnumberforaproofofclaimfiledin theclaimsregisteroftheDebtor’s priorbankruptcycase,CaseNumber21-31729. 5InitsResponse,HMCasserts,withoutlimitation, thattheDebtor’stestimonyatthe341meetingconfirmsthatthe DebtorstillowesthedebttoHMC. AsnotedattheJune4hearing,theCourtwillnottreatasadmissionstheDebtor’s answerstoquestionsfromHMC’scounselthatcalledforlegalconclusions. the petition was filed.” FED.R.BANKR.P. 3001(a); FED.R.BANKR.P. 3001(c)(2)(A). Aproof of claim filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure serves as prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. FED. R. BANKR. P. 3001(f); Green Tree Acceptance Inc. v. Calvert (In re Calvert), 907 F.2d 1069, 1071 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1989); In re Britt, 199 B.R. 1000, 1008 (Bankr. N.D.Ala. 1996). Absent an objection, validly filed proofs of claim
are deemed allowed. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). An objecting party must proffer sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the claim should be allowed. In reBritt, 199 B.R. at1008. The HMC Claim contains all the information required under Rule 3001. [See Claim No. 4-1]. Therefore, the burden is on the Debtor to overcome the presumption that the HMC Claim should beallowed. B. The Debtor’s Bases forObjection
IntheObjectiontoClaim,theDebtorcontendsthattheHMCClaimisduetobedisallowed because it is (1) satisfied or (2) stale pursuant to Alabama Code § 6-9-190. [Doc. No. 16]. The wording of Local Form 4, which was utilized by the Debtor in this case, may have caused confusion regarding the bases for the Objection to Claim. Local Form 4 uses check boxes to describevariousbasesforobjection. Thecheckboxassertingthattheclaimis“satisfied”generally is used when the claim has been satisfied by payment, which is why Local Form 4 requires the objecting party to attach supporting documentation. The check box asserting that the claim is “stale” refers to the passage of time rendering a claim unenforceable, which is why Local Form 4 requirescitationtotherelevantstatute. TheObjectiontoClaimappearstoalternativelyassertthat: a)the HMCClaimispresumedsatisfiedunderAla.Code§6-9-191(notthattheHMCClaim was paid); or b) the HMC Claim is unenforceable pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-9-190. Accordingly, although the Debtor did not attach documentation supporting its contention that the HMC Claim is satisfied, the Court assumes this is because the Debtor is relying onAlabama Code §§ 6-9-191 and 6-9-190 in support of its alternativebases for objection. 1. ForPurposesof theObjection to Claim, theHMCClaim Has Not Been Satisfied.
UnderAlabama Code § 6-9-1, judgments are valid for ten years. See ALA.CODE § 6-9-1. However,AlabamaCode§6-9-191dictatesthatjudgmentscanberevivedonce,suchthattheyare valid for a period of up to 20 years from the date of entry of the original judgment. See Knights FranchiseSys., Inc.v. GauriShivam,LLC,2022WL1072885, at*2 (N.D.Ala.April8, 2022). If a judgment is not renewed within the first ten years, a rebuttable presumption arises that the judgment has beensatisfied. Seeid. at*1. HMC’sjudgmentagainsttheDebtorwasenteredonDecember17,2004. [ClaimNo.4-1]. HMC appears to have revived its judgment against the Debtor, as evidenced by the Certificate of Judgment dated February 25, 2015. [Claim No. 4-1]. HMC would have been required to rebut thepresumptionthattheclaimhadbeensatisfied. GiventhattheDistrictCourtissuedaCertificate of Judgment on February 25, 2015, the Court caninfer that HMC met its burden.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATESBANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
In re: CaseNo. 25-30384-CLH Chapter13 TIFFANY MONIQUE LEWIS Debtor.
MEMORANDUMOPINION ANDORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION AND DISALLOWING CLAIM#4 OF HMC FINANCE CORP.
On June 4, 2025, this matter came before the Court for hearing on the Objection to Claim # 4 of HMC Finance Corp. (the “Objection to Claim”) [Doc. No. 16]1 filed byTiffany Lewis (the “Debtor”) and the Response to the Objection to Claim (the “Response”) [Doc. No. 18] filed by HMC Finance Corp. (“HMC”). For the reasons below, the Objection to Claim is SUSTAINED and Claim # 4 is DISALLOWED. JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and the General Order of Reference entered by United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on April 25, 1985. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). This is a core proceeding under28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). BACKGROUNDAND PROCEDURALHISTORY
OnDecember17,2004, HMCobtainedajudgmentintheamountof$5,277.92againstthe Debtor in the District Court of Montgomery County (the “District Court”). [Claim No. 4-1].2 Approximately ten years later, HMC renewed its judgment against the Debtor on February 25, 2015. [Claim No. 4-1]. On September 30, 2021, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under 1“Doc.No.”referstothedocketnumberforafilingintheinstantbankruptcycase,CaseNumber25-30384. 2 “Claim No.” refers to the claim number for a proof of claim filed in the claims register of the instant bankruptcy case,CaseNumber25-30384. Chapter 13 in this Court (the “Prior Case”). [Prior Case Doc. No. 1].3 HMC filed an unsecured claim in theamount of $27,659.96, comprised of aprincipal balanceof $4,589.50, post-judgment interest of $21,942.69, fees of $688.42, and costs of $150.00. [Prior Case Claim No. 1]4. The CourtconfirmedtheDebtor’sAmendedPlanonMarch14,2022. [PriorCaseDoc.No51]. Under the confirmed plan, non-priority unsecured claims, including HMC’s claim, received no
distribution. [PriorCaseDoc.No.47]. OnFebruary7,2025,thePriorCasewasdismisseddueto theDebtor’s failureto makeplan payments. [PriorCase Doc. No. 77]. On February 19, 2025, the Debtor filed this case. [Doc. No. 1]. HMC filed an unsecured claim in the amount of $32,027.23 (the “HMC Claim”), accounting for additional interest that accrued sincethePriorCase. [Claim No. 4-1]. OnApril 21, 2025, the Debtor filedthe Objection to Claim, asserting that the HMC Claim is satisfied, or, in the alternative, that the HMC Claim is staleunderAlabamaCode§6-9-190. [Doc.No.16]. OnMay19,2025,HMCfileditsResponse, arguing that Alabama Code § 6-9-190 is inapplicable.5 [Doc. No. 18]. At the hearing, HMC introduced the additional argument that the HMC Claim is preserved under 11 U.S.C. § 108(c).
LEGALANALYSISAND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW
A. HMC Finance Corp.’s Proof of Claim Satisfies Rule 3001 and Serves as Prima Facie Evidenceof the HMC Claim and ItsAmount.
Under Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, proofs of claim must substantiallyconformtoForm410and,inthecaseofindividualdebtors,mustattachan“itemized statementoftheprincipalamountandanyinterest,fees,expenses,orotherchargesincurredbefore 3“PriorCaseDoc.No.”referstothedocketnumberforafilingintheDebtor’spriorbankruptcycase,CaseNumber 21-31729. 4“PriorCaseClaimNo.”referstotheclaimnumberforaproofofclaimfiledin theclaimsregisteroftheDebtor’s priorbankruptcycase,CaseNumber21-31729. 5InitsResponse,HMCasserts,withoutlimitation, thattheDebtor’stestimonyatthe341meetingconfirmsthatthe DebtorstillowesthedebttoHMC. AsnotedattheJune4hearing,theCourtwillnottreatasadmissionstheDebtor’s answerstoquestionsfromHMC’scounselthatcalledforlegalconclusions. the petition was filed.” FED.R.BANKR.P. 3001(a); FED.R.BANKR.P. 3001(c)(2)(A). Aproof of claim filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure serves as prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. FED. R. BANKR. P. 3001(f); Green Tree Acceptance Inc. v. Calvert (In re Calvert), 907 F.2d 1069, 1071 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1989); In re Britt, 199 B.R. 1000, 1008 (Bankr. N.D.Ala. 1996). Absent an objection, validly filed proofs of claim
are deemed allowed. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). An objecting party must proffer sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the claim should be allowed. In reBritt, 199 B.R. at1008. The HMC Claim contains all the information required under Rule 3001. [See Claim No. 4-1]. Therefore, the burden is on the Debtor to overcome the presumption that the HMC Claim should beallowed. B. The Debtor’s Bases forObjection
IntheObjectiontoClaim,theDebtorcontendsthattheHMCClaimisduetobedisallowed because it is (1) satisfied or (2) stale pursuant to Alabama Code § 6-9-190. [Doc. No. 16]. The wording of Local Form 4, which was utilized by the Debtor in this case, may have caused confusion regarding the bases for the Objection to Claim. Local Form 4 uses check boxes to describevariousbasesforobjection. Thecheckboxassertingthattheclaimis“satisfied”generally is used when the claim has been satisfied by payment, which is why Local Form 4 requires the objecting party to attach supporting documentation. The check box asserting that the claim is “stale” refers to the passage of time rendering a claim unenforceable, which is why Local Form 4 requirescitationtotherelevantstatute. TheObjectiontoClaimappearstoalternativelyassertthat: a)the HMCClaimispresumedsatisfiedunderAla.Code§6-9-191(notthattheHMCClaim was paid); or b) the HMC Claim is unenforceable pursuant to Ala. Code § 6-9-190. Accordingly, although the Debtor did not attach documentation supporting its contention that the HMC Claim is satisfied, the Court assumes this is because the Debtor is relying onAlabama Code §§ 6-9-191 and 6-9-190 in support of its alternativebases for objection. 1. ForPurposesof theObjection to Claim, theHMCClaim Has Not Been Satisfied.
UnderAlabama Code § 6-9-1, judgments are valid for ten years. See ALA.CODE § 6-9-1. However,AlabamaCode§6-9-191dictatesthatjudgmentscanberevivedonce,suchthattheyare valid for a period of up to 20 years from the date of entry of the original judgment. See Knights FranchiseSys., Inc.v. GauriShivam,LLC,2022WL1072885, at*2 (N.D.Ala.April8, 2022). If a judgment is not renewed within the first ten years, a rebuttable presumption arises that the judgment has beensatisfied. Seeid. at*1. HMC’sjudgmentagainsttheDebtorwasenteredonDecember17,2004. [ClaimNo.4-1]. HMC appears to have revived its judgment against the Debtor, as evidenced by the Certificate of Judgment dated February 25, 2015. [Claim No. 4-1]. HMC would have been required to rebut thepresumptionthattheclaimhadbeensatisfied. GiventhattheDistrictCourtissuedaCertificate of Judgment on February 25, 2015, the Court caninfer that HMC met its burden.
TheissueofwhethertheclaimhasbeensatisfiedforpurposesofAlabamaCode§6-9-191 is relevant only to the revival of the underlying judgment, which occurred before the Debtor filed the Prior Case. HMC is no longer seeking to revive the judgment, so there is no presumption in favor of the Debtor that the judgment has been satisfied. Accordingly,Alabama Code § 6-9-191 does not negate the prima facie validity of the HMC Claim. Moreover, no evidence has been presented that the HMC Claim has been satisfied by payment, as contemplated by Local Form 4. Accordingly, the Debtor has not overcome the presumption that the HMC Claim should be allowed, at least on the basis that the HMC Claim was satisfied by payment or by operation of Alabama Code§ 6-9-191. 2. For Purposes of the Objection to Claim, the Underlying Judgment is Unenforceable UnderAlabama Code § 6-9-190, and the HMC Claim is Stale.
UnderAlabamaCode§6-9-190,ajudgment“cannotberevivedafterthelapseof20years from its entry.” Id.; see also PACCAR Fin. Corp. v. Robbins Grp. Int'l, Inc., No. 3:97-CV-1751- SLB,2012WL5426456,at*2(N.D.Ala.Nov.1,2012)(“InAlabama,apartyhastwentyyearsto satisfyajudgment,afterwhichtimethejudgmentisnolongerenforceableatlaw.”). Thejudgment underlyingtheHMCClaimwasenteredonDecember17,2004. Thetwenty-yearpointfromentry ofthejudgmentelapsedonDecember17,2024,overtwomonthsbeforetheinstantcasewasfiled. If this were the end of the analysis, then the HMC Claim would be “stale” in the context of the basis forobjection listed in LocalForm 4. However, HMC asserts that the HMC Claim ispreserved under 11 U.S.C.§ 108(c), which extends certain non-bankruptcy deadlines. Thesection provides: (c) ... [I]f applicable nonbankruptcy law ... fixes a period for commencing or continuingacivilactioninacourtotherthanabankruptcycourtonaclaimagainst the debtor, ... and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, then such period doesnot expireuntil the laterof – (1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of thecase; or (2) 30 days after notice of the termination or expiration of the stay under section362,922,1201,or1301ofthistitle,asthecasemaybe,withrespect to such claim.
11 U.S.C. § 108(c). To determine whether the underlying judgment is unenforceable under Alabama Code § 6-9-190, the Court must determine the deadlines specified under sections 108(c)(1) & (2) and apply the laterof thetwo. Undersection108(c)(1), therelevantdateistheendoftheperiodthatHMCcouldexecute on its judgment undernonbankruptcy law. As explained above, this date is December 17,2024. Under section 108(c)(2), the relevant date is thirty days after HMC received notice of the termination or expiration of the automatic stay. On February 7, 2025, the Prior Case was dismissed, and the automatic stay was terminated by operation of law. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2)(B). In the Prior Case, HMC filed a claim, its attorney entered a Notice ofAppearance, anditreceivedelectronicnoticeoftheOrderDismissingBankruptcyCase. [PriorCaseDoc.Nos. 9 and 78]. Therefore, HMC had notice of the dismissal of the Prior Case on February 7, 2025. Under section 108(c)(2), HMC had thirty days from this date, or March 9, 2025, to continue
proceedings in state court against the Debtor. This case was filed on February 19, 2025, before that thirty-day period elapsed, meaning the automatic stay was once again in place and HMC was again enjoined from continuing proceedings in state court against the Debtor. However, because the Debtor had a prior case pendingwithinayearofthepetitiondateandnomotiontoextendthestaywasfiled,theautomatic stay terminated with respectto the Debtor 30 days after the filing of the instant case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A);seealsoInreRoach,555B.R.840,848(Bankr.M.D.Ala.2016)(holdingthatunder 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A) the automatic stay terminates “with respect to the debtor”, not property of theestate).6 Accordingly, on March 19, 2025, the automaticstay in this case terminated.
There is no evidence that HMC continued proceedings against the Debtor within 30 days after the termination of the automatic stay on March 19, 2025. The thirty-day window closed on April 19, 2025, two days before the Debtor filed the Objection to Claim. Although section 108(c)(2)extendedHMC’srighttocontinueproceedingsinstatecourtagainsttheDebtorforthirty days after the termination of the automatic stay, its right to do so has now been extinguished. Alabama Code § 6-9-190 dictates that judgments cannot be revived beyond 20 years from entry,
6Section108(c)(2)extendsonlythedeadlineforcommencingorcontinuingproceedings“againstthedebtor”andthe stayterminated“withrespecttothedebtor”onApril19,2025.Because30dayshasnowelapsed,HMCisprevented frompursuingtheDebtor.Section108(c)doesnotextenddeadlinestoproceedpurelyinrem,soHMC’stimetodoso elapsedinDecember2024. and section 108(c)’s outermost deadline has passed. Therefore, the Objection to Claim is due to be SUSTAINED. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the Debtor satisfied its burden to overcome the prima facie validity of the HMC Claim. Under Alabama Code §§ 6-9-190 and 6-9-191 and relevant case law, and by virtue of section 108(c)(2)’s extension, HMC had a right to continue proceedings in state court to satisfy its judgment until no later than April 19, 2025. Now that this period has passed, the underlying judgment is unenforceable and the HMC Claim is stale. For the reasons set forth above, the Objection to Claim is SUSTAINED and the HMC Claim is DISALLOWED. Done this 13" day of June, 2025.
: | odant CO ~ Christopher L. Hawkins United States Bankruptcy Judge C: Debtor Stephen L. Klimjack, Attorney for Debtor Sabrina L. McKinney, Trustee Richard C. Dean, Jr., Attorney for HMC Finance Corp. HMC Finance Corp.