ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

DWIGHT H. WILLIAMS, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

On July 17, 2012, the debtor filed a motion seeking to have creditor Resurgent Capital Services, on behalf of CVF Consumer Acquisition Co., its successors and assigns as assignee of NCO Group, Inc. held in contempt of court for the failure to support its proof of claim with the documentation required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. Rule 3001. In addition to the sanctions sought, the debtor requests that the creditor's claim be reduced to nothing. For the reasons set forth below, the debtor's motion for contempt will be DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 9, 2011, debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition which is presently pending before the court. See Docket Entry #1. Debtor's Schedule F listed "NCO Financial Systems, Inc. for Capital One" as the creditor for a Capital One credit card account. Id. On August 10, 2011, debtor filed a certificate of notice to all creditors, including NCO. See Docket Entry #10. On December 8, 2011, Resurgent, on behalf of CVF, its successors and assigns as assignee of NCO filed proof of claim #14 in the unsecured amount of $684.14. See Docket Entry #14-1. The filing stated that CVF had purchased the Capital One Account from NCO. Id. Resurgent filed its proof of claim on CVF's behalf as servicer of the account. Id.

On May 24, 2012, debtor filed an adversary proceeding against Resurgent, CVF and NCO, among others, claiming that they had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by filing proofs of claim for allegedly time-barred debts. See Adversary Docket No. 1, Complaint at ¶ 75. The defendants moved to dismiss and on July 12, 2012, this Court dismissed debtor's adversary action, holding that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA. See Adversary Docket No. 34, Order Dismissing Adversary Proceeding. On July 17, 2012, debtor filed the instant motion for civil contempt against Resurgent, CVF and NCO. On August 6, 2012, NCO was dismissed from the motion for contempt because it did not file a proof of claim against the debtor. See Docket Entry #61.

CONTEMPT

Holding a creditor in contempt of court in this instance would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, contempt sanctions are generally appropriate in situations where a party has violated a court order. See LBR 9020-1, Bankr. M.D. Ala. For example, "the creditor who attempts to collect a discharged debt is violating not only a statute but also an injunction and is therefore in contempt of the bankruptcy court that issued the order of discharge." Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958, 966 (11th Cir. 2012). The filing of a proof of claim, however, even one that does not comport with the procedural requirements of the Rules, does not amount to the violation of a court order. Second, while bankruptcy judges do share the same broad authority as district judges to issue any order, be it injunctive, compensative or punitive, to forestall conduct that stands to frustrate administration of the law, see In re Hardy, 97 F.3d 1384, 1389 (11th Cir. 2012), the Bankruptcy Code itself lays out an explicit objection to claims process to deal with deficient filings. As such, an order of contempt would be neither necessary nor appropriate to effectuate the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

OBJECTION TO CLAIM

In this case, the debtor did in fact request that the creditor's claim be reduced to nothing, thereby lodging an objection to the creditor's claim. Using the authority granted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, the court will consider the debtor's motion as an objection to the creditor's claim.

Rule 3001(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure describes the form and content of a proof of claim and demands that it conform substantially to the Official Form. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). When a claim is based on a writing, such as the credit card agreement in the instant case, or any other contract, Rule 3001(c) provides that "the original or duplicate should be filed with the proof of claim." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)(1). If the documentation required by the rule is furnished, the proof of claim serves as prima facie evidence of not only the validity of the claim but also the amount of the claim. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). And while the burden of persuasion ultimately rests with the claimant, the burden shifts to the objecting debtor to produce sufficient evidence to negate the prima facie validity of a properly filed claim.1 In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir.1991).

However, when a creditor's proof of claim fails to comply with 3001(c), not only is the claim deprived of any presumption of validity, but the burden of proof remains squarely upon the shoulders of the creditor. See, e.g., In re Hall, 2011 WL 1933752, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011). Further, the current rule makes that hurdle more difficult to overcome the second time around because the court may preclude a claimant from presenting the omitted information, in any form, as evidence in a contested matter or adversary proceeding in the case. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c)(2)(D)(i).

That said, a 3001(c) deficiency, in and of itself, does not create a basis for disallowing a claim. In re Hall, 2011 WL 1933752, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011). When lack of documentation is the sole objection to claim, the objection should be overruled. Id. "Simply put, it is not fair to a creditor to sustain an objection to its proof of claim based on inadequate documentation unless the objecting party alleges some basis for objecting on grounds that would require disallowance or reduction under [11 U.S.C.] § 502(b)." In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799, 812 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004). Section 502(b) sets out the exclusive grounds for disallowing a claim and lack of documentation is not one of them.2 See Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment; see also In re Stoecker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1027-28 (7th Cir. 1993); Dove-Nation v. eCast Settlement Corp., 318 B.R. 147, 152 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007); Heath v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 331 B.R. 424 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005); B-Line, LLC v. Kirkland, 379 B.R. 341 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2007).

While the rule does grant the court the authority to impose sanctions or award attorney's fees for deficient filings, both are inappropriate in this case. Not only has the creditor withdrawn its proof of claim, thereby mooting the debtor's objection entirely, (Docket Entry #56), but the creditor filed its claim on December 8, 2011, a mere seven days after the amendments to rule 3001, including the documentation requirement, took effect. Creditors' actions do not strike the court as rising to a level that warrants sanctions or an award of attorney's fees. It is therefore

ORDERED that debtor's motion for contempt is denied and her objection to claim is mooted by creditor's withdrawal of proof of claim #14.