EDWARD J. COLEMAN, III, Bankruptcy Judge.
This matter is before the Court on nine Motions to Allow Claim (dckt nos. 32-40) filed by the debtors, Miles and Donna Girardeau (the "Debtors"), on behalf of Southside Fire/EMS, Anesthesia Consultants of Savannah, Coastal Behavioral Health, Antioch Medical Associates, Southcoast Health, Southeast Medical Equipment Company, Central EMS, Memorial Health University Medical Center, and Georgia Emergency Physician Specialists ("Creditor" or collectively as the "Creditors"). The issue before the Court is whether 11 U.S.C. § 1305 allows the Debtors to file proofs of claim on behalf of post-petition creditors, and whether such claims may be allowed and paid under the Debtor's Chapter 13 plan. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the Debtors lack standing to file proofs of claim pursuant to § 1305. Accordingly, the Debtors' Motions are DENIED.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Standing Order of Reference signed by then Chief Judge Anthony A. Alaimo on July 13, 1984. This is a "core proceeding" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B). In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7052, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition and plan on August 27, 2014. (Dckt Nos. 1,4). The § 341 meeting was scheduled for October 10, 2014, which established a claims bar date of January 8, 2015 for non-governmental creditors. (Dckt. 28). At some point after the filing of their petition
None of the Creditors sought to file their post-petition claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2). However, on June 19, 2015 and June 22, 2015, the Debtors filed proofs of claim on behalf of all nine Creditors for the post-petition medical debts which totaled nearly $3,200.00. (Claims Register 17-1 to 26-1). Each proof of claim identified the applicable Creditor and claim amount, but no documentation was provided in support of any of the claims. Id. Further, the Debtors checked the box on the proofs of claim labeled, "I am the trustee, or the debtor, or their authorized agent. (See Bankruptcy Rule 3004.)" Id. At the same time as the proof of claim filings, the Debtors filed the instant Motions seeking allowance of such claims. (Dckt Nos. 32-40). Each Motion provided:
Id.
The Motions made no reference to any section of the Bankruptcy Code or to a Bankruptcy Rule in support of the requested relief. Upon receipt of the Motions, the Clerk sent notice of these filings to the respective Creditors, which provided, in pertinent part:
(Dckt. Nos. 41-48).
None of the Creditors appeared or filed objections to the Motions with the Court. On July 1, 2015, however, the Trustee filed a response approving of the Motions, which stated "The Plan shall continue to pay as confirmed, with no change. Provided that the Creditors do not object, the Trustee shall pay the claims at the confirmed dividend." (Dckt. No. 57). The Trustee also requested the Court to schedule a hearing because the "Creditor[s] [have] not consented." Id. The matter came on for hearing on September 3, 2015. Judson C. Hill, Attorney for the Debtors, and the Trustee, through counsel Jeff Narmore, were present at the hearing. At the hearing, the Debtors were unable to provide the Court with any legal authority that would permit post-petition claims filed by a debtor to be allowed and paid out in a Chapter 13 plan.
This case presents a common dilemma for Debtors' counsel: how do you explain to a client who has just embarked on a three to five year Chapter 13 plan of reorganization that his or her post-petition debts (in this case debts incurred very shortly after filing) are not being discharged? Instead, the debtors will emerge from bankruptcy with new debt. The answer for some lawyers seems to be to file proofs of claim on those post-petition debts and hope no party objects.
As a general rule, the Bankruptcy Code is intended to only affect claims against a debtor which arose prior to commencement of the case. Indeed, the Bankruptcy Code defines a "creditor" to mean:
11 U.S.C. § 101(10) (emphasis added). One exception
11 U.S.C. § 1305.
A debtor will often want a post-petition debt to be an allowed claim pursuant to § 1305 because the Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism by which a debtor may discharge such debts. Under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(6), a Chapter 13 plan "may provide for payment of all or any part of any [post-petition] claim allowed under section 1305 of this title." (Emphasis added). Further, § 1328(a) provides, in pertinent part: "Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan . . . the court shall provide the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan. . . ." (Emphasis added). 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a). Section 1328(d) provides that a debtor may not discharge a debt allowed
Addressing the latter requirement first, it does not appear that the Debtors' plan explicitly provides for post-petition claims, but the broad language of the plan at paragraph 2(h)(i) is probably sufficient. (Dckt. 4). Nevertheless, a plain reading of § 1305(a) makes it clear that a debtor is not permitted to file a proof of claim for an entity holding a post-petition claim because a debtor, by its definition, cannot be an "entity that holds a claim against the debtor." In re Benson, 116 B.R. 606, 607 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1990). Further, the permissive language in § 1305(a) makes it obvious that an entity is not required to file a proof of claim for a post-petition claim. In re Haith, 193 B.R. 341, 343 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995) ("[t]here is no provision in § 1305(a) for the debtor to force a post-petition creditor to file a proof of claim or for the debtor to file a proof of claim on behalf of a post-petition creditor."). Accordingly, post-petition creditors who choose not to file a proof of claim can not hold an "allowed" post-petition claim. In re Goodman, 136 B.R. at 170.
In this case, the Debtor filed proofs of claim for nine post-petition medical debts. There is no doubt that these debts fall within the purview of § 1305(a)(2) because each is "a consumer debt . . . that is for property or services necessary for the debtor's performance under the plan
The Debtors cited no code section in support of their Motions, but the foregoing analysis focused on 11 U.S.C. § 1305. Had the Debtors moved for modification under § 1329 to add claims post-petition, they would have fared no better. Section 1329, which governs post-confirmation modification of a Chapter 13 plan, provides that such modifications are limited to:
11 U.S.C. § 1329(a).
"It is obvious from the clear language of this statute that post-confirmation modifications do not contemplate the forced addition of postpetition debts." In re Goodman, 136 B.R. 167, 169 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1992). Accordingly, the Debtors may not sidestep the requirements of § 1305 through the process of modifying their chapter 13 plan after confirmation.
Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS ORDERED that the Debtors' Motions to Allow Claim (dckt nos. 32-40) are DENIED.
