MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHELLEY D. RUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusion of law based on Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052 as made applicable to contested matters by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9013. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157 (b)(2)(B).

I. Facts

Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc. ("Claimant"), through its servicer, Quantum3 Group, LLC ("Servicer") filed proof of claim no. 22 for $800.35 on October 14, 2011. The proof of claim reflects that the basis for the debt was an account with Wamu/Providian Bank with an account number ending in 2790. The Claimant attached a one page statement that provides an account number, the amount of the debt, and an "open date" of September 4, 2001. The statement shows Wamu/Providian Bank as the original creditor. The last transaction date is not provided. The statement has no separate signature which would indicate who is representing these facts. No writing evidencing the transfer of ownership of the claim from Wamu/Providian Bank to Claimant, and no servicing agreement are attached to the proof of claim. The proof of claim and the attached statement reflect a total balance due of $800.35. There is no breakdown of principal, interest, or fees.

The Debtors have not listed Wamu/Providian, the Servicer, or the Claimant in their schedules. On January 28, 2013, the Debtors filed their objection to the proof of claim and served the Claimant, providing 30 days' notice of the hearing. Objection by Debtor(s) to Claim No. 22 Filed by Quantum3 Group LLC as Agent for Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc., ECF No. 52. The Debtors attached no affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury with respect to their objection.

In their objection, the Debtors allege that the claim should be disallowed because:

The Debtors seek disallowance of the claim in its entirety.

II. Default Judgment — Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055

In this case, the Debtors set their objection to the proof of claim for hearing.1 The original hearing date was March 7, 2013, but it was continued to April 11, 2013. No response has been filed and no one appeared on the Claimant's behalf at the hearings held on March 7 or April 11, 2013. The Debtors were not present at either hearing, although their attorney appeared and argued the objection on their behalf. There is no affidavit attached to the objection. The Debtors rely on their contentions in the objection, the fact that they did not include the debt in their sworn Schedule F, and the arguments of counsel at the April 11 hearing. The court, therefore, has before it a contested matter to which no answer has been filed. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c) authorizes the court to apply Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 to this contested matter. Rule 7055 incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, the court may grant a judgment provided that the claimant has been served and notice of the hearing in which the relief will be granted has been provided more than 30 days prior to the hearing date. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(a); E.D.Tenn. LBR 9013-1(f)(2)(ii)(A). The Debtors have provided that notice. In this case there is no evidence that the additional procedural concerns regarding the disability or military service status of the Claimant are at issue. See HICA Education Loan Corp. v. Klugewicz, No. 1:11-cv-287, 2012 WL 6799752, at *3-4 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2012) (quoting Broadcast Music v. Marler, 2009 WL 3785878, at *4 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2009)) (other citations omitted).2

The court's authority to proceed to a judgment where there is no answer is also addressed in the local rules. In cases where there is no response, the court may consider that there is no opposition to the requested relief. E.D.Tenn. LBR 9013-1(f)(4).

Id. Motions are defined in the local rules to include objections to claims. E.D. Tenn. LBR 9013-1(a).

Having found that the court may enter a default judgment, the court must consider whether it should exercise its discretion to do so. In determining whether the court should exercise its discretion, the court may review the merits of the claim. See HICA Education Loan Corp. v. Klugewicz, No. 1:11-cv-287, 2012 WL 6799752, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 17, 2012); Jahn v. Clayton (In re Clayton), Adv. No. 11-1135, 2012 WL 112940, at *1 (Bankr. E. D. Tenn. Jan.12, 2012).

Irby v. Fashion Bug (In re Irby), 337 B.R. 293, 294 (Bankr. N.D.Ohio 2005)(citations omitted). In addressing the merits of the complaint, or in this case, the objection, the factual allegations are admitted.

10A WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2688, p.63 (3d. 1 1998)(footnote omitted); Bowers v. Banks (In re McKenzie), No. 11-1169, 2013 WL 1091634, at *708 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013). See also In re Brunson, 486 B.R. 759, 768 (Bankr. N.D.Tex. 2013)("Under Bankruptcy Rule 7055, the entry of a default judgment is not automatic .. . a default judgment is committed to the court's discretion.")(citations omitted); In re Rehman, 479 B.R. 238 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012)(Court overruled objections to assigned credit card claims where creditors had not responded, but debtor had listed the original creditors).

III. Analysis

A. Claims Allowance

A proof of claim which is filed under 11 U.S.C. § 501 is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). The Debtors have objected to Claimant's proof of claim, including an unsworn allegation that the Debtors do not owe this debt to weigh against the Claimant's sworn statement that they do. The court will start its analysis with a determination of what is the evidentiary value of the Claimant's proof of claim.

B. Evidentiary Value of the Proof of Claim

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 governs the filing of a proof of claim. Compliance with this rule provides a significant benefit to a creditor. "A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). While an objection based on the failure to comply with this rule is not sufficient for disallowance, the failure does have ramifications for the evidentiary effect of the proof of claim. B-Line, LLC v. Wingerter (In re Wingerter), 594 F.3d 931, 941 (6th Cir. 2010).

The applicable provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c) require that supporting documentation be supplied:

Fed. R. Bank. P. 3001(c)(emphasis added to reflect amendments effective December 1, 2012). The proof of claim does not comply with either Rule 3001(c)(1) or (c)(3). It is not prima facie evidence of the amount and validity of the claim.

C. Challenge to the Factual Allegations and Legal Sufficiency of the Claim

In their objection the Debtors have raised an affirmative defense to the claims. Based on the proof of claim, the only date provided by the Claimant is 2001. That is long before the six-year period within which the Claimant may pursue collection of its debt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109. In addition, the Debtors dispute even owing this debt based on their statements in their schedules and their allegation in their objection. The court will disallow the claims on these two bases.

D. Remaining Bases for Disallowance

The Debtors allege three other bases for disallowance. The court has previously determined that lack of documentation is not a valid objection. In re Gorman, No. 10-16622, 2013 WL 2284985 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. May 23, 2013). As to the execution of the claim the Debtors put on no proof that the individual who signed the claim did not review the claim. The court does not need to determine whether this allegation is a sufficient basis for disallowance, having already found grounds to disallow the claim.

The same is true with respect to the remaining bases regarding (a) the failure by the signatory to review the claim, and (b) the wrongful use of the Debtors' social security numbers. At oral argument on the objection, counsel for the Debtors asked the court to conduct a further evidentiary hearing on these two bases for disallowance. The Debtors also asked the court to make adverse inferences from the Claimant's failure to appear or respond. United States v. Blakemore, 489 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1973). Those inferences would be that the Servicer had made representations to the court which were not supported by either facts or the law and that they had committed some other tort or crime. The court declines to take either action since the objection has been determined on other grounds. The Debtors have not requested sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. Moreover, the proper procedure for pursuing an injunction or damages would be by filing a complaint in an adversary proceeding. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(7).

Accordingly,

It is ORDERED that the Objection by Debtor(s) to Claim No. 22 Filed by Quantum3 Group LLC as Agent for Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc., ECF No. 52, is sustained. The debt is not owed by the Debtors, and in the alternative, the collection of the debt claimed by the Claimant is barred by the statute of limitations. The claim is not enforceable under applicable law and is disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).