Prescribed Forms for Proposed Orders.

[tigergem]

Hey.

My district (maybe all districts, I dunno...) requires that you file a proposed order with every motion or "risk having the motion dismissed".

So my judge, (whom I absolutely adore), prepared a package of proposed orders for various situations, including one that goes with the Motion to Value Collateral and Objection to Claims, etc.

The only thing is, they are ALL pre-written as if the responding party did not respond timely with the 21 day negative language on the motion or objection. So. I went ahead and filled one of those out for this...

but what if the responding party DOES respond timely?

Then do I have to write up another order?

[justbroke]

If they do respond timely, then the next thing is for you to follow local procedure. This may be that you contact the clerk of the court to schedule a hearing on the matter. Other "localized" procedures may require a pre-trail conference. You need to know what you need to do "procedurally". Always lean on your Case Manager for procedural questions. Don't be a victim of procedural mistakes... which are seldom "overlooked" even for Pro Se filers.

[tigergem]

Putting the brakes on just a bit here. I can't call the case manager anyway because it is after hours, so I have the weekend to get this understood. Because I think I found my procedure defined in my district's ORDER CONFIRMING CHAPTER 13 PLAN AND RELATED ORDERS

I had filed a Motion to Value Collateral with 21 day negative notice language with my Plan.

The creditor filed a claim. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong about this) that the creditor's claim constitutes its written rebuttal to my Motion to Value Collateral. Yes? No?

I have been looking and looking everywhere for information that specifies whether the creditor's claim constitutes its answer to a Motion to Value Collateral... and the prima faciehttp://www.bkforum.com/blog.php?b=281.

I guess it is possible that the Trustee might catch all that stuff we were talking about in the other thread - about my secured debt puzzlement.

Except she won't have my refuting evidence or understanding of the debt and creditor(s) that I have.

Then I was thinking that I needed to go with HHM's suggestion and file the Motion to Determine Secured Status, but it looks like that is covered in the Order form as well... paragraph b... and something I should wait to object to.

Gawd now I SO CONFUSED. And I think I confused myself. That's pathetic.

[justbroke]

The creditor filed a claim. It is my understanding (please correct me if I am wrong about this) that the creditor's claim constitutes its written rebuttal to my Motion to Value Collateral. Yes? No?

This is why I always wait for the claim to come in first, before filing any Motion to Value or Motion to Determine Secured Status. Whether the claim constitutes an affirmative "objection" to your Motion to Value... is a procedural question. Personally, I wouldn't think the claim to be the same as an objection... however, and objection could be considered a claim or notice of a claim.

I have been looking and looking everywhere for information that specifies whether the creditor's claim constitutes its answer to a Motion to Value Collateral... and the prima facie evidence thing makes me thing that it DOES.

You should still object to the claim on its face.

Really? That doesn't make sense. The Trustee and the Debtor can object to any claim, and you usually do this before confirmation. I think that TXEB Local FRBP 3015-b speaks to the Trustee, but the first paragraph of the whole thing reads...

I. (a) The Trustee, or summaries thereof and shall object to the allowance of improper claims as provided by Rule 3007.

I guess it is possible that the Trustee might catch all that stuff we were talking about in the other thread - about my secured debt puzzlement.

That's laughable. The Trustee catching stuff... is just being overly too nice. They have no clue what the claim and contents of it should be. If anything, they are only looking for materially different claims from what's Scheduled, but only you know the details of what the claim should contain. That's why the first parataph (I.a.) of the Order Confirming Plan indicates that objections to claims (under FRBP 3007) are handled by the Trustee, Debtor and the Debtor's attorney.

Then I was thinking that I needed to go with HHM's suggestion and file the Motion to Determine Secured Status, but it looks like that is covered in the Order form as well... paragraph b... and something I should wait to object to.

Yes, if the Trustee's report values it the right way. Otherwise, you'd have to either object to the Trustee's valuation or file a Motion to Value or Motion to Determine Secured Status (based on your local rules and procedures).

[tigergem]

This is why I always wait for the claim to come in first, before filing any Motion to Value or Motion to Determine Secured Status. Whether the claim constitutes an affirmative "objection" to your Motion to Value... is a procedural question. Personally, I wouldn't think the claim to be the same as an objection... however, and objection could be considered a claim or notice of a claim.

Yeah. I kinda figured that out for myself after the fact.

You should still object to the claim on its face.

Right. Timing is my question. Before or after the TRCC? I had called my case manager today with a completely different question (which I already knew the answer to - - was just checking), and somehow it came up that I was thinking of filing a Objection to Creditor's Claim. She seemed really surprised, which gave me pause. We didn't talk about the Objection, though, when I had her on the phone. At this point I was still spell checking... my brain wasn't in the right track to asking her procedure on it...it was just "mentioned".

Really? That doesn't make sense. The Trustee and the Debtor can object to any claim, and you usually do this before confirmation. I think that TXEB Local FRBP 3015-b speaks to the Trustee, but the first paragraph of the whole thing reads...

Right, that is paragraph a).... But reading the entire paragraph, I a, b, c, d and e....it looks to me like the trustee is going to serve everybody with notice and responses and objections are supposed to be made in response to the TRCC....(what it actually says is..."must be made within 30 days of....")

But (without yet knowing for sure if the claim constitutes response to my Motion to Value) the calendar says creditors have until next Wednesday to object to confirmation of my plan. (14 days prior to the confirmation hearing. ) My Plan sets out the terms of repayment according to what I set forth in my Motion to Value Collateral. In fact, the feasibility of my Plan depends on it.

So (it looks to me like) they pretty much have to object to my confirmation if they are really expecting full valuation of their claim, right?

That's laughable. The Trustee catching stuff... is just being overly too nice.

Well.... When my bk case manager seemed "surprised" that I was filing an objection to a claim, it made me wonder if maybe I was trying to do the trustee's job or something.... lol... I dunno. Her surprise is what brought up all these questions! As well as seeing that the judge has not yet scribbled on my Proposed Order to Value Collateral, and the 21 days was up a week ago. And hey! Trustees catch stuff! One of the cases I cited in my Objection was all because a trustee caught something that a creditor, much like my SST, was trying to pull!

Well, anyway.... Here I am....muddling through all the rules and stuff trying to find a clue on this until I can call her again on Monday.

[justbroke]

And hey! Trustees catch stuff! One of the cases I cited in my Objection was all because a trustee caught something that a creditor, much like my SST, was trying to pull!

I objected to about 23 of 43 claims. My Trustee caught nothing of the varying issues from the amount of the claim being thousands higher than the scheduled amount, to lack of adequate documentation to support the claim! Absolutely no objections from the Trustee, so take what I say with that knowledge. It may be different in your District where the Trustee actually "tries" to police the claims, but our Trustees (in Chapter 13s) don't police claims unless it's in their favor.

[tigergem]

Wow. That is a bunch. And here I am stressing about ONE. lol. Yes, I really DO value your knowledge, jb, thank you.

Well. I guess I will just keep reading and plan on calling the case manager Monday. I just wish I knew for sure right now if the creditor's claim constitutes a response to the Motion to Value Collateral.

Hindsight being 20/20 I guess I woulda coulda shoulda filed it after the claim was filed. The reason I filed it so quickly was because the feasibility of my plan hinges on it.

[tigergem]