Core proceeding under 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(O) or not?

[tigergem]

I may or may not have mentioned that in 2009 I had to file a small claims suit against Verizon Wireless for fraudulent billing practices on my broadband wireless (aircard) account. And I won. That was prior to my Chapter 13 filing. And yes I brought it up at my 341 and it was not an issue.

Since that date until March/April 2012 I had no further billing issues with Verizon Wireless, I kept the account month to month, as my contract had expired, I did not update my device with them as that would have renewed my contract... and then on the March/April 2012 statement they pulled the same stunt again.

This time I immediately cancelled and disputed the account, and opened a new account with Millenicom (which is a better deal anyway $59.99 for 20GB of bandwidth instead of $59.99 for 5GB with Verizon).

Anyway, apparently Verizon continued billing and adding late charges after I dumped them, conveniently forgetting to ever once send me a bill, and I didn't know they were doing that until it popped up on my credit reports in November.

I cannot litigate this matter in small claims court as my local small claims court refuses to consider matters of the FCRA.

I also know that I MUST obtain permission from the bankruptcy court to file suit.

Verizon Wireless is not a party or claimant to my Chapter 13.

I would rather file suit in my local district court due to distance and gas and travel time, but I understand it will probably be removed to Federal Court anyway, because Verizon will try (and fail) to intimidate me with that maneuver.

I am wondering if I should just file it as a core proceeding with my bk judge in the first place?

Is this appropriate and does it actually qualify as a core proceeding since Verizon is not a party to my Chapter 13? Thoughts and suggestions are requested and very much appreciated.

Thank you!

EDIT: OH. I see. The bk judge can decide if it is a core proceeding or not. 28 USC § 157(b)(3)

I didn't read far enough.

[HHM]

Not a core proceeding.

[tigergem]

Not a core proceeding.

Because they are not a claimant?

[justbroke]

They are not a creditor in your Bankruptcy estate which was created when you filed Chapter 13. This is not a core proceeding as the Bankruptcy Court does not have jurisdiction.

[tigergem]

They are not a creditor in your Bankruptcy estate which was created when you filed Chapter 13. This is not a core proceeding as the Bankruptcy Court does not have jurisdiction.

They are not a creditor in your Bankruptcy estate which was created when you filed Chapter 13. This is not a core proceeding as the Bankruptcy Court does not have jurisdiction.

They were not listed as a creditor, no. But I had an active service contract with them when I filed, and this was disclosed in my expenses at the time of my filing. My 2 year contract expired before confirmation and I proceeded as a customer with them on a month to month basis until March 2012, when I finally changed internet service providers. All of this was openly discussed at my 341, as well as my previous suit against them, just prior to filing.

I am kind of wondering if I have any standing to amend my schedules and add them based on the pre-existing relationship?

However, the current alleged debt did not arise until after I cancelled service with them in 2012.

I had an amusing conversation with the Executive Relations person they finally assigned to this last week. She insisted that my device continued to communicate with their towers and exchange data when it was unplugged and tucked away in the closet and after I had suspended my account and had a written statement by them that my act of suspending my account would result in denial of service to my device by the network. Apparently they are accustomed to people transacting those sorts of things over the phone and and not getting any proof to retain. Not as stupid as they need me to be...I have it in writing and dated.

Sadly for them, though, apparently she was too incapable of independent thought to vary from the corporate script as she quite belligerently insisted that I pay their extortion fee ANYWAY. And, apparently she didn't have a clue as to what it means when someone from Texas says...."Aw.... hell no."

[justbroke]

You do not have an executory contract. It had expired prior to even filing. This is not anything the bankruptcy court wants to deal with. Also, confirmation settles all open issues. If they were not a creditor at confirmation, they can't magically become one after confirmation (11 USC 1325 & 1322).

[tigergem]

You do not have an executory contract. It had expired prior to even filing. This is not anything the bankruptcy court wants to deal with. Also, confirmation settles all open issues. If they were not a creditor at confirmation, they can't magically become one after confirmation (11 USC 1325 & 1322).

I think you misunderstood that bit, maybe? The contract expired 2 months after I filed. I filed in December 2009. It expired in Feb. 2010. Not sure if that makes a difference, but I am going to go read those, thanks.

[justbroke]

I think you misunderstood that bit, maybe? The contract expired 2 months after I filed. I filed in December 2009. It expired in Feb. 2010. Not sure if that makes a difference, but I am going to go read those, thanks.

Did you provide for them in the Plan? If not, then you rejected the contract anyhow. I just don't see how this is within the (BK) court's jurisdiction after the term of the contract has ended and you are now month to month.

They are not a creditor. They were not a creditor when this happened. I don't know how VZ becomes a creditor and is subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

[tigergem]

I only provided for them on my expense Schedule. I don't know exactly how either, but I am researching and that is why I asked. And if the answer is NO then it is no. It's no big deal if it isn't, but that was my question... IS IT? Or was I overlooking something?

I know that at different times different filers have been advised to modify schedules to add forgotten creditors, but generally prior to the 341, I suppose. Different circumstances.

[justbroke]

Different circumstances in a Chapter 7 when providing a creditor is for discharge purposes only.