The bankruptcy court sustained Debtor’s objection to appellant’s proof of claim as untimely filed, rejecting appellant’s argument that its filings with the court prior to the deadline were an informal proof of claim.
The issue presented is whether the bankruptcy court erred in ruling that PRCU had not established that its filings prior to the claims deadline constituted an informal proof of claim.
The Ninth Circuit has long recognized the informal proof of claim doctrine, consistently applying “the so-called rule of liberality in amendments to creditors’ proofs of claim so that the formal claim relates back to a previously filed informal claim.”
Under the doctrine, a timely informal proof of claim may be amended after the bar date by the filing of a formal proof of claim. “For a document to constitute an informal proof of claim, it must state an explicit demand showing the nature and amount of the claim against the estate, and evidence an intent to hold the debtor liable.” Holm, 931 F.2d at 622 (citation omitted). The requirements for a timely informal proof of claim are:
(1) presentment of a writing;
(2) within the time for the filing of claims;
(3) by or on behalf of the creditor;
(4) bringing to the attention of the court;
(5) the nature and amount of a claim asserted against the estate.
Here, Creditor filed written motions for relief from stay clearly setting forth the amounts due on each loan and Creditor’s intent to hold the Debtor liable for the deficiencies. They were filed before the deadline, described the nature of the obligations and attached the loan documentation and vehicle titles, and stated the total amounts of the claims. The documents contained the essential elements: writing(s) filed by the creditor before the claims deadline with explicit demands, showing the nature and amount of the claims against the estate, and evidencing the intent to hold Debtor liable. Further, Creditor noted in its objection to confirmation, also filed before the claims deadline, that according to the Debtor’s schedules there was a deficiency of $55,000, rendering it an unsecured creditor. Creditor also stated in the objection that it considered itself a member of the class of unsecured creditors.
Although PRCU’s filings did not state the ultimate amount of the unsecured claim, that amount could not be determined before the deadline for filing proofs of claim. The bankruptcy court erred in ruling that the documents were inadequate to put Debtor on notice of Creditor’s unsecured claim, and it is not clear from the record whether the bankruptcy court considered Creditor’s conduct.
Reversed.