Tenacity pays off! Maybe the jig is up… This is the bankruptcy court that wanted to DESTROY the homeowner files.
Appellants Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (“White”) (“appellants”) filed this bankruptcy appeal on October 18, 2013. (D.1. 1) They appear pro se. The appeal arises from an order entered by the bankruptcy court on August 30, 2013, that determined debtors complied with the bankruptcy court’s order establishing bar dates for ‘filing proofs of claim and approving the form, manner, and sufficiency of the notice as applied to unknown creditors.”
IV. ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL See full document HERE.
Appellants raise the following issues for review (0.1. 2):
(1) whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by assuming without competent evidentiary support that the publication notice of the bar date placed in the national edition of The Wall Street Journal was in fact distributed nationwide throughout the United States when the declaration of the advertising clerk specifically declares and limits such published and general circulation to (3) three locations, New York, New York, DePage County, Illinois and Dallas, Texas;
(2) whether the bankruptcy court erred in considering the declaration of Suzzanne Uhland (“Uhland”) despite contradiction in the declarant’s testimony and evidence on record that the declaration was not based on the declarant’s personal knowledge;
(3) whether the bankruptcy court misapplied the controlling law in effect pertaining to the claims process and noticing as articulated in Wright v. Owens Corning, 679 F.3d 101 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, _U.S._, 133 S.Ct 1239 (2013);
(4) whether the bankruptcy court erred in permitting and allowing one group of potential unknown creditors to be treated differently as it pertains to the right to receive the bar date notice than another group of potential unknown creditors; and
(5) whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion to exclude relevant evidence presented at the May 23, 2012 hearing pertinent to the reasonableness of debtors’ publication of the bar date notice.
“The court concludes that the adequacy of the notice provided in this case has not been meaningfully explored and likely was not reasonably calculated to apprise appellants of the bar date. The court concludes that “[d]ue process affords a re-do” under the circumstances of this case.”