In the case of In re Kirkland, 2007 WL 118107 (Bkrtcy.D.N.M. 2007) a proof of claim that was filed by B-Line LLC, an alleged assignee of credit card debt with no supporting documentation to demonstrate its amount or validity, or that the claimant was indeed an assignee. The Chapter 7 trustee objected to the claim, which was similar in amount to a credit card debt listed on the debtor’s schedules. The court held that the claim should be stricken , the debtor’s schedules were not admissible against the trustee as evidence of the claim.

Though the creditor asked the court to follow the majority of courts that have allowed claims lacking adequate documentation in the absence of further proof that the claim is invalid, see, In re Heath, 331 B.R. 424, 434 (9th Cir.BAP2005), the court refused to do so.

The Court considered many of the cases holding the majority view distinguishable in two important ways: first, the Trustee, not the Debtor, was the objecting party here; and second, and more importantly, the Claim lacks any documentation, rather than the incomplete or inadequate documentation presented in many of the cases. The Court citedf the additional burden the majority view would impose on trustees by requiring additional proof of invalidity when a creditor has failed to cross the threshold required to achieve prima facie status. Additional evidence concerning the Claim (presumably from the Debtor), is as readily available to Next Bank/B-Line as to the Trustee. In this case, following the majority would place the burden on the Trustee to disprove the Claim.

The court instead looked to the cases that hold that a proof of claim can be disallowed for lack of appropriate documentation. See e.g. In re Henry, 311 B.R. 813, 817-18 (Bankr.W.D.Wash.2004)(”In the absence of that minimum evidentiary presentation, the creditor’s claim should be disallowed.”); and In re Armstrong, 320 B.R. 97, 105 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2005) (lack of documentation requires claimant to establish the claim by a preponderance of the evidence); see also Matter of Stoecker, 5 F.3d 1022, 1028 (7th Cir.1993) (stating that lack of documentation means that creditor cannot stand on proof of claim but that creditor should be given an opportunity to amend its claim). Thus under this view, a creditor cannot rest on its proof of claim, but would be required to present more evidence meet its burden to establish a claim.

So what we have here is a tricky double standard. In a Chapter 7 a debtor does not have standing to object to a claim filed by a creditor - only the trustee has that right. In the context of a Chapter 13 case, a debtor can object to a faulty proof of claim but not necessarily on the basis that the documentation provided is inadequate. The trustee in a Chapter 7, on the other hand, does not have the benefit of the debtor’s knowledge when objecting to a proof of claim. As such, the trustee can fall back on the lack of documentation when objecting.