[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-304556-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":80,"doc-detail-304556-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","united-states-bankruptcy-court-objection-to-claim-of-gmac-mortgage-claim-number-7-1-tentative-ruling","UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT - Objection to Claim of GMAC Mortgage - Claim Number 7-1 - Tentative Ruling","","United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, issues a tentative ruling on an objection to claim filed against GMAC Mortgage (Claim No. 7-1) in a Chapter 13 case. The court finds sufficient notice under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1 and deems failure to file written opposition as nonopposition, entering defaults. The objection is sustained; the claim is disallowed in full. The document also includes a notice of errata concerning service requirements and proof of service errors, plus analysis of missing attachments and insufficient evidence of the alleged secured debt and collateral.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/united-states-bankruptcy-court-objection-to-claim-of-gmac-mortgage-claim-number-7-1-tentative-ruling/304556/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-bankruptcy-court-objection-to-claim-of-gmac-mortgage-claim-number-7-1-tentative-ruling/304556.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Riley West","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-26","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What procedural notice requirements does the court cite for the objection hearing?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The court references the required notice under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3007(a) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(b)(1), and states that sufficient notice was provided and opposition was due at least fourteen days before the hearing.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How does the court treat parties who do not file a written opposition?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Failure to file written opposition within the required time is considered equivalent to a statement of nonopposition, and defaults of the non-responding parties and other parties in interest are entered.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Why is GMAC Mortgage’s Claim No. 7-1 disallowed?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The court sustains the objection because the claim lacks supporting attachments showing the debt and collateral, and the creditor’s asserted basis (“Secured PMSI”) does not describe collateral, leaving the amount and existence of the obligation undetermined.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},304556,1790452164,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":84,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":127},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},1099523885074,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT  \nEastern District of California  \nHonorable Ronald H. Sargis  \nBankruptcy Judge Sacramento, California  \nOctober 24, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.  \n1.  18-25700-E-13 DPC-3  \nJONNELL DEEN-CHASE Peter Macaluso  \nOBJECTION TO CLAIM OF GMAC MORTGAGE, CLAIM NUMBER 7 8-21-23 [69]  \nTentative Ruling: Oral argument maybe presented by the parties atthe scheduled hearing, where the parties shall address the issues identified in this tentative ruling and such other issues as are necessary and appropriate to the court’s resolution of the matter.  \nLocal Rule 3007-1 Objection to Claim—Hearing Required.  \nSufficient Notice Provided. The Proof of Service states that the Objection to Claim and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s Attorney, and parties requesting special notice on August 21, 2023. By the court’s calculation, 64 days’notice was provided. 44 days’ notice is required. FED. R. BANKR.  \nP. 3007(a) (requiring thirty days’ notice); LOCAL BANKR. R. 3007-1(b)(1) (requiring fourteen days’ notice for written opposition) .  \nThe Objection to Claim has been set for hearing on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(b)(1) . Failure of the respondent and other parties in interest to file written opposition at least fourteen days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9014-1(f)(1)(B) is considered tobe the equivalent of a statement of nonopposition. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)(upholding a court ruling based upon a local rule construing a party’s failure to file opposition as consent to grant a motion) . The defaults of the non-responding parties and other parties in interest are entered.  \nThe Objection to Proof of Claim Number 7-1 of GMAC Mortgage is sustained, and the claim is disallowed in its entirety.  \nNOTICE OF ERRATA  \nFederal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(9) requires service on the Debtor and his attorney; service on the Debtor's attorney alone is insufficient to require the Debtor to answer and defend. In re Cossio, 163 B.R. 150, 154 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994)), aff'd, 56 F.3d 70 (9th Cir. 1995); In re  \nTuesday, October 24, 2023 at 2:00 p.m.  \nPage 1 of 92  \nBloomingdale, 137 B.R. 351, 354 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1991); In re Cole, 142 B.R. 140, 143 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1992); In re Love, 242 B.R. 169, 171 (E.D. Tenn. 1999), aff'd, 3 F. App'x 497 (6th Cir. 2001); In re Hall, 222 B.R. 275, 277 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1998) .  \nCounsel for the Chapter 13 Trustee, David P. Cusick, failed to check the box on page 2 of the Proof of Service. Proof of Service, Dckt. 73. Counsel filed a Notice of Errata informing the Court of the error, but noted that the Proof of Service reflects it was served on the Debtor and the Debtor’s Attorney on Page 5.  \nDavid P. Cusick, the Chapter 13 Trustee,(“Objector”) requests that the court disallow the claim of GMAC Mortgage (“Creditor”), Proof of Claim No. 7-1 (“Claim”), Official Registry of Claims in this case. The Claim is asserted to be secured in the amount of $7,000 .00. Objector asserts that Claim 7-1 does not include any attachments to show that any debt is owed to GMAC Mortgage. There is no contract, no invoice, no judgment, or declaration by the Debtor explaining the nature of the Debt. The Claim describes the basis of the claim as “Secured PMSI” but did not describe the collateral. POC 7-1.  \nThe Debtor’s Plan describes the collateral with the address of the Debtor’s residence, which is the description of the collateral in Schedule D. Dckt. 12. Objector cannot determine if any debt is owed or how much is owed from the claim filed. Declaration, Dckt. 71.  \nAdditionally, Objector noted that he has attempted to serve GMAC Mortgage and no bank exists by that name in the FDIC Bank Finder. There is an entry for GMAC Commercial Mortgage Bank which was the prior name of Capmark Bank, which closed, or will be closing soon. Declaration, Dckt. 71.  \nFurther the Objector states that the California Secretary of State shows no active","cbCaidZXVyS1DfFJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidZXVyS1DfFJ","pdf",465458,92,"English","# Objection to Proof of Claim (GMAC Mortgage)\n## Tentative ruling and notice requirements\n## Errata notice and service issues\n## Grounds for sustaining the objection\n## Review of Proof of Claim 7-1\n## Internet research and entity status","[{\"question\":\"What procedural notice requirements does the court cite for the objection hearing?\",\"answer\":\"The court references the required notice under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3007(a) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(b)(1), and states that sufficient notice was provided and opposition was due at least fourteen days before the hearing.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the court treat parties who do not file a written opposition?\",\"answer\":\"Failure to file written opposition within the required time is considered equivalent to a statement of nonopposition, and defaults of the non-responding parties and other parties in interest are entered.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is GMAC Mortgage’s Claim No. 7-1 disallowed?\",\"answer\":\"The court sustains the objection because the claim lacks supporting attachments showing the debt and collateral, and the creditor’s asserted basis (“Secured PMSI”) does not describe collateral, leaving the amount and existence of the obligation undetermined.\"}]","UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT - Objection to Claim of GMAC Mortgage - Claim Number 7-1 - Tentative Ruling | PDF",1789814806,32]