11 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101(5)(A) does not include a right to payment that has not yet arisen under the law creating the obligation.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Oneida Ltd. · filed 2009-04-08(5)(A)

No matter how broadly the term “claim” is construed, it cannot extend to a right to payment that does not yet exist under federal law.

Section 101 defines creditor, entity, and person so that a corporation with a qualifying claim is a creditor.

AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK v. Hendrix · filed 2009-03-25(10)(A), (15), (41)

11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A) defines a “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” An “entity” is defined by § 101(15) to include a “person, estate, trust, governmental unit, and United States trustee.” Finally, a “person” is defined by § 101(41) as an “individual, partnership, and corporation .... ” It thus appears that a corporation, as a creditor, is entitled to avail itself of Rule 9010 just as an individual would.

Section 101 distinguishes a claim, which is a right to payment, from a debt, which is liability on a claim.

In Re Morales · filed 2009-04-01(5), (12)

The Bankruptcy Code makes a similar distinction. It defines a “claim” in part as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.... ” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). It defines a “debt” as “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). There is no assertion that Morales had any claim against GE when she filed her bankruptcy case.

Section 101 defines debt and claim to include liability that has not been fixed or liquidated.

Murrin v. Scott (In Re Scott) · filed 2009-04-10

Under the Bankruptcy Code’s definitional structure, any liability that the Debtors may have to the Plaintiffs is subject to discharge in bankruptcy, even though it has not been fixed or liquidated.

Section 101 defines a claim as a right to payment even without a judgment and a debt as liability on that claim.

Jeffries v. Buckley (In Re Buckley) · filed 2009-04-24(5)(A), (12)

The plain language of the Code makes clear, then, that the existence of a claim turns on whether a creditor has a right to payment, not whether that right to payment has been reduced to judgment.

Section 101(5)’s definition of a claim includes a right to payment under a personal guarantee.

Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Wilson Mills Foods, 91985 (4-30-2009) · filed 2009-04-30(5)

A "claim" is defined broadly under § 101(5) to include virtually any "right to payment." A personal guarantee is within the scope of the statutory definition of a claim.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment, such as unpaid rent, in the definition of a claim.

Burival v. Creditor Committee (In Re Burival) · filed 2009-06-04(5)(A)

The term "claim" includes any right to payment. The Landlord had the right to be paid the $90,799.22; hence the rent obligation is a claim under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) defines a claim to include a right to payment, including a landlord’s right to unpaid rent.

Burival v. Roehrich · filed 2009-06-04(5)

The term “claim” includes any right to payment. The Landlord had the right to be paid the $90,799.22; hence the rent obligation is a claim under the Bankruptcy Code.

A debt barred by the statute of limitations remains a claim under § 101(5)(A) when the debt itself has not been extinguished.

Keeler v. PRA Receivables Management, LLC (In Re Keeler) · filed 2009-05-04(5)(A)

Therefore, along with numerous other courts to have considered the issue, I conclude that defendant Portfolio in this adversary proceeding held a claim within the meaning of section 101(5)(A), even though that claim was based upon a debt barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 101(5) includes a prebankruptcy indemnity obligation as a contingent claim even when the default triggering payment occurs later.

Colonial Surety Co. v. Uni-Con Floors, Inc. · filed 2009-05-06(5)

Accordingly, we think that under Hemingway Weizman's position is correct and that Colonial's claims rested on an earlier obligation that comprised a contingent claim capable of being discharged by his later bankruptcy.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor, including a holder of a junior deed of trust with such a claim.

Thissen v. Johnson · filed 2009-05-26(10)

The term “creditor” is defined as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). According to this definition, the holders of the junior deeds of trust are creditors, as they hold claims against the debtors.

A person with a prebankruptcy claim to enforce a debtor’s contractual duty to transfer property qualifies as a creditor under § 101(10)(A).

Prunty v. Terry (In Re Paschall) · filed 2009-06-01(10)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “creditor” as any “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). ... Under the Marital Agreement, Prunty had a claim against the Debtor for his interest in the Properties, which arose before the order for bankruptcy relief was entered and for which she could obtain an equitable remedy if he failed to perform his contractual obligation. Therefore, Prunty qualifies as a creditor of the Debtor under § 547.

A person entitled to repayment of mistakenly transferred funds has a claim and is a creditor if the funds are not held in constructive trust.

Dietz v. Langlie · filed 2009-06-08(10)(A)

Absent the imposition of the constructive trust, at the time of the $90,000 transfer, Langlie had a claim against the Debtor for the return of the mistakenly-transferred money and was, therefore, a creditor of the Debtor.

Section 101(5)(A)'s definition of a claim includes interest.

Colemichael Investments, L.L.C. v. Burke (In Re Burke) · filed 2009-06-10(5)(A)

A “claim,” in turn, is broadly defined as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). This broad definition includes interest.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a contingent right to postpetition attorneys’ fees arising from a prepetition contract in its definition of a claim.

SNTL Corp. v. Centre Insurance · filed 2009-06-23(5)(A)

Because we hold that attorneys’ fees arising out of a prepetition contract but incurred postpetition fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of claim, we reject the position of the majority line of cases that section 502(b) precludes such fees.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include a right to payment for administrative tax obligations incurred under a Chapter 12 plan.

Ficken v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Ficken) · filed 2009-07-30(5)

The term “claim” is broadly defined under § 101(5) to include “right to payment ...” and “right to equitable remedy....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). IRS is asserting its “right to payment” of the taxes generated from the asset sales under the confirmed plan. The broad scope of the term “claim” leads this Court to determine, consistent with the legislative history, that for purposes of § 1222(a)(2)(A), the administrative tax obligations incurred here fall under the Code’s expansive definition of “claim.”

Section 101(5)(B) treats an equitable remedy as a claim only when it gives the claimant a right to payment; the debtor’s cost of complying with an injunction is insufficient.

United States v. Apex Oil Co., Inc. · filed 2009-08-25(5)(B)

Almost every equitable decree imposes a cost on the defendant, whether the decree requires him to do something, as in this case, or, as is more common, to refrain from doing something. The logic of Apex’s position is thus that every equitable claim is dischargeable in bankruptcy unless there is a specific exception in the Code. That is inconsistent with the Code’s creation in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B) of only a limited right to the discharge of equitable claims.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor arising by the order for relief; a party without a right to payment is not a creditor.

Alvarado Land Development, Inc. v. Sewell (In Re Sewell) · filed 2009-09-02(10)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a creditor as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). ... The Court, therefore, finds and concludes that Alvarado Ltd. has failed to satisfy its burden to establish that it is a creditor of the Sewells with standing to bring this nondischarge-ability action.

Section 101(10) excludes holders of postpetition administrative expense claims from the definition of “creditor.”

ASM Capital, LP v. Ames Department Stores, Inc. (In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 2009-09-18(10)

Section 101(10) defines “creditor” in terms that include only holders of prepetition claims (and certain postpetition claims deemed to be prepetition claims) and not holders of postpetition claims for administrative expenses under section 503.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor to include holders of prepetition claims and certain postpetition claims treated as prepetition claims, but excludes holders of postpetition administrative expense claims.

In Re: Ames Dep't. Stores, Inc. · filed 2009-09-18(10)

Section 101(10) defines “creditor” in terms that include only holders of prepetition claims (and certain postpetition claims deemed to be prepetition claims) and not holders of postpetition claims for administrative expenses under section 503.

Section 101(5) treats a right to an equitable remedy as a claim only if breach also gives rise to an alternative right of payment of equal value.

In Re Shearin Family Investments, LLC · filed 2009-10-13(5)

Thus, in order to be a claim, a right to an equitable remedy must also give rise to an alternative right of payment of equal value to the claimant.

Section 101 defines a creditor as the holder of a claim and includes disputed or unliquidated rights to payment within the definition of a claim.

Mitchell v. Mitchell · filed 2009-10-16(5), (10)

A creditor is the holder of a claim, and a claim is a right to payment, even if it is unliquidated or disputed.

Section 101 defines a claim as a right to payment even if it is unliquidated or disputed.

Mitchell v. Bigelow (In Re Mitchell) · filed 2009-10-16(5)

A creditor is the holder of a claim, and a claim is a right to payment, even if it is unliquidated or disputed. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10); 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). Thus, in listing or scheduling creditors, it is inappropriate for the debtor to make decisions about whether or not there is any merit to the creditor’s claim.

Under § 101(5)(A), a flat-fee agreement signed before bankruptcy creates a pre-petition claim even when some services will be performed afterward.

In Re Waldo · filed 2009-10-27(5)(A)

The court finds that the attorneys’ fees in each case are flat fees which arose pre-petition, irrespective of when services were to be rendered.

Section 101(5) treats an enforceable right to payment as a claim, even when payment is directed to a third party.

Clair, Griefer LLP v. Prensky (In Re Prensky) · filed 2009-11-02(5)

A claim is either a right to payment or a right to equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right of payment. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... Inasmuch as state law gives Ms. Prensky the right to enforce the award of attorneys’ fees in the Order, and that such the entitlement “gives rise to a right to payment,” the debt must be considered a claim incurred in the course of a divorce and, as such, is non-dischargeable.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a contingent right to payment within the definition of a claim, even when its amount is unknown when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland · filed 2009-11-05(5)(A)

A claim, in turn, is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (emphases added). ... Manville therefore makes clear that Fidelity possessed a contingent right to post-petition attorneys’ fees, and that its right arose pre-petition.

Section 101(5) treats equitable relief as a claim when it gives rise to a right to payment.

ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC. v. Garcia · filed 2009-11-25(5)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the equitable relief sought in the State Court Complaint gives rise to a right to payment and was thus a claim under § 101(5) in the Prior Bankruptcy Case.

Section 101(5)(B) treats a right to reinstatement as a bankruptcy claim when money damages are an alternative remedy.

Rederford v. US Airways, Inc. · filed 2009-12-14(5)(B)

Because money damages are an alternative remedy for reinstatement following wrongful termination, Rederford's claim was within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and so disallowed and discharged.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim but does not determine whether it is prepetition or postpetition or how it is treated.

In Re Turner · filed 2009-12-21(5)(A)

With regards to § 101(5)(A), the definition of a claim, in and of itself, does not speak to the status of the claim, that is, whether the claim is a prepetition claim, a postpetition claim, an administrative expense claim, or an unsecured, secured or priority claim. Section 101(5)(A) defines what a claim is, not how the claim should be treated.

A lien holder’s right to payment is a claim under Section 101(5).

In Re Princeton Office Park, L.P. · filed 2010-02-17(5)

Rather, the Court accepts as controlling the Supreme Court’s finding in Johnson that, for all essential purposes, a "lien” is a type of "claim” under the Code because the lien holder has a right to payment.

Under § 101(5), an equitable claim with no monetary equivalent is not discharged as a right to payment.

Dalvit v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2009-12-21(5)

Benjamin’s claim for “removal of any and all disciplinary actions and notations in [her personnel] files,” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 13, 29, has no monetary equivalent. We therefore conclude that at least one of Benjamin’s equitably- based claims is justiciable, irrespective of UAL’s bankruptcy discharge.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment as claims even if they are not yet enforceable under non-bankruptcy law when the petition is filed.

In Re Huffy Corp. · filed 2010-01-20(5)(A)

The inclusion of a contingent right to payment in the definition of a bankruptcy claim clarifies that a right to payment that is not yet enforceable under non-bankruptcy law at the time of the bankruptcy filing may still constitute a claim that is dischargea-ble in the bankruptcy case.

Section 101(10)(A) treats holders of § 503(b)(9) administrative expense claims as creditors because their claims arise before the petition date.

In Re Circuit City Stores, Inc. · filed 2010-02-23(10)(A)

By definition, § 503(b)(9) claims arise within the 20 days prior to the Petition Date. This means that Claimants, as holders of § 503(b)(9) claims, are creditors as defined in § 101(10)(A).

Section 101(10)(B) includes an entity with a claim covered by section 502(i) in the definition of a creditor.

In Re Hight · filed 2010-03-24(10)(B)

“For the most part,” though, is the operative phrase, for subpart (B) of Section 101(10) expands the definition of creditor to also include claims against the estate “of a kind specified in section 348(d), 502(f), 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) of this title ...” (emphasis added). Consequently, not only does Section 1322(a)(2), in conjunction with Section 507(a)(8) and 502(i), compel a Chapter 13 debtor to provide in his plan for straddling postpetition tax claims, but Section 501(a), in conjunction with Section 101(10)(B), also makes it clear that any taxing authority owed such a straddling debt must file a proof of claim in order for it to be paid under the plan.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent and unmatured obligations in the definition of a claim.

In Re Texans Cuso Insurance Group, LLC · filed 2010-03-02(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “claim” broadly and, as defined, includes contingent, unliquidated, and unmatured obligations. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Accordingly, Curley has a “claim” against the Debtor for the fees owing to the Firm under the Fee Agreement.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly enough to include a right to payment arising from acts that occurred before plan confirmation, even if the right to sue is received later.

Holcombe v. US Airways, Inc. · filed 2010-03-05(5)(A)

The question here, therefore, is whether Holcombe’s cause of action was a “claim” within the definition in the Bankruptcy Code on March 18, 2003. We agree with the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court that Holcombe had a claim by March 18, 2003 and, therefore, her claim was properly discharged to the extent it was in existence on that date.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include contingent and unliquidated rights to payment.

Rosado v. Rosado · filed 2010-03-10(5)

La definición de reclamación (claim) que ofrece el Código de Quiebras es sumamente amplia y puede incluir todo tipo de acreencias, incluyendo aquellas que puedan ser inciertas y difíciles de estimar.

Section 101 treats an enforceable right to payment under a separation decree as a claim and the resulting liability as a debt.

Wodark v. Wodark (In Re Wodark) · filed 2010-03-22(5), (12)

Because state law affords Thaddeus a means of enforcing the separation agreement as part of a judgment, he has a right to payment that is a “debt” that Glennette incurred in connection with the separation agreement.

Section 101(5) includes a spouse’s contingent contribution right arising from a prepetition community debt within the definition of a claim.

Heilman v. Heilman (In Re Heilman) · filed 2010-04-26(5)

We share the dissent's concern about such a result, but cannot agree with the dissent's reasoning that the Hold Harmless Provision was a new postpetition obligation given the broad definition of a claim in § 101(5) and given the language of the Dissolution Decree itself which does not reference Heilman's separate liability on the Beyer Loan in the Hold Harmless Provision.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment that remains contingent on the outcome of a grievance within the definition of a claim.

Sanchez v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2010-05-21(5)(A)

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the broad definition of the term “claim.” Under that definition, a creditor has a “claim” against a debtor even where his “right to payment” is “un-liquidated, ... contingent, ... unmatured, [or] disputed.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Hence, the fact that Sanchez’s “claim” was contingent on being unsuccessful in his grievance in no way exempts it from the statutory definition — instead, it places it squarely within its reach.

Section 101(5) includes an equitable remedy for breach of performance within the definition of a claim when the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

Wolters v. FLAGSTAR BANK FSB · filed 2010-06-01(5)

The court determines that Flagstar’s asserted right to an equitable remedy (to prevent Wolters’ profiting from the mutual mistake) may reasonably be classified as “an equitable remedy for breach of performance”, rendering it a “claim” as defined by section 101(5).

Section 101(5) defines a claim to include a contingent or unmatured right to payment, including a prepetition claim for equitable indemnity before the underlying loss is paid.

Boyajian v. ORDOUBADI · filed 2010-05-20(5)

Turning to bankruptcy law proper, we first note that the Bankruptcy Code itself is framed in terms of a dischargeable claim including a “right to payment” even when that right is “contingent” or “unmatured” or “disputed.”

Section 101(5) treats a right to payment for injury from prepetition exposure as a claim when the exposure occurs, even if the injury appears later.

Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In Re Grossman's Inc.) · filed 2010-06-02(5)

We agree and hold that a “claim” arises when an individual is exposed pre- petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a “right to payment” under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment within the definition of a claim, even when the debtor is currently paying the underlying obligation.

Michigan Self-Insurers' Security Fund v. DPH Holdings Corp. (In Re DPH Holdings Corp.) · filed 2010-06-30(5)(A)

The definition of a claim, set forth in Section 101(5)(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the procedural details of bar dates, as discussed in Rule 3003(c)(2), make clear that contingent claims must be filed before the bar date.

Section 101(5) requires each cause of action to be assessed for a right to payment before it is treated as a dischargeable claim.

In Re: Kaiser Aluminum Corp. · filed 2010-07-08(5)

The key here is whether the asserted claim is a “right to payment.” If so, it is a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code and is barred by the Plan injunction; if not, it is not a “claim” and is not so barred.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a disputed right to payment in the definition of a claim.

In Re Miller · filed 2010-07-09(5)(A)

A “claim” includes a “right to payment” even if “disputed.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Because the Bank’s disputed debt constitutes a “claim,” the Bank has standing to pursue its Motion until such time, if ever, when a final determination is made that the Bank has no claim.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; a debtor cannot be its own creditor.

In Re Sarnovsky · filed 2010-07-06(10)

In the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor is defined, in relevant part, as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor.... ” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). ... It is, therefore, impossible for a debtor and a creditor to be the same entity.

Section 101(10)(B) includes an entity with a postpetition tax claim of the kind specified in § 502(i) in the definition of creditor.

Michigan Department of Treasury v. Hight (In Re Hight) · filed 2010-08-10(10)(B)

Because Treasury has a claim against the estate of a kind specified in § 502®, Treasury is a “creditor” as defined in § 101(10)(B). Because Treasury is a creditor, Debtor can file a claim on Treasury’s behalf pursuant to § 501(c).

Section 101(5) includes a surviving in rem right within the definition of a claim, even when there is no obligation to make payments under an earlier plan.

Federal Communications Commission v. Airadigm Communications, Inc. · filed 2010-08-04(5)

TDS had a claim as defined by the Bankruptcy Code in the 2006 bankruptcy because it had an in rem right that survived the 2000 Plan.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include contingent, unmatured, or unliquidated rights to payment, even before a right to payment exists under state law.

Hutchinson v. Republic Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Hutchinson) · filed 2010-08-13(5)

The Court believes Republic’s interpretation of the term “claim” is far too restrictive. ... Thus, under either test, this claim arose pre-petition.

A liquidated right to payment remains a claim until it is paid.

Bateman v. Southern Development Corp. (In Re Bateman) · filed 2010-09-02(5)

Although now liquidated, it is still a claim until paid.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor by a claim arising at or before the order for relief; a later tax cannot be avoided merely by listing it in a Chapter 12 plan.

United States v. Hall · filed 2010-08-16(10)(A)

Chapter 12 plans bind “each creditor,” 11 U.S.C. § 1227, and a “creditor” is defined, in relevant part, as “an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A) (emphasis added). Because the tax in this case arose after the order for relief, ... the debtors cannot avoid the tax simply by listing it in their proposed plan.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor to include an entity with a claim against the debtor, including a claim against the debtor’s property.

Newcomer v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. (In Re Newcomer) · filed 2010-09-30(10)(A)

This Court disagrees. The term "creditor” is defined, in relevant part, as an "entity that has a claim against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). The phrase "claim against the debtor” includes a "claim against property of the debt- or.” 11 U.S.C. § 102(2). Thus, the holder of the in rem claim resulting from the Deed of Trust was a prepetition creditor of Plaintiff.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a prepetition personal guaranty as a contingent claim that can be discharged even if payment was not enforceable when the bankruptcy case began.

In Re Lipa · filed 2010-08-17(5)(A)

The inclusion of a contingent right to payment in the definition of a bankruptcy claim clarifies that a right to payment that is not yet enforceable under non-bankruptcy law at the time of the bankruptcy filing may still constitute a claim that is dischargeable in the bankruptcy case. ... This includes the debtor’s guaranty agreement.

Section 101(5)(B) treats an equitable remedy as a claim only if the underlying breach gives rise to a right to payment.

In Re Acevedo · filed 2010-09-10(5)(B)

An equitable remedy is a “claim” only if the underlying breach gives rise to a right to payment. ... Here, because the obligation is not a claim, and as such is not subject to discharge, it must be performed.

Section 101(10)(A) treats a former spouse with a prepetition claim against the debtor as a creditor.

Birdsell v. Petersen (In Re Petersen) · filed 2010-09-27(10)(A)

Further, given the Code’s broad definition of a creditor, it is equally clear that the Trustee is pursuing this action against defendant as a creditor.

A contingent right to payment against the debtor is a claim under § 101, and its holder is a creditor.

In Re JNL Funding Corp. · filed 2010-10-28(5)(A), (10)(A)

Section 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Section 101(10)(A) defines a “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order of relief.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). Thus, a contingent right to payment constitutes a claim, and the holder of such a contingent right is a creditor.

Section 101(5)(A) treats a right to payment as a claim even if the right is contingent or not yet fixed.

Minority Voting Trust v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (In Re Orange County Nursery, Inc.) · filed 2010-10-12(5)(A)

To the extent the Bankruptcy Court interpreted this language to mean that a judgment must create a “fixed” debt obligation to qualify as a claim, it was mistaken. A right to payment need not be fixed.

Section 101(5) broadly defines a claim to include a disputed right to payment.

Monarch Capital Corp. v. Bath (In Re Bath) · filed 2010-10-19(5)

In order to be classified as a creditor of Mr. Bath, Monarch must be able to assert a right to payment from him, even if such an assertion may be disputed by the debtor.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly as a right to payment, including a secured right held by a transferee of a tax lien.

In Re Kizzee-Jordan · filed 2010-11-11(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code does not define the term “tax claim.” But it does define a “claim” in the broadest manner to be a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured[.]”14 In the simplest terms, a tax claim is a broad right to payment of taxes.

A lien holder has a secured claim because the lien gives the holder a right to payment.

Tax Ease Funding, L.P. v. Thompson · filed 2010-11-11(5)(A)

As noted above, a claim is a right to payment. ... Therefore, a holder of a lien has a secured right to payment on a claim.

Section 101(5) treats an enforceable right to payment as a claim even when payment is contingent or remote.

In Re Rodriguez · filed 2010-12-23(5)

But the contingent nature of the right to payment does not change the fact that the right to payment exists, even if it is remote, and thereby constitutes a “claim” for purposes of § 101(5).

Section 101(5)(B) excludes an equitable cleanup obligation from the definition of a claim when the law used to enforce it gives the regulator no option to perform the cleanup and recover its costs.

Mark IV Industries, Inc. v. New Mexico Environment Department · filed 2010-10-21(5)(B)

Assuming without deciding that NMED could have proceeded under either statute instead of the Water Quality Act, the focus is the statute under which it elected to proceed. If that statute does not provide NMED with the option to cleanup the contamination and recover the costs, Mark IV’s equitable obligation to cleanup the contamination is not a “claim” that was discharged by the confirmation order.

A claim requires a right to payment; an assignee that has not shown a right to foreclose has not established a claim.

In Re Mims · filed 2010-10-27(5)(A)

Section 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” as the “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliqui-dated, fixed, contingent, matured, unma-tured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured.” Even under this broad definition, Wells Fargo has not demonstrated its “right to payment” because, as discussed more fully below, it lacks the ability to seek the state law remedy of foreclosure.

Section 101(5) includes a property tax lien in the definition of a claim, even when the lien is enforceable only against the property.

Malec v. Cook County Clerk (In Re Malec) · filed 2011-01-04(5)

Given the courts’ consistent and expansive interpretation of “claim,” the County’s lien is within the ambit of section 101(5)’s definition of a claim and was therefore subject to modification and discharge under the Debtors’ chapter 13 bankruptcy.

A bank owed nothing after its foreclosure bid has no claim against the debtor under § 101(5)(A).

In Re Miller · filed 2011-01-13(5)(A)

However, because the Debt- or owes the Bank nothing, the Bank does not hold a “debt” or a “claim” against the Debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

A right to reimbursement for an overpayment is a claim under § 101(5).

Terry v. Standard Insurance Company · filed 2011-01-28(5)

Standard’s right to be reimbursed for the overpayment is a claim. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5) treats a right to reimbursement for an insurance overpayment as a claim.

Terry v. Standard Insurance (In Re Terry) · filed 2011-01-28(5)

Standard's right to be reimbursed for the overpayment is a claim. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5) includes a contingent right to payment arising from prepetition conduct even when damages occur after the bankruptcy filing.

Republic Bank & Trust Co. v. Hutchinson · filed 2011-02-04(5)

The Bankruptcy Court in Huffy concluded that “a contingent right to payment in the definition of a bankruptcy claim clarifies that a right to payment that is not yet enforceable under non-bankruptcy law at the time of the bankruptcy filing may still constitute a claim that is dischargeable in the bankruptcy case.” ... The Bankruptcy Judge in the current case correctly reached the same conclusion given the instant facts. ... This Court can find no fault in either the bankruptcy courts’ or the other circuits’ reasoning and, as discussed above, will adopt it. This results in the current claim being discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment within the definition of a claim.

In Re W.R. Grace & Co. · filed 2011-01-31(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code definition of “claim” is broad enough, and is interpreted as covering, assertions of contingent rights to payment.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly as a right to payment; a change in that right’s priority does not create a different claim.

ReGen Capital I, Inc. v. UAL Corp. (In Re UAL Corp.) · filed 2011-02-18(5)(A)

Further, the assignment agree- ment’s definition of “Claim” itself uses the word “claim,” which the Bankruptcy Code defines broadly, in relevant part, as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(a). We are not persuaded by United’s contention that, because a separate filing is required to seek a cure claim, the cure claim is disconnected from the general unsecured claim. The claims stem from the same transac- tion giving rise to a single right to payment. The priority granted to the right to payment changes (dramatically) based on the debtor’s court-approved treatment of the executory contract, but the right is the same.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a former spouse’s contingent right to payment for missed mortgage payments under a marital settlement agreement within the definition of a claim.

In Re Hall-Walker · filed 2011-02-22(5)(A)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), a claim includes a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliqui-dated, fixed, contingent, matured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured.” (emphasis added). ... Pursuant to the Marital Settlement Agreement Mr. Hall-Walker had a contingent claim for the missed mortgage payments.

Section 101 defines a claim broadly to include a right to payment or a right to an equitable remedy.

Ogier v. Steele (In Re Buckhead Oil Co.) · filed 2011-03-21(5)

The definition of “claim” in the Bankruptcy Code is very broad. 11 U.S.C. § 101 defines claim as a “right to payment” or a “right to an equitable remedy”. Given that the Defendants specifically waived their right to subrogation and to have a claim in a bankruptcy case, there can be no doubt that any and all claims in the bankruptcy case, including this claim for subrogation, have in fact been waived.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment in the definition of a claim even if it is unliquidated or has not been reduced to judgment.

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla · filed 2011-03-21(5)(A)

The governing federal statute and Bankruptcy Code define a “debt” as a “liability on a claim,” which in turn is defined as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A); ... Therefore, in the case at bar, the Bankruptcy Court was not precluded from determining the dischargeability of Alex’s yet unrealized debt to Cristina simply because she had not yet reduced her tort claims to judgment.

Section 101(5) treats unpaid escrow payments as a pre-petition claim when the mortgage agreement gave the lender an enforceable right to collect them before the petition.

In Re Beaudet · filed 2011-04-13(5)

Therefore, the pre-petition escrow shortage should have been included in Ocwen’s pre-petition claim rather than calculated into future escrow payments.

Section 101(5)(A) does not include a future tort claim when the person had no contact with the debtor or its product before the bankruptcy sale.

Morgan Olson, LLC v. Frederico (In Re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.) · filed 2011-02-25(5)(A)

The Fredericos’ right to payment fails to meet the Piper test and falls squarely within the Chateaugay hypothetical. It represents “the extreme case of pre-petition conduct that has not yet resulted in any tortious consequence to a victim.” Chateaugay, 944 F.2d at 1004. The Fre-dericos had no “contact” with Grumman prior to the accident. They did not deal with Grumman and Ms. Frederico’s only connection was that her employer purchased the truck and she drove it. ... Hence, they did not hold claims against the Grumman estate at the time of the bankruptcy sale.

Section 101(5) treats a defective-product claim as arising when the purchaser’s relationship with the product gives rise to the claim, even if the injury appears later.

Wright v. Corning · filed 2011-03-21(5)

Grossman’s established the test to determine when a claim exists. That test is logically extended to determine whether a claim arises pre-confirmation. Here, under that test, it is clear that for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code West’s claims arose in 2005.

Section 101(5)(A)’s definition of “claim” does not generally require a tort claimant to have fairly contemplated the claim before discharge.

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In Re Placid Oil Co.) · filed 2011-03-21(5)(A)

But the court does not agree that this is the adopted test in the Fifth Circuit (at least not outside the context of environmental claims). First, the Lemelle court merely discussed the “fair contemplation of the parties” concept and did not need to address whether this extra layer of analysis was necessary (on top of the “pre-petition relationship test”), since there was no prepetition relationship extant in Lemelle.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; an attorney owed fees by the claimant is not the debtor’s creditor without a right to payment from the debtor.

Kirschenbaum v. Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C. (In Re Robert Plan of New York Corp.) · filed 2011-05-05(10)

Under section 101(10) of the Bankruptcy Code the term “creditor” is defined as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” ... The Settlement Agreement therefore, establishes Isserlis, not LMB, as a “creditor” of RPC on account of the debt arising from the settlement. LMB had no separate collection rights as against RPC arising out of the Settlement Agreement.

A guarantor with an unwaived contingent right to payment from the debtor is a creditor, even if the guarantor does not intend to seek repayment.

Osberg v. Halling (In Re Halling) · filed 2011-05-09(10)(A)

Certainly in the absence of a waiver of his subrogation rights, Mr. Hailing has a contingent “right to payment” from his mother. That right constitutes a “claim” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). As the holder of a “claim,” Mr. Hailing is a “creditor” of his mother’s estate.

Section 101(10) requires a creditor to have a claim against the particular debtor; a claim against one spouse alone does not make the claimant the other spouse’s creditor.

Warchol v. Barry (In Re Barry) · filed 2011-06-09(10)

Even under this broad statutory definition of “claim,” Warchol has no claim against Mrs. Barry and is not her creditor within the meaning of § 101(10).

Under § 101(5), an asbestos injury claim arises upon exposure to the product under the pre-petition relationship test.

Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. · filed 2011-06-07(5)

Applying the pre-petition relationship test to Mrs. Nye’s claim, we conclude that her claim arose when her husband was exposed to the asbestos-containing products.

Section 101(5) includes contingent rights to payment as claims when the events giving rise to them occurred before the bankruptcy petition.

Reyes v. STANDARD PARKING CORP. · filed 2011-06-15(5)

Because the events triggering Standard’s breach of contract claim against Rouse all arose prepetition and were well within the fair contemplation of both parties, Standard had a prepetition contingent breach of contract “claim” against Rouse, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

A tort claim can arise under § 101(5) when the accident or loss occurs, even if payment is demanded later; liability on that claim is a debt under § 101(12).

Lefkowitz v. Michigan Trucking, LLC (In Re Gainey Corp.) · filed 2011-05-06(5), (12)

Therefore, the “claims” in this case first arose prior to the Sale Order notwithstanding that they may have been asserted postconfirmation when tort claimants first made payment requests or demands upon the various insurance companies, the Debtor, or Michigan Trucking.

Section 101(5) treats a second mortgagee’s right to payment as a claim even when its lien is stripped.

In Re Jennings · filed 2011-07-11(5)

With or without the liens securing the claims, the second mortgagees still have a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5)(A)’s broad definition of a claim does not create a right to prepetition prejudgment interest when applicable state law provides no such right.

In Re Arcade Publishing, Inc. · filed 2011-08-09(5)(A)

As an initial matter, the Court rejects Hodel’s argument the Claim should include interest because the definition of “claim” in the Bankruptcy Code includes a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). State law determines whether prepetition interest is allowable as a claim.

Section 101(5) defines “claim” broadly enough to include administrative expenses, though separate rules govern their allowance.

In Re Momenta, Inc. · filed 2011-08-19(5)

A claim is defined as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). The terms “claims” and “expenses” are not mutually exclusive labels as several provisions in the Bankruptcy Code include administrative expenses within the claims label.

Section 101(5) includes contingent and unmatured rights to payment as claims, but the creditor must have a potentially enforceable right when the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Maple Forest Condominium Ass'n v. Spencer (In Re Spencer) · filed 2011-08-22(5)

A claim may be contingent or unmatured yet remain a claim for purposes of bankruptcy law. At the time of the bankruptcy petition, however, it must be a right at least potentially enforceable by the creditor.

In a product liability dispute, a § 101(5) claim requires a preexisting relationship between the claimant and the debtor manufacturer.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Eagle Windows & Doors, Inc. · filed 2011-08-22(5)

Here, appellants, standing in the shoes of the homeowners, are not barred by § 101(5). Specifically, the homeowners dealt with the contractor, not the window manufacturer, and there was no preexisting relationship between the manufacturer and the homeowner giving rise to a claim within the meaning of the asset sale order.

A mortgage assignee that cannot enforce the note lacks a right to payment and does not qualify as a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay.

In Re Lippold · filed 2011-09-06(10)(A)

Section 101(10) of the Bankruptcy Code defines a “creditor,” in part, as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” ... Despite the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of a “claim,” U.S. Bank “has not demonstrated its ‘right to payment’ because ... it lacks the ability to seek the state law remedy of foreclosure.”

An entity with a prepetition right to payment is a creditor even if the claim is disputed or no proof of claim is filed.

Lussier v. Sullivan (In Re Sullivan) · filed 2011-09-08(5), (10)

A creditor is any “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). A claim is a “right to payment, whether or not such a right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). In this case, the facts are that long after he issued the check, the Debtor still considered Lussier a creditor, i.e., when he filed this petition he listed Lussier as a creditor as to two debts.

Section 101(5)(B) treats an equitable remedy as a claim when it gives rise to a right to payment; an injunction requiring no expenditure of money is not a claim.

In Re Stone Resources, Inc. · filed 2011-09-09(5)(B)

In no sense can the preliminary injunction issued by this Court be deemed a “claim” within the meaning of the code as compliance with this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Orders does not require the expenditure of money, although it limits the ability to earn money.

A prepetition claim can make its holder a creditor even if the claim was not reduced to judgment or liquidated before the debtor filed for bankruptcy.

Guttman v. Fabian (In Re Fabian) · filed 2011-09-13(5), (10)

The Code defines “claim” as a "right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, un-liquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unma-tured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... The fact that these claims were not reduced to judgment against Fabian prepetition in the Remaining Proceedings filed in the SPI case does not affect the standing of the Trustee to file the instant complaint against Fabian to obtain a nondischargeable judgment. The fact that they were not liquidated as to amount prepetition is of no moment.

Section 101(5)(B) does not make an environmental injunction a claim merely because the agency might recover cleanup costs under a different statute.

Mark IV Industries, Inc. v. New Mexico Environment Department (In Re Mark IV Industries, Inc.) · filed 2011-09-28(5)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court’s holding is not contrary to the plain meaning of section 101(5)(B). ... An interpretation under which courts look to all sources of law would render most, if not all, environmental injunctions dischargeable.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a bankruptcy claim against the debtor, even if the debtor does not owe it money.

Blixseth v. Blixseth (In Re Blixseth) · filed 2011-09-28(10)

The definition of “creditor” found in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10) — “entity that has a claim against the debtor” — requires that the entity possess some bankruptcy claim, not that it be owed money.

A right to payment can be a claim even if it has not been reduced to judgment when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

In Re Lewis · filed 2011-09-30(5)(A)

The term “claim” means the "right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). A "creditor” is an "entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the date of the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). Thus, although the State of Colorado did not yet have a judgment against the Debtor at the time of the petition, it had a "claim” as defined by the Code.

Section 101(5) includes a potential claim for breach of a real estate contract when the seller fails to deliver title.

Rainsdon v. Garcia (In re Garcia) · filed 2011-10-03(5)

Had Debtors not given them the deed before they filed their bankruptcy petition, Defendants would have held a potential claim in Debtors’ bankruptcy case for breach of the parties’ contract.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include a trust beneficiary’s right to payment for a trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty.

Agin v. Chambers (In Re Ruel) · filed 2011-10-12(5)

“Claim,” in turn, is defined very broadly to include any right to payment, even one arising from a right to an equitable remedy, whether such right to payment is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidat-ed, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). By this broad definition, the beneficiaries’ rights against the Debtor were a claim, and the beneficiaries were therefore creditors of the Debtor.

Section 101(5)(A) includes an accrued cause of action as a claim even when administrative remedies have not been fully exhausted.

Sanchez v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2011-10-14(5)(A)

By analogy, Sanchez’s cause of action, which had accrued but had not been fully exhausted prior to the confirmation of Northwest’s reorganization plan on May 31, 2007, matured into a “claim” within the meaning of § 101(5)(A) at the time Northwest rescinded his promotion on March 31, 2007.

Section 101(5)(A) includes unmatured rights to payment in the definition of a claim.

In Re Degroot · filed 2011-11-23(5)(A)

Although unmatured claims still qualify as "claims,” the court is required to disallow any unmatured claim for support.

A claim includes contingent liability, and a debt is liability on a claim.

In Re Vandynhoven · filed 2011-11-03(5), (12)

The definition of "claim"—synonymous with "debt," the term used in section 523(a)—includes contingent liabilities, and the lack of an impossible assessment will not avoid the reality of the debtor's liability. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), (12).

Section 101 treats a landlord’s right to payment under a lease as a claim and the corresponding obligation as a debt.

Johnson v. Manatee Bay Apartments Corp. (In Re Johnson) · filed 2011-11-17(5), (12)

It is clear that any right to payment of Manatee Bay under the Lease Agreement falls within the definition of “claim” under section 101(5) and gives rise to a “debt” as defined under section 101(12).

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim; a claim enforceable against property after a Chapter 7 discharge can count toward Chapter 13’s debt limit.

In Re Scotto-Diclemente · filed 2011-11-18(5), (12)

Section 109(e) speaks in terms of “debts” which is defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(12) as “liability on a claim.” ... As a result, the Court must also include the unsecured in rem claim when determining a debtor’s eligibility for relief under § 109(e).

A claim is a right to payment; two payees whose right to payment is enforceable only jointly hold a single claim.

In Re Forster · filed 2012-01-03(5)

As defined in the Bankruptcy Code, a “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... Because their rights to payment arose from the promissory note, the Won-derleys could only enforce those rights by obtaining a joint judgment. ... This Court holds that John and Jean constitute two entities with a single claim against Debtor.

Section 101(5) defines a claim to include a right to payment or a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

Badami v. Sears (In Re AFY, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-13(5)

Badami has a claim for damages for failure to provide the interest in the policy called for in the agreement (right to payment) or a claim for an interest in the policy (right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance). Either way, Ba-dami has a claim in Sears’s bankruptcy case.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; an investor who advances funds in exchange for a right to monthly payments is a creditor.

Warren Waite, Jr. v. Cage · filed 2012-01-12(10)

Second, we hold that the Waites were “creditors” of the Debtors. A “creditor” is an “entity that has a claim against the debtor . . .” 11 U.S.C. §101(10). The term “claim” means a “right to payment . . . .” 11 U.S.C. §101(5).

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent and unmatured rights to payment in the definition of a claim; for a tort claim, the court applies a pre-petition relationship test without a separate fair contemplation requirement outside the environmental context.

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.) · filed 2012-01-18(5)(A)

This court acknowledges that the “fair contemplation of the parties” was a concept discussed in Lemelle (as being a consideration in various of the cases surveyed). But the court does not agree that this is the adopted test in the Fifth Circuit (at least not outside the context of environmental claims).

Section 101 treats an alleged right to payment for breach of contract as a claim and its holder as a creditor.

In re Nittany Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2012-10-30(5)(A), (10)(A)

The Court finds that the Claimant has alleged a valid claim, as defined by section 101(5)(A)... and is, therefore, a creditor of the Debtor under section 101(10)(A)... of the code.

A shareholder with a right to a fixed payment on the petition date may be treated as a creditor despite an alternative right to liquidation proceeds.

In re Orange County Nursery, Inc. · filed 2012-11-15(5), (10)

The Minority should be treated as a creditor because once the Superior Court Order was issued, the Minority effectively stopped sharing in the debtor’s potential upside.

Section 101(5)(A) treats an attorney’s prepetition right to repayment of fee advances as a claim.

In re Marotta · filed 2012-10-09(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a claim as “a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Therefore, based on Orcutt’s right to payment, Orcutt holds a prepetition claim against the debtor for, at a minimum, the advances made.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment within a claim even if the obligation is not contractual.

Stettin v. Dan Marino Foundation, Inc. (In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A.) · filed 2012-10-31(5)(A)

The Foundation received the four $25,000.00 payments from RRA for “value” because they were received by the Foundation in satisfaction of an antecedent debt or obligation of RRA to the Foundation pursuant to the pledge agreement. An antecedent debt merely requires the Foundation to have a “claim” or a “right to payment,” even if it does not rise to a contractual obligation.

Section 101(5) excludes an equitable remedy from the definition of a claim when the breach does not give the creditor a right to payment in place of performance.

In re Gacharna · filed 2012-10-19(5)

The Creditors herein do not have a right to substitute payment for the equitable remedy; they have a right to certain conduct from the Debtors. For that reason the Creditors’ right is not a claim for bankruptcy purposes.

Section 101(10)(A) treats the assignee of a prepetition judgment claim as a creditor of the debtor.

In re: Paul Denbeste and Melody Denbeste · filed 2012-11-06(10)(A)

These allegations were sufficient to establish that ... Power was a creditor of the Debtors with standing to pursue the § ... 727 action.

Section 101 defines a claim to include a disputed right to payment, so a disputed debt can support a creditor’s right to file a claim.

In re: Carl Pertuset v. · filed 2012-12-18(5)(A)

By its very definition, “claim” includes a right to payment that is disputed. Clearly, ASB, Quality Leasing, and FCS had standing to file a claim in the Debtors’ case.

Section 101(5) includes a statutory right to payment as a claim, whether it arises before or after a bankruptcy petition.

In re Jefferson County · filed 2012-12-19(5)

Stated differently, a claim premised on AHCRA constitutes a “claim” within the meaning of § 101(5) and is stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1) despite its being a chimerically pleaded version such as that by the City Parties and regardless of whether it arises pre- or post-petition.

Section 101(5) treats a tax purchaser’s interest as a bankruptcy claim when the landowner files before the tax redemption period expires.

In re Lamont · filed 2012-12-27(5)

This Court adopts the view that where the landowner files a bankruptcy petition prior to the expiration of the redemption period, both the tax purchaser and the county hold claims in bankruptcy against the landowner.

A mortgagee that cannot establish a right to foreclose has not shown a right to payment under the definition of a claim.

In re Idicula · filed 2013-01-10(5)(A)

Despite the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of a “claim,” U.S. Bank “has not demonstrated its ‘right to payment’ because ... it lacks the ability to seek the state law remedy of foreclosure.”

Section 101(5)(B) treats a right to an equitable remedy for breach of contract as a claim when damages are a viable alternative to performance.

Route 21 Associates of Belleville, Inc. v. MHC, Inc. · filed 2012-12-19(5)(B)

For all these reasons, Route 21 has a “claim” within the meaning of section 101(5)(B) with regard to the debtor’s contractual obligations to it.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a debtor’s continuing rent obligation under a prepetition lease within the definition of a claim.

In re Miller · filed 2013-01-09(5)(A)

The terms of the Lease govern whether or not the Housholder Family Trust’s claim against the Debtor is contingent, and under the terms of the Lease, it is not.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim arising by the order for relief; a disputed claim retains creditor status until disallowed.

Matheny v. Maier (In re Maier) · filed 2013-02-08(10)(A)

The term “creditor” is clearly defined in the Bankruptcy Code as “an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). Any such creditor maintains his or her claim, and the classification of a creditor, until such time as an asserted claim is disallowed.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment reduced to judgment within the definition of a claim.

Marciano v. Chapnick · filed 2013-02-27(5)(A)

Under § 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Thus, a right to payment includes a “judgment.”

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent and unliquidated rights to payment in the definition of a claim, and a claim remains valid when it becomes liquidated and non-contingent.

In re: Marshall L. Rader and Barbara J. Rader · filed 2013-03-08(5)(A)

Nothing in § 101(5) or any other section of the Bankruptcy Code specifies or even implies that when the character of a claim changes—from unliquidated and contingent to liquidated and non-contingent—it affects the claim’s validity.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a contingent or unliquidated prepetition right to payment within the definition of a claim, even when attorney fees are incurred after the petition.

In re Castillo · filed 2013-03-08(5)(A)

To the contrary, the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of a “claim” includes any right to payment that existed as of the petition date, even if, as of that date, the right was contingent and/or unliquidated. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(5) treats a tax sale purchaser’s enforceable right to the debtor’s remaining property interest or its redemption value as a claim, even without personal liability.

Francis v. Scorpion Group, LLC (In re Francis) · filed 2013-03-13(5)

Scorpion holds a claim because it wants the Debtor’s interest in the Property and state law defines in monetary terms what it takes to eliminate or satisfy Scorpion’s right to obtain that interest in Property. ... The Court holds that Scorpion holds a claim as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101(5) treats a mortgage holder’s right to proceeds from the debtor’s property as a claim even after the debtor’s personal liability is discharged.

Wong v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re Wong) · filed 2013-03-14(5)

Here, the Defendants are holders of claims under Section 101(5) because they “still retain[] a ‘right to payment’ in the form of [their] right to the proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s property.” Johnson, 501 U.S. at 84, 111 S.Ct. 2150.

A claim is defined by the existence and extent of a debt, rather than by the collateral securing it.

Williams v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Williams) · filed 2013-03-15(5)(A)

A “claim” is defined not by the existence and extent of collateral but by the existence and extent of debt. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(5) includes a right to payment within the definition of a claim even when no judgment has been entered.

Ohio Attorney General v. Suwinski (In re Suwinski) · filed 2013-03-27(5)

As evidenced by the plain language in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), a judgment is not a prerequisite for a claim.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; the court treated the loan’s owner at filing as the creditor.

Bankers Healthcare Group, Inc. v. Bilfield (In re Bilfield) · filed 2013-04-02(10)(A)

The term “creditor” in this context means an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A). ... Interbank unquestionably owned the debtor’s loan when the plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding; that means Interbank, not the plaintiff, was the creditor with respect to the debt- or’s loan at that point in time.

Section 101(5)(B) treats an equitable remedy as a claim when it gives rise to a right to payment.

Schuman v. Connaught Group, Ltd. (In re Connaught Group, Ltd.) · filed 2013-04-17(5)(B)

On the other hand, the plaintiff and the putative class members are asserting a "right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance” that "gives rise to a right to payment,” and the Bankruptcy Code defines this right as a "claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(b).

Section 101(5) includes a contractual right to payment as a claim even if no cause of action has yet accrued.

John W. Bendall, Jr. v. Lancer Management Group, LLC · filed 2013-07-09(5)

Claims arising from contracts executed prior to a bankruptcy constitute “claims” within the meaning of section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code whether or not a cause of action has accrued at the time of the bankruptcy under otherwise-applicable non-bankruptcy law.

Potential withdrawal liability to a multiemployer plan is excluded from the § 548 insolvency calculation under § 101(5) until the debtor withdraws.

Richardson v. Checker Acquisition Corp. (In re Checker Motors Corp.) · filed 2013-06-10(5)

In sum, then, CPT Holdings without question precludes Trustee from including Debtor’s estimated withdrawal liability in the determination of whether it was insolvent or not under Section 548.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity whose claim against the debtor arose by the order for relief.

Suhar v. Agree Auto Services, Inc. (In re Blakely) · filed 2013-06-18(10)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a creditor as any “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debt- or[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A) (West 2013). ... Under these circumstances, Agree Auto plainly was a creditor of the Debtor and benefited from receipt of the Debtor’s Payment.

A holder of a prepetition judgment remains a creditor under § 101(10) even if it fails to file a timely proof of claim.

421 Chestnut Partners, LP v. Aloia (In re Aloia) · filed 2013-07-17(10)

Conversely, it is undisputed the Diamond Tool is a creditor of the debtor, as it holds a prepetition judgment. See generally 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). ... Nonetheless, disal-lowance of a claim owing to a creditor’s failure to file a timely proof of claim does not negate the claim itself.

Section 101 treats an entity with a claim against the debtor as a creditor; a claim includes a right to payment.

Marvin B. Smith, III v. Atlantic Southern Bank · filed 2013-06-28(5)(A), (10)(A)

Atlantic Southern also had statutory standing because it alleged that it had a secured claim to payment, such that it was a creditor, as defined by the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 ... U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), (10)(A). Because it was a creditor, it was a party in interest in the bankruptcy case.

Section 101(5)(A) includes disputed, contingent, and unliquidated tort claims even when they have not been reduced to judgment.

In re: Robert Lewin · filed 2013-07-03(5)(A)

Clearly, then, while Szanto did not have the benefit of a state court judgment adjudging Lewin liable to him for specific damages on his tort claims, they were no less “claims” for purposes of the bankruptcy case.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a contingent right to payment under a prepetition continuing guaranty as a claim, even when the guaranteed credit is extended later.

Russo v. HD Supply Electrical, Ltd. (In re Russo) · filed 2013-07-11(5)(A)

Even though the future indebtedness had not yet been incurred, the claim itself (as a contingent right to payment) still existed by virtue of the Debtor’s execution of the prepetition Guaranty. And because the Guaranty rendered the Debtor liable for [¶] Supply’s claim, the “debt” existed prepetition.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a creditor’s right to payment from the debtor; payments that belong to the bankruptcy estate are assets, not claims.

Peel v. Peel · filed 2013-08-02(5)(A)

A claim in bankruptcy is a creditor’s “right to payment” from the debtor, 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A); the annuity payments received by the trustee were assets of the estate in bankruptcy, not debts, because they were the debtor’s property.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment or an equitable remedy for breach that gives rise to payment; an unenforceable promise creates no claim.

In re: Carl Mace v. · filed 2013-08-13(5)

However, that promise created neither an enforceable oral contract, nor a valid bankruptcy claim for $313,781.36.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include a contingent right to payment that has not yet accrued under state law.

In Re W.R. Grace & Co. · filed 2013-09-04(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” using the “broadest available definition,” FCC v. NextWave Pers. Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 302 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted), which provides that a “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured,” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... A “claim” can therefore exist “before a right to payment exists under state law.”

Section 101(5) includes contingent rights to payment in the definition of a claim; a claim can arise before bankruptcy when the debtor’s wrongful conduct and the claimant’s relationship to it predate the petition.

Bechtold v. Gillespie (In re Gillespie) · filed 2013-09-09(5)

The term “claim” includes the right to payment — whether or not the right “is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidat-ed, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... Even a contingent claim which may never mature into an actual claim will arise pre-petition if the wrongful conduct occurred pre-petition and the claimant had some relationship to the debtor and the debtor’s conduct at that time.

Section 101(5) defines a bankruptcy claim as a right to payment or a right that can be reduced to payment.

In re City of Stockton, California · filed 2013-09-18(5)

But when, as here, the language of the Bankruptcy Code is in question, “claim” boils down to a right to payment as defined at § 101(5).

Sections 101(5) and (10) define a claim as a right to payment and a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; an attorney whom a divorce decree directs the debtor to pay can qualify as a creditor.

Collins v. Solomon (In re Collins) · filed 2013-10-29(5), (10)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). The Code further defines “claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(10) treats an entity holding a claim against an affiliate under alter ego law as that affiliate’s creditor.

Sharp v. Salyer (In re SK Foods, LP) · filed 2013-10-02(10)

Accordingly, substantive consolidation will promote fairness because the Debtors’ creditors already are creditors of the Defendants as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10) (defining creditor as an entity holding a claim).

Section 101(5)(A) includes a prepetition right to payment as a claim even when liability has not been reduced to judgment.

Hyundai-Wai Machine America Corp. v. Rouette (In re Rouette) · filed 2013-10-22(5)(A)

The absence of a judgment in such a case does not mean the party does not have a prepetition “right to payment.” That is why the phrase “right to payment” is modified by the phrase, “whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.”

Section 101(5) includes an equitable remedy for breach within the definition of a claim when the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

Route 21 Associates of Belleville, LLC v. Millennium Custodial Trust (In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.) · filed 2013-10-23(5)

We reject Route 21’s arguments that the relief it sought could not be monetized and thus was not a “claim” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) includes contingent and unliquidated rights to payment, but a tax liability does not arise before the tax year ends when the existence of any liability remains uncertain.

In re Reed · filed 2013-10-29(5)

The all-events test is not in direct conflict with the Code definition of a claim as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... It is not only that the amount of liability is unclear until the end of the year; it is the lack of certainty as to the existence of any liability that is the main problem.

Section 101(5) requires a right to payment for a claim against a debtor’s estate and can encompass contingent statutory attorneys’ fees.

In re Residential Capital, LLC · filed 2013-11-12(5)

A creditor may only assert a claim against a debtor’s estate if the creditor has a “right to payment” for the liability. ... Therefore, the Debtors’ objection to the Parker-Lowe claim for attorneys’ fees is OVERRULED without prejudice.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a disputed right to payment within the definition of a claim, even before a court resolves it.

Blackwell Oil Co. v. Potts (In re Potts) · filed 2013-11-14(5)(A)

Debtor’s own analysis shows that for purposes of this proceeding, Blackwell has standing to pursue the denial of Debtor’s discharge. Standing in this Court cannot be dependent on a claim subject to determination in state court.

A claim for litigation costs arises when the prevailing party gains a legal right to payment, no earlier than a favorable verdict.

Cote v. Stuecker · filed 2013-12-10(5)

Even if costs are subject to discharge, ... Cote did not incur the liability until Leezer and Stuecker had gained the legal right to payment — at the very earliest in July 2012 when the jury returned a verdict in the defendants’ favor.

A taxpayer’s obligation to pay federal income tax is a claim under section 101(5), and liability on that claim is a debt under section 101(12).

Wendt v. United States (In re Wendt) · filed 2013-11-27(5), (12)

There is no doubt that such an obligation is a “claim” under section 101(5) and that a taxpayer’s liability on such a claim is a “debt” under section 101(12).