11 U.S.C. § 101

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

In re Fustolo · filed 2013-12-16(5)(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.” ... Because the Petitioning Creditors hold judgments, their “claims” could be considered, and in the case of the Patriot and Mayer are, their judgments, not the underlying claims for breach of contract.

A tax purchaser holds a claim under § 101(5) when the certificate gives the purchaser a right to payment or an equitable remedy against the debtor’s property.

Alexandrov v. LaMont · filed 2014-01-07(5)

Accordingly, Alexandrov holds a right to payment, or alternatively, a right to an equitable remedy against the debtors’ property.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly as a right to payment, but pledging property to secure another entity’s loan did not give the lender a right to payment from the debtor for that loan.

B-Bar Tavern Inc. v. Prairie Mountain Bank (In re B-Bar Tavern Inc.) · filed 2013-12-18(5)(A)

It is settled law that § 101(5)(A) adopts the “broadest possible definition” of claim. ... Notwithstanding these broad definitions, the Court finds that PMB is not a creditor with a right to payment from B-Bar Tavern of the debt stated in PMB’s Claim 1 in the amount stated of $820,923.27 on the petition date.

Section 101(10) treats a holder of a prepetition claim as a creditor even if the creditor did not file a proof of claim.

Carto v. Oakley (In re Oakley) · filed 2013-12-30(10)

It is undisputed that Mr. Carto is a creditor of the debtor holding a prepetition claim based upon an unpaid promissory note. See generally 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). ... Nonetheless, disallowance of a claim owing solely to a creditor’s failure to file a timely proof of claim does not negate the claim itself.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment; determining a nondischargeable debt therefore requires determining the debtor’s liability and the creditor’s right to payment.

Wen Jing Huang v. Juan Juan Chen (In re Wen Jing Huang) · filed 2014-01-07(12)

A “debt” is defined by the Bankruptcy Code as a “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). A “claim,” in turn, is defined (in relevant part) as a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Accordingly, in the context of the dischargeability proceeding, the bankruptcy court is not only tasked with determining whether the circumstances for non-dischargeability enumerated in § 523(a) are established, but must also necessarily determine the scope of the debtor’s “liability on [the] claim” and the creditor’s “right to payment.”

An equitable remedy for breach is a claim under § 101(5)(B) only if the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

In re Tousa, Inc. · filed 2014-01-16(5)(B)

No provision of bankruptcy law operates to provide a money damage remedy for breach of specific performance unless “such breach gives rise to a right to payment.”

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include payment rights arising from commercial and consumer transactions, including a guaranty.

In re Graham · filed 2014-03-08(5)

The word “claim,” as it is broadly defined in § 101(5) and used in § 1123(b)(5), encompasses payment rights arising out of commercial obligation and consumer transactions, and certainly the debt owed by the Debtors to the Creditor under the Guaranty.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a spouse’s contingent, unliquidated right to equitable distribution as a pre-petition claim when divorce proceedings began before the bankruptcy filing.

Paul Ruitenberg, III v. · filed 2014-03-13(5)(A)

Even if no final judgment of divorce existed for Candace and Paul when he entered bankruptcy, her interest was, at the least, unliquidated and contingent on a final decree apportioning marital property, perhaps unmatured, and likely disputed. But, no matter, it literally is a “claim” under § 101(5).

Section 101 defines debt as liability on a claim and broadly defines claim to include disputed or unliquidated rights to payment.

Nikki Lee v. Leland Christenson, II · filed 2014-03-12(5), (12)

Apart from his jurisdictional arguments, Lee also contends that the bankruptcy court should have reopened the judgment because, he asserts, Christenson’s fraud claim against him is not a “debt” under the bankruptcy code, so the judgment is void. But this argument is frivolous because “[t]he Bankruptcy Code defines ‘debt’ very broadly as ‘liability on a claim,’ and ‘claim’ very broadly, as any ‘right to payment,’ whether liquidated or unliquidated, disputed or undisputed, legal or equitable.” McClellan v. Cantrell, 217 F.3d 890, 895 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), (12)).

Section 101 treats a contractual right to payment as a claim and the corresponding obligation as a debt.

Kaye v. Nath Companies (In re Duke & King Acquisition Corp.) · filed 2014-03-31(5)(A), (12)

The reason is that the execution of the MSA imposed a contractual duty on Duke and King to pay the management fees, and it gave a right to receive them to the Kinderhook entity-defendants. This created a debt in the sense of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5)(A) and (12), which became due as the deadlines for payment passed pursuant to the terms of the MSA.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment; an obligation to repay funds can therefore be a debt.

In re: Miguel Angel Gracia · filed 2014-04-04(5)(A), (12)

A "debt" is defined in the Code as "liability on a claim," § 101(12), a "claim" is defined in turn as a ... "right to payment," § 101(5)(A), and a "right to payment," we have said, "is nothing more nor less than ... an enforceable obligation." ... Fairly construed, these allegations in the FAC assert that Gracia is indebted to Banegas stemming from his receipt of the original tender of funds in 2004, and that Banegas made a demand that Gracia repay him before Gracia’s bankruptcy.

Section 101(10)(A) treats an entity with a claim against the debtor’s property that arose before the order for relief as a creditor.

Harrison v. New Jersey Community Bank (In re Jesup & Lamont, Inc.) · filed 2014-03-26(10)(A)

NJCB had a claim against JLSC’s property that arose before the order for relief, and as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor” NJCB is a creditor within the meaning of § 101(10)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) requires a right to repayment for a bankruptcy claim; a creditor barred from recovering a foreclosure deficiency has no such claim.

Mountain Valley Community Bank v. Freeman · filed 2014-03-26(5)

In this case, the right to repayment would be on the difference owed — or deficiency — on the White County property after foreclosure.

Section 101(10)(A) includes a qui tam relator as a creditor when the relator has a claim against the debtor that arose by the order for relief.

United State ex rel. Minge v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.) · filed 2014-03-27(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.” ... Relators are creditors with claims against the debt- or that arose years before the confirmation of HBC’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Section 101(10)(A) treats a person with a claim against the debtor as a creditor; unpaid checks can establish that claim.

Hussain v. Malik (In Re Hussain) · filed 2014-04-15(10)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Maliks held a claim against the Debtor which, in turn, sufficiently conferred creditor status for the purposes of § 727(a). See 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5); 101(10)(A); 727(c)(1). The Maliks, thus, were authorized to object to the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 101 defines a claim as a right to payment and a creditor as an entity holding a claim against the debtor; dishonored checks can establish both.

In re: Syed Shahzad Hussain · filed 2014-04-15(5), (10)(A)

Based on the foregoing, the Maliks held a claim against the Debtor which, in turn, sufficiently conferred creditor status for the purposes of § 727(a). See 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5); 101(10)(A); 727(c)(1). The Maliks, thus, were authorized to object to the Debtor’s discharge.

Section 101(5) includes an asserted right to payment within the definition of a claim.

In re Residential Capital, LLC · filed 2014-04-21(5)

Since he is asserting a right of payment, Mustafanos is a holder of a “Claim” pursuant to the Plan and the Bankruptcy Code.

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

In re 35th & Morgan Development Corp. · filed 2014-04-30(5)(A)

A “claim” in bankruptcy includes a right to payment regardless of whether it is liquidated or unliquidated, matured or unmatured. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Thus, an unmatured claim may count.

Section 101(5) includes a state's right to seek payment of a seller's unpaid taxes from the purchaser of the seller's assets within the definition of a claim.

In re Elk Grove Village Petroleum · filed 2014-05-21(5)

They each provide a mechanism by which the State of Illinois may demand payment of taxes from a seller of assets and if those taxes are not paid, assert the same claim personally against the buyer. This mechanism unquestionably constitutes a claim under Bankruptcy Code’s definition. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) (defining “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”).

An equity interest in a nondebtor company is not a claim against the debtor without a right to payment from the debtor.

Alsohaibi v. Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(c) (In re Arcapita Bank B.S.C.(c)) · filed 2014-04-29(5)(A), (16)(A)

The bankruptcy court correctly found that Arcapita’s evidence refuted the prima facie validity of the claim by showing that Alsohaibi’s claims were based on equity investments in non-debtor entities.

Section 101(5)(B) treats a right to equitable relief as a claim only if it is an alternative to payment or compliance requires payment.

Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Hruby (In re Hruby) · filed 2014-05-19(5)(B)

The Court finds that the damages and the injunctive relief are cumulative and not alternative remedies. In addition to damages, under the Agreement, the Movant may be entitled to enjoin the Debtor from engaging in certain conduct prohibited by the Covenants. Should a court impose such injunc-tive relief, the Debtor could not comply with such an injunction by paying money. Therefore, under the rationale of Kennedy and of Udell, the injunctive relief that the Movant seeks in the State Court Litigation does not constitute a dischargeable claim in the Debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment; under the conduct theory adopted here, a claim arises when the conduct giving rise to it occurs.

Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (In re Saint Catherin · filed 2014-05-30(5)(A)

The statute further defines a “claim” as any “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.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Both parties on appeal have framed their briefing around the conduct theory, which we also adopt. ... We therefore conclude that the “conduct” triggering the liability was Saint Catherine’s continued operation as an eligible hospital on that date.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; debtors cannot be creditors of themselves.

In re Oliver · filed 2014-06-10(10)

The Debtors do not meet the definition of “creditor” set forth in the Code. In relevant part, the Code provides that a creditor is an “entity that has a claim against the debtor....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(10).

A disputed right to payment or foreclosure remedy can be a claim under § 101(5), giving its holder creditor status under § 101(10)(A).

Junk v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Junk) · filed 2014-07-02(5), (10)(A)

In addition, the term claim means both “right to payment” and “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives right to a right to payment,” in both instances whether or not such right is disputed. ... 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) and (B). ... The Junks have objected to CitiMortgage’s claim, including its right to foreclose. But because the term “claim” includes a right to payment or right to an equitable remedy whether or not such right is disputed, courts have held that a claim confers creditor status on the claimant despite the disputed nature of the claim.

Section 101 treats a contingent right to payment as a claim, so an entity with a qualifying prepetition contingent claim can be a creditor.

Pizza Patron Inc. v. Saenz (In re Saenz) · filed 2014-08-08(5), (10)

Saenz’s argument ignores the fact that an entity may hold a contingent right of payment against the debtor. ... Accordingly, PPI’s indemnification and subrogation claims satisfy the Fifth Circuit’s pre-petition relationship test and thus constitute claims under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) treats a request for an injunction as a claim when the claimant seeks monetary compensation for cleanup costs as a creditor.

New York City Housing Authority v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2014-08-12(5)

Thus, this Court finds that NYCHA, acting as a creditor and not as a regulator, has a claim pursuant to § 101(5) of the Code.

Section 101(10) generally defines a creditor as the holder of a prepetition claim; postpetition administrative expense requests do not qualify as proofs of claim on that basis.

United States v. Bond · filed 2014-08-13(10)

"Proof of claim” is defined in the Code as a claim filed by a "creditor,” 11 U.S.C. § 501, and a creditor (with certain exceptions not applicable here) is the holder of a pre-petition claim against the debt- or. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10), The tax claims asserted by the government were administrative-expense requests that arose post-petition, and it was in response to those requests that the Liquidating Trustee filed his tax refund counterclaim.

Section 101(5) includes a right to payment under a final, enforceable pre-petition judgment even if the amount was unliquidated when the petition was filed.

In re Rubin Family Irrevocable Stock Trust · filed 2014-09-19(5)

Section 101(5) defines a “claim” as any right to payment, including a right to payment that is unliquidated on the petition date.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include secured and unsecured claims; acknowledging a valid claim does not establish that it is secured or perfected.

Bank of England v. Rice (In re Webb) · filed 2014-10-23(5)

To state that all claims are valid is not the same as acknowledging that a claim is properly secured and perfected. In bankruptcy, the term "claim” has broad meaning and encompasses both secured and unsecured claims.

Section 101(5) includes a tax obligation within the definition of a claim even when payment is contingent and the amount is unliquidated.

In re Donahue · filed 2014-10-27(5)

A tax “claim” for bankruptcy purposes includes any right to payment of a tax obligation whether fixed, contingent, or unliquidated. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... As stated, under Missouri law, the Debtors became contingently liable for the 2013 taxes on January 1, 2013. The claim for the 2013 taxes was thus incurred for these purposes on that date.

Section 101 defines a claim broadly enough to include a former spouse’s rights to payment and mortgage refinancing under a divorce decree.

In re Ripberger · filed 2014-10-28(5)

Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code broadly defines a claim as any “right to payment.” ... Movant, therefore, has a claim against Debtor’s estate, not only for the sum she is personally owed, but for Debtor’s obligation to refinance the mortgages.

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor; a claim requires a right to payment or an equitable remedy that gives rise to one.

Skinner v. Skinner (In re Skinner) · filed 2014-10-08(5), (10)

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.” ... Absent a theory of liability, this Court cannot infer that the Plaintiff is the holder of a claim.

Section 101 defines “claim” and “creditor” broadly enough that a debtor’s creditor schedules will often include claims against a closely held corporation for which the debtor is an officer or director.

Al-Naji v. Al-Naji (In re Al-Naji) · filed 2014-10-30(5)(A), (10)

Due to the breadth of these definitions, schedules will often list claims against any closely held corporation for which the debtor is an officer or director. Any exclusion from the list of creditors would be an omission by the debtor and not one for which the plaintiff herein should suffer adverse consequences.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent claims arising from pre-confirmation conduct even when the resulting injury manifests later.

AMPAM Power Plumbing, L.P. v. Capstone Building Corp. (In re AMPAM Power Plumbing, L.P.) · filed 2014-10-28(5)(A)

As a result of the parties’ pre-confirmation contractual relationship, the claim arose at the time the conduct giving rise to liability in the State Court Suit took place, even though the possible resulting injury from this conduct did not yet manifest by the Confirmation Date.

Section 101(10)(A) does not require an entity with a claim against the debtor to file a proof of claim to qualify as a creditor.

Sapphire Development, LLC v. McKay · filed 2014-11-05(10)(A)

The term “creditor” is not limited to those who have formally asserted their proof of claims in a bankruptcy case.

Section 101(5)’s definition of claim includes a spouse’s right to payment recognized in a divorce judgment, even if the spouse could not sue for it outside divorce court.

Meoli v. Cooper (In re Allen) · filed 2014-11-13(5)

The definition of claim that applies in both state and federal fraudulent conveyance litigation is broad enough to include the right to payment the State Court recognized and honored by entering the JOD.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment that a statute of limitations does not extinguish, even when it bars enforcement.

In re Mazyck · filed 2014-11-19(5)(A)

A claim is defined as a “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....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (2010). ... When applicable, the bar of a statute of limitation does not extinguish a creditor’s underlying right to payment, but it does cause the remedy — enforcement of the right to payment — to be withheld.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a mortgage creditor’s contingent right to payment as a claim before foreclosure reduces it to judgment.

In re: Kirk Stephan v. · filed 2014-12-11(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment . . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (emphasis added). ... A mortgage interest in a property that has not yet been foreclosed is a classic contingent right to payment.

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

HDR Architecture, P.C. v. Maguire Group Holdings (In re Maguire Group Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2014-12-24(5)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” to include contingent obligations of the debtor.

A claim under § 101(5) is a right to payment or a right to an equitable remedy for a breach that gives rise to a right to payment.

Irish Bank Resolution Corp. v. Drumm (In re Drumm) · filed 2015-01-06(5)

“Claim” is a defined term. In the Bankruptcy Code, it does not mean statement or assertion but rather “right to payment” or a “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right of payment.”

A debt arises when a right to payment accrues, regardless of when the amount of liability is calculated.

Mallo v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Mallo) · filed 2014-12-29(5)(A), (12)

A “debt” for purposes of § 523(a) is created when “a right to payment” accrues, regardless of when the extent of that liability is calculated.

Section 101(10) does not treat the holder of an untriggered right of first refusal as a creditor when the holder has no claim against the debtor or estate.

In re Michael Bahary & Steven Bahary Partnership · filed 2015-01-13(10)

Napleton is neither a debtor, a trustee, an indenture trustee nor a creditor to whom a debt is owed as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(10) (creditor is defined as an entity who holds a claim against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate). Naple-ton is neither a creditor/claim holder nor a party to an executory contract.

Section 101(5) does not include a foreclosure purchaser’s interest in a debtor’s voluntary statutory redemption right within either definition of a claim.

In re Richter · filed 2015-01-20(5)

Neither definition under § 101(5) is broad enough to include this redemption relationship between a new third-party purchaser and a prior owner as a “claim.”

Section 101(5) treats a right to an equitable remedy for breach as a claim when the breach also gives rise to a right to payment.

Piccerelli v. Piccerelli (In re Piccerelli) · filed 2015-02-06(5)

On these facts, the Plaintiffs’ right to redress for the Debtor’s breach of her contract with their father is a “claim” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code. For purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, a claim is a “right to payment” or a “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5) includes a creditor’s surviving lien rights within the definition of a claim.

Washington v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (In re Washington) · filed 2015-02-24(5)

Green Tree’s in rem rights against the Mobile Home constitute a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of the term as set forth in § 101(5).

Section 101(10)(A) treats the holder of a claim against the debtor as a creditor; the state is the creditor when it owns a penalty claim and holds the right to payment.

Medina v. Vander Poel · filed 2015-01-21(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). A claim is “a right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Since the state is the party with the property interest in a PAGA claim, it is the party that has the right to payment. Thus, it is the creditor in the action; not Plaintiff.

Section 101(5)(B) treats a request for an equitable remedy as a claim when a monetary remedy is available.

Kinney v. Gallagher · filed 2015-01-23(5)(B)

As a result, even if Kinney seeks to have a constructive trust imposed so that he is listed as a title owner to the property, this relief is a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B) because a monetary remedy is available.

A claim includes a right to payment, and whether it arose before bankruptcy depends on when the obligation existed, not when payment became due.

McJonathan v. Wayne Building Co. (In re McJonathan) · filed 2015-02-11(5)(A)

“Claim” then includes any “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A); ... Thus, the focus should be on whether a claim exists pre-petition, not when the claim accrues.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a time-barred debt as a claim when applicable state law preserves the creditor’s right to payment.

Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC · filed 2015-03-23(5)(A)

Thus, if a creditor has a right to payment (i.e., a property interest) recognized by applicable state law despite the lapse of the limitations period, he has a claim for such time-barred debt and is entitled to file a proof of claim as to such time-barred debt.

Section 101(5) includes a right to repayment contingent on a future recovery within the definition of a claim.

Global Injury Funding, LLC v. Knight (In re Knight) · filed 2015-03-31(5)

The Court is convinced that the language and purpose of § 101(5) support the treatment of the monetary sum advanced by the Plaintiff as a “claim,” even though the claim may be “contingent” in that it is dependent upon a future event — the Debt- or’s recovery in connection with the State Court Action.

Section 101 defines a claim broadly as a right to payment, including a disputed right, and a debt as liability on a claim.

In re Weik · filed 2015-02-24(5), (12)

Weik testified that he is entitled to pick and choose what to include in his Schedules. He is wrong. ... The broad definition of claim means that a claim remains a “debt”, so long as it is enforceable against either the debtor or the debtor’s property after a prior discharge from personal liability.

Section 101(5) includes an unliquidated right to payment as a claim even if it has not been reduced to judgment.

In re Wilcox · filed 2015-04-21(5)

As the Debtor points out, the argument lacks merit, given the broad definition of “claim” (and corresponding definition of “debt”) that applies. ... The text of § 101(5) and the policies supporting the inclusive definition of “claim” easily refute the first argument.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include a mortgage creditor’s right to contractual interest as well as principal.

In re Varner · filed 2015-05-01(5)(A)

A claim is a broad term of art that includes a mortgage creditor’s contractual interest. ... A creditor’s “right to payment” is therefore more than just the principal owed but also includes interest.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include both secured and unsecured rights to payment.

In re Pajian · filed 2015-05-11(5)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “claim” as including both secured and unsecured claims, see 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (“claim” includes “right to payment, whether' or not such right is ... secured, or unsecured”), and the Bankruptcy Rules have adopted this definition.

Section 101(5) includes a contingent contractual right to payment within the definition of a claim, even when the contingency occurs after the bankruptcy petition.

Conway Hospital, Inc. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. · filed 2015-05-11(5)

Section 101(5) of title 11 of the United States 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.” ... Conway’s claim therefore was contingent at the time the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings commenced, and it became liquidated when Conway terminated the contract and sought damages from LBSF.

Section 101(5)’s definition of claim includes an enforceable, unliquidated claim for a trustee surcharge under state law.

Stambaugh v. Stambaugh (In re Stambaugh) · filed 2015-05-14(5)

However, I think it is important to note that the Bankruptcy Code broadly defines the term “claim.” ... Based upon Pennsylvania law, I conclude that at least the plaintiff, Guy Stambaugh, has pled an enforceable, unliquidated claim for a surcharge against the Debtor.

Under § 101(5), each judgment creditor has a claim when each has an enforceable right to payment, even if they share one judgment.

In re Zapas · filed 2015-05-01(5)

The Court finds that the Judgment Creditors each have an enforceable “right to a payment” derived from the $656,683.15 default judgment issued by the state court. The judgment is an enforceable right to payment — a legal claim that has been reduced to judgment.

Under § 101(10), an insider guarantor who validly waives the right to payment from the debtor is not a creditor.

Creditors Comm Adamson Apparel v. Simon · filed 2015-05-06(10)

A person is a creditor only if he has a right to payment from the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). Here, Simon waived any such right at the insistence of CIT.

Section 101(31) lists categories of insiders but does not exclude creditors outside those categories from being found to be insiders.

Gordon v. Harrison (In re Alpha Protective Services, Inc.) · filed 2015-05-26(31)

However, the list of insiders provided in Section 101(31) is not exclusive and insider status may be found even if the creditor falls outside those categories listed in § 101(31).

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor or the estate; a claim belonging to limited partnerships does not make an individual partner a creditor.

Goldstein v. Diamond · filed 2015-05-11(10)

“Creditor” is defined by the Bankruptcy Code as an entity that has a claim against the debtor or his estate. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). ... Goldstein merely seeks to enforce a claim that belongs to the limited partnerships.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment; an enforceable obligation is needed before a debt can be declared nondischargeable.

Johnnie's Restaurant & Hotel Service, Inc. v. Witmer (In re Witmer) · filed 2015-11-20(5)(A), (12)

A debt is defined in § 101(12) as a liability on a claim. Claim means a “right to payment, whether or not reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” ... Without an enforceable obligation, there can be no debt under § 523(a) which can be nondis-chargeable.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment retained under state law within the definition of a claim, even when the statute of limitations bars collection.

Moses v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Moses) · filed 2015-11-25(5)(A)

Thus, the argument that a right to payment encompasses only legally enforceable debts does not comport with the definition of “claim” as set forth in the Code. LVNV’s proof of claim for a debt to which it maintains a right to payment, although collection of the debt is barred by the statute of limitations, was permissibly filed under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101 treats a right to payment under a state court judgment as a claim and its holder as a creditor.

Wolfe v. Rodriguez · filed 2015-12-02(5)(A), (10)(A)

According to the general provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a “creditor” includes an “entity that has a claim against the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. §101(10)(A). A “claim” is a “right to payment,” whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, disputed or undisputed, secured or unsecured, or liquidated or unliquidated. Id. § 101(5)(A). ... Based on this judgment, Wolfe was a creditor and a proper party in interest under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5)(A) requires a right to payment; a shareholder has no such right for a stock loss when the underlying claims belong to the corporation.

Vuksich v. Imaging3, Inc. (In Re Imaging3, Inc.) · filed 2015-12-17(5)(A)

Thus the bankruptcy court properly found that the claims belonged to the corporation, not Vuksich directly, see Grosset v. Wenaas, 42 Cal. 4th 1100, 1108 (2008), and he therefore had no “right to payment” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) for his stock loss.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly enough to include a right to payment on a time-barred debt.

Glenn v. Cavalry Investments LLC (In re Glenn) · filed 2016-01-05(5)

A “claim” is defined broadly in the Bankruptcy Code as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is ... disputed....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). There can be no question that creditors holding time-barred debts have claims within this definition.

Section 101(5) excludes an action for equitable rescission and reinstatement of a deed of trust when it seeks no payment and does not arise from the debtor’s breach of performance.

Union Bank, N.a., Resp. v. Daniel Glaefke, App. · filed 2016-01-19(5)

Johnson is of no help to Glaefke because the claim Union Bank asserts here is not a "right to payment" under subsection 101(5)(A) nor a "right to an equitable remedy" under subsection 101(5)(B).

Section 101(5) excludes a conversion claim from the definition of “claim” when it seeks neither payment nor an equitable remedy giving rise to payment.

Robert Kubicek Architects & Associates, Inc. v. Bashas' Inc. (In Re Bashas' Inc.) · filed 2016-01-29(5)

But RKAA’s conversion claim is not a “claim” under Chapter 11 because it doesn’t seek a “right to payment” or an “equitable remedy” giving “rise to a right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). Therefore, the bankruptcy court couldn’t have discharged this claim under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d).

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment whether or not reduced to judgment; a judgment is a claim.

In re International Oil Trading Co. · filed 2016-02-08(5)(A)

Under § 101(5)(A), a “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). A claim need not be reduced to judgment to support an involuntary petition. But, of course, a judgment is a claim.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment; a plausible state court judgment can establish such a right.

Symonies v. Sobol (In re Sobol) · filed 2016-02-08(5)(A)

Claim means a “right to payment, whether or not reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” ... I conclude that Symonies holds a facially plausible claim for an enforceable obligation under nonbankruptcy law.

Section 101(10) does not treat a trustee as a creditor when the trustee has no qualifying claim or right to payment.

In re Myers · filed 2016-02-26(10)

It is also clear that the Myers II Trustee does not fit the definition of a creditor since subsection (B) and (C) clearly do not apply to the Myers II Trustee. Further, the Myers II Trustee does not have a claim, i.e. a right to payment, that arose prior to the commencement of the 2000 Case.

A disputed or unliquidated right to payment can be a claim, and liability on that claim can be a debt.

Kondapalli v. Demasi · filed 2016-02-11(5)(A), (12)

A “debt” is defined as “liability on a claim,” and a “claim” means a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, ... unliquidated, [or] disputed.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), (12). Based on his success in the derivative action, Kondapalli has pleaded a plausible basis for DeMasi’s liability on a disputed claim.

A creditor must hold a claim against the debtor on the petition date; rights dependent on future conditions may not amount even to a contingent claim.

Zucker v. Wesbanco Bank, Inc. (In re Fairmont General Hospital, Inc.) · filed 2016-02-25(5), (10)(A)

As the definition makes clear, an entity must presently possess a claim against the debtor on the petition date in order to be a creditor.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment; a party challenging dischargeability must have a valid claim under nonbankruptcy law.

Skinner v. Skinner (In Re Skinner) · filed 2016-03-04(5)(A)

A “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code “is usually referring to a right to payment recognized under state law.” Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 451 (2007); see also 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) (defining a claim as a “right to payment”). Thus, only a party that has a valid claim under non-bankruptcy law has standing to challenge the dischargeability of that claim.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment as claims; a contingent claim arises when the underlying conduct occurs, even if it is asserted later.

Dold v. Rainbows United, Inc. (In re Rainbows United, Inc.) · filed 2016-03-04(5)(A)

A contingent claim arises at the time the conduct that causes it occurs, even if the claim is not asserted or does not actually accrue until later.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment, which includes Coal Act premiums.

United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund v. Walter Energy, Inc. · filed 2016-03-08(5)(A)

Coal Act premiums are a "right to payment,” and, thus, are a "claim" that may be disposed under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f).

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment; an assertion of property ownership alone is not a claim.

Jackson v. Jackson (In re Jackson) · filed 2016-04-11(5)

Section 727(a)(4)(B) encompasses bankruptcy “claims” as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) (i.e., rights to payments) rather than assertions, representations, and statements.

Section 101(5) includes contingent and unmatured rights to payment as claims, and the fair contemplation test determines when such claims arise.

In re City of Detroit · filed 2016-04-19(5)

And, as the above quoted definition of “claim” in Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code indicates, pre-petition claims that are “contingent” or “unmatured,” and thus not presently actionable, may be discharged. ... The Court will follow and apply the “fair contemplation test” here, because the Court concludes that it is the correct approach.

Section 101(5) treats a pawnbroker’s contingent right to payment under a pawn transaction as a claim.

Title Max v. Hurst (In re Northington) · filed 2016-04-29(5)

The filing of a Chapter 13 plan during the redemption period is only effective against a creditor if the creditor’s rights can be characterized as a claim under § 101. ... A pawn broker has a contingent right to payment. ... Therefore, a pawnbroker is a holder of a claim.

Section 101(5) includes a pawnbroker’s contingent right to payment under a pawn transaction within the definition of a claim.

Title Max v. Hurst (In re Wilber) · filed 2016-04-29(5)

Therefore, a pawnbroker is a holder of a claim. Title Max is a holder of a claim that may be modified by the Debtor through his Chapter 13 plan.

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

Diogo-Carreau v. American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. · filed 2016-03-10(5)(A)

“A ‘claim’ is broadly defined to include 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.’” Id. (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A)). ... Because of this unchallenged evidence that the old mortgage company knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plaintiff had a claim against them beginning in February 2007, well before the “free and clear” sale, the Court denies the defendants’ motion for summary judgment that they are immunized from suit based on the pre-bankrupt-cy actions of the old mortgage company.

Section 101(5)’s broad definition of a claim includes accrued prepetition interest on a debt, so that interest is nondischargeable when the underlying debt is nondischargeable.

Oregon v. Egbo (In re Egbo) · filed 2016-03-10(5)

“Claim” means the “right to payment whether or not the right has been reduced to judgment[.]” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... I agree with Plaintiff that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in failing to find' the interest on the debt owed to Plaintiff nondischargeable. Congress has already determined that the underlying debt is nondischargeable and has broadly defined “claim.”

Section 101(5)(A) includes a tax sale purchaser’s right to a redemption payment as a claim even when payment depends on the debtor electing to redeem.

In re Pittman · filed 2016-05-06(5)(A)

Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor Third Circuit law places any limitation on the concept of a “contingent” right to payment, and the fact that the Debtor is in control of the contingency here is of no moment. At the time of the Debtor’s filing, the Purchaser clearly had a right to payment of the redemption amount contingent upon whether the Debtor timely elected to redeem the Property. Once the contingency was triggered by the Debtor’s timely election to redeem the Property under her Plan, the Purchaser held an enforceable obligation against the Debtor for payment of the redemption amount secured by the underlying Property.

Section 101(5)'s definition of “claim” includes priority claims, including administrative expenses, without a prepetition or post-petition limit.

In re Cripps · filed 2016-05-13(5)

Because the definition of “claim” does not include a pre or post-petition qualifier, it includes priority claims, including administrative expenses.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment.

Kelley v. Opportunity Finance, LLC (In re Petters Co.) · filed 2016-05-19(5)

Partly by negative inference and partly by positive statutory prescription, a claim in. bankruptcy must be based on a right to payment, 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), that was enforceable pre-petition under an agreement or applicable nonbankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1), and was enforceable against the debtor that is in bankruptcy in the case in which the claim’s allowability is at issue, id.

Section 101(5) treats the redemption amount as a claim when a former owner retains property interests after a tax sale and must pay the purchaser to preserve them.

In re Gonzalez · filed 2016-05-19(5)

Whether the tax sale purchaser holds a bankruptcy claim depends upon whether the purchaser has a “right to payment.” See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... For these reasons, I conclude that, in a bankruptcy filed during the redemption period under 53 P.S. § 7293, the Redemption Amount is a bankruptcy “claim” that is subject to modification and treatment in a chapter 13 plan under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5).

A claim can include a time-barred debt when the underlying obligation remains, even if the creditor cannot obtain payment.

Brock v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. · filed 2016-05-24(5)(A)

We reject this argument, because the Code does allow claims in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding by a party who does not necessarily have a right to have his claim paid.

Section 101(5) includes contingent, unmatured, and unliquidated rights to payment within the definition of a claim.

In re Johns-Manville Corp. · filed 2016-06-30(5)

Per the Bankruptcy Code, a right to payment includes contingent, un-matured, and unliquidated claims. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5)(B) excludes a right to injunctive relief from the definition of a claim when neither the agreement nor applicable law provides a right to payment as an alternative.

In re Hurvitz · filed 2016-07-20(5)(B)

Because neither the franchise agreement nor state law provides a right to payment as an alternative to injunctive relief, I find that Blue-Grace’s rights to equitable relief to enforce the noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions of the franchise agreement do not constitute claims within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 101(5).

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment; a preference claim arises after the bankruptcy petition is filed.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Quantum Foods, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (In re Quantum Foods, LLC) · filed 2016-07-25(5)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “claim” as a “right to payment.” 25 A preference “right to payment,” or preference claim, necessarily arises 'only post-petition: The estate’s causes of action for the preferences did not exist before the filing of the Chapter 11 petition. If the Debtor had never filed bankruptcy, none of the preference actions could ever have been brought by anybody.... The fact that the trustee’s ability to recover a given transfer as a preference depends on prepetition actions is irrelevant. A preference action can only be initiated in the context of a bankruptcy case after the filing of a bankruptcy case.

Section 101(5) includes disputed and contingent rights to payment within the definition of a claim, even when a judgment is on appeal.

In re Wyly · filed 2016-06-29(5)

First, as noted above, the Bankruptcy Code defines the term “claim” very broadly to include claims that are disputed, un-liquidated, and/or contingent on the petition date. ... But, under even this highly favorable scenario to Sam, the SEC held, at a minimum, a disputed right to payment against.Sam for his alleged violations of Federal securities laws that was contingent and unliquidated on the date Sam filed his Case here.

Section 101(5) includes contingent claims arising from a debtor’s prepetition conduct even when claimants do not yet know of the underlying defect.

Elliott v. General Motors LLC · filed 2016-07-13(5)

The economic losses claimed by these individuals were “contingent” claims. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). That is, the ignition switch defect was there, but was not yet so patent that an individual could, as a practical matter, bring a case in court. The contingency standing in the way was Old GM telling plaintiffs that the ignition switch defect existed. In other words, Old GM’s creation of the ignition switch defect fairly gave rise to these claims, even if the claimants did not yet know.

A right to payment may be contingent under § 101(5)(A), but a void fee award gives the attorney no claim when the award is necessary to establish that right.

Jordahl v. Dyal (In re Jordahl) · filed 2016-08-08(5)(A)

A “claim” means “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). ... Because the hearing violated the automatic stay, thereby resulting in an order that is void, Dyal never became entitled to payment from Jordahl and thus has no claim.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a bankruptcy claim broadly enough to include a time-barred debt.

Robinson v. eCast Settlement Corporation · filed 2016-08-10(5)(A)

We therefore decline to adopt plaintiffs’ limited interpretation of “claim” and hold that a proof of claim on a time‐barred debt does not purport to be anything other than a claim subject to dispute in the bankruptcy case.

A time-barred debt is a claim when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt.

Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC · filed 2016-08-25(5)(A)

Accordingly, we conclude that when the statute of limitations does not extinguish debts, a time-barred debt falls within the Bankruptcy Code’s broad definition of a claim.

Advances recharacterized as equity contributions do not give rise to a claim for repayment.

Hartford Holdings, LLC v. Mladen (In re Eternal Enterprise, Inc.) · filed 2016-09-16(5)

As explained below, because the court finds that the Purported Loans should be recharac-terized as equity contributions, the money advanced by the Mladens does not form the basis of a claim that could be subject to equitable subordination pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 510(c).

Section 101(5)(A)’s definition of a claim includes a mortgagee’s claim against the debtor’s property even when the mortgage also secures a former spouse’s obligation.

In re Mensahnarh · filed 2016-09-23(5)(A)

The clear statutory language of §§ 101(5), 102(2), and 502(b)(1), further crystalized by the holdings of the Supreme Court in Johnson and Davenport, lead to the inescapable conclusion that the in rem claim as to the Ex-Husband is an “allowable claim” sufficient to trigger the ability to modify pursuant to § 506(a).

Section 101(10)(A) treats an entity with a prepetition right to payment from the debtor as a creditor, even when payment depends on a future recovery.

Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc. v. Anderson · filed 2016-08-12(10)(A)

This right to payment existed at the time Anderson filed for bankruptcy. BCBS therefore “has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor” and is a creditor of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 101(5)(B) treats an equitable remedy as a claim when it creates a right to payment from the bankruptcy estate.

Secure Leverage Group, Inc. v. Bodenstein · filed 2016-08-15(5)(B)

Thus, if the equitable remedy — such as the imposition of a trust — creates a right to repayment from the estate, that right is categorized as a “claim” under section 101(5)(B).

An equitable remedy enforcing a non-compete agreement may be a claim if compliance requires payment or breach gives rise to money damages.

Innerwood & Co. v. Privett (In re Privett) · filed 2016-09-08(5)(B)

Applying these holdings to this case, the Court cannot determine whether Privett’s obligations under the non-compete agreement and the preliminary injunction are claims automatically stayed pursuant to § 362 without further factfinding. Such factfinding is more appropriately conducted by the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court must determine (1) whether Privett is required to expend money to comply with her obligations under the non-compete agreements or the preliminary injunction order and (2) whether Privett is subject to money damages for breach of the non-compete agreements or the preliminary injunction order.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment; whether a debt exists depends on an enforceable obligation under applicable law.

Thompson v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · filed 2016-08-19(5)(A), (12)

“Debt” is defined in the Code as “liability on a claim,” 40 and “claim” is defined in turn as a “right to payment.” 41 For purposes of § 523(a)(2)(A), “debt” means liability on “an enforceable obligation.” 42 Whether a debt exists is determined by looking to applicable law, frequently state law.

Section 101 treats a debtor’s potential personal liability for violating a citation as a debt that can be tested for dischargeability.

Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Van Der Laan (In re Van Der Laan) · filed 2016-08-24(5), (12)

For dischargeability purposes, the record in this proceeding conclusively shows that Van Der Laan owes a “debt” which may be determined to be nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a). See 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5), (12), 523(a), 524(a).

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

Conti v. Coastal Warranty, LLC (In re NC & VA Warranty Co.) · filed 2016-08-19(5)(A)

Although this was a contingent claim, the Code specifically defines the term “claim” to include contingent rights to payment. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). Coastal Warranty would have been able to file a claim in NCVA’s bankruptcy case for the amount of any profit it was owed. Therefore, Coastal Warranty was a creditor for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 547.

A contractual right to attorneys’ fees can be a contingent claim before the fees are incurred when the parties can fairly contemplate the claim.

Picerne Construction Corp. v. Castellino Villas, A. K. F. LLC (In Re Castellino Villas, A. K. F. LLC) · filed 2016-09-06(5)

Because Picerne and Castellino had entered into a contract with an attorneys’ fees provision, and Picerne commenced an action under that contract against Castellino in state court before Castellino filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Picerne’s contingent claim for attorneys’ fees arose before both the filing of Castellino’s bankruptcy petition and the confirmation of Castellino’s plan.

Section 101(5) includes contingent rights to post-petition attorney’s fees under a pre-petition contract; those claims arise when the contract is executed.

Rescap Liquidating Trust v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (In re Residential Capital, LLC) · filed 2016-09-21(5)

The appellees’ Counterclaims for attorney’s fees are just that, unsecured contingent claims for post-petition fees that were within the contemplation of the parties at the time of pre-petition contract execution. The Counterclaims therefore accrued upon the execution of each Contract, years prior to the Petition Date.

A title pawnbroker with a lien and a right to payment when a debtor files bankruptcy has a claim and is a creditor under § 101.

Max v. Northington · filed 2016-10-27(5)(A), (10)(A)

As of each debtor’s petit ion date, Title Max had the right to be repaid pursuant to the title pawn agreements or to obtain full title to the vehicle if the required payments were not made. Thus, Title Max was a “creditor” with a “claim” against each debtor within the meaning of ... the bankruptcy code because Title Max held a lien on each debtor’s vehicle “for the money advanced, interest, and pawnshop charge owed.”

Section 101 defines debt as liability on a claim, including a right to payment for fraud-related penalties and collection fees.

Colorado v. Wine (In re Wine) · filed 2016-09-30(5)(A), (12)

And, the Bankruptcy Code defines the term “debt” to mean “liability on a claim” including a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5)(A) and (12). ... Based on a plain reading of Section 528(a)(2)(A) and the CESA, and accepting the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint as true, the State adequately alleges a claim for payment against the Debtor for overpaid unemployment compensation, statutory penalties, and collection fees in the amount of $18,452.93. That is the amount of the debt.

A claim can exist when bankruptcy is filed even if the right to payment is contingent or unmatured.

Baroni v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Baroni) · filed 2016-09-30(5)(A)

Whether a claim exists generally is determined as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, irrespective of whether the claim is contingent or unmatured at the time.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent and unmatured rights to payment in the definition of a claim, even when a breach occurs after the petition date.

In re Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc. · filed 2016-10-06(5)(A)

These rights to payment included in the D & O Administrative Claims were all contingent, unmatured, or matured claims as of the Petition Date. Even if an alleged breach occurred after the Petition Date, any damages occasioned by the breach must be treated as a prepetition, general unsecured claim.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment that exists even if no proof of claim has been filed.

Reed v. Zwick (In re Reed) · filed 2016-09-30(5)

Claims and proofs of claim are not the same thing. A claim is recognized by the Bankruptcy Code itself, defined, in relevant part, as a “right to payment,, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliqui-dated, fixed, contingent, matured, unma-tured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equita-ble, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). A proof of claim is a creation of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Proce-dure, not the Bankruptcy Code, and is simply “a written statement setting forth a creditor’s claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). Therefore, even without any proof of claim,- Navient still harbors a claim against the estate as well as against the Debtors..

Section 101(5) does not treat a request to correct a DAC Report as a claim.

In re Altegrity, Inc. · filed 2016-11-28(5)

All of the relief he seeks in the non-bankruptcy for a has been discharged by virtue of the Confirmation Order and section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code, other than the ability to obtain a correction of his DAC Report, which is not a “claim” as that term is used in section 101(5).

A claim concerning the division of marital property arises before bankruptcy when the parties could fairly contemplate it then, even if the payment obligation is ordered later.

Trimble v. Trimble · filed 2016-12-02(5)

In sum, we hold that the “fair contemplation” test applies in Kentucky in determining when a debt accrues when an order distributing property is entered after a discharge in bankruptcy.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor that arose at or before the order for relief.

Rentas v. Gomez (In re Indrescom Security Technology Inc.) · filed 2016-10-04(10)

After considering the same, this court concludes that the Trustee has failed to prove that the Defendant was a creditor with a claim against the Debtor.

Section 101(5)(B) does not require converting a buyer’s right to specific performance into a monetary claim when the contract is not executory and the debtor filed bankruptcy to evade performance.

Baerg Real Prop. Trust v. Garland Solution, LLC (In re Baerg Real Prop. Trust) · filed 2018-03-30(5)(B)

As such, Kovacs and the legislative history serve as dicta, and specific performance should be enforced rather than converted to a "claim" under § 101(5)(B).

An entity with a right to payment from the debtor has a claim and qualifies as a creditor.

Woide v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2018-04-05(10)(A), (5)(A)

In the bankruptcy proceeding, Fannie Mae’s servicer filed a proof of claim on its behalf alleging an interest in the Woides’ home and attaching the mortgage note it holds. This establishes Fannie Mae as a “creditor” and therefore a “party in interest” with a right to be heard in the Woides’ bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A) (defining “creditor” as an “entity that has a claim against the debtor”); § 101(5)(A) (defining “claim” as a “right to payment”).

An insurer owed a premium on the petition date has a claim and is a creditor under § 101.

Veros Energy, LLC v. GCube Ins. Servs., Inc. (In re Veros Energy, LLC) · filed 2018-04-26(5)(A), (10)

Pursuant to the Certificate, GCube held a claim against Veros on the Petition date for the premium due, and, therefore, was a creditor of the Estate on the Petition date.

Section 101(5)(A) defines “claim” broadly enough to include rights to payment for which a debtor is jointly or secondarily liable.

In re Packer · filed 2018-06-19(5)(A)

Given the broad statutory definition of "claim," the Debtors are required to list in their schedules claims on which they were only jointly or secondarily liable as well as their sole or primary indebtedness.

Section 101 treats an entity with a disputed claim against a debtor as a creditor.

Small v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New Haven, Inc. · filed 2018-07-05(5)(A), (10)(A)

The term "creditor" is broadly defined in turn to include any "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). And the term "claim" is defined in relevant part to include 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). ... It is apparent to me that Neighborhood Housing had a claim (albeit a disputed one) against at least Leigh Small.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to future condominium assessments within the definition of a claim, even when payment is contingent and unmatured.

Penny Goudelock v. Sixty-01 Ass'n of Apt. Owners · filed 2018-07-10(5)(A)

Thus, the obligation to pay CA assessments is a debt since it creates a right to payment.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a quantum meruit claim even if it is contingent, disputed, unmatured, or equitable.

Gold v. Myers Controlled Power, LLC (In re Truland Grp., Inc.) · filed 2018-07-23(5)(A)

The point is that Myers had a claim in quantum meruit against TWST that may have been "contingent," "disputed," "unmatured" or "equitable" within the broad definition of a claim under Section 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101 treats a right to payment as a claim even if it is contingent or unliquidated, and the resulting debt arises when that right exists.

Berg v. Soc. SEC. Admin. · filed 2018-08-17(5)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, it does not matter if that right to payment is “reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” The claim, and therefore the debt, accrue as soon as there is a right to benefits, a date determined in this instance by the Social Security Act itself.

A claim includes a right to payment that remains outstanding when a creditor agrees to accept less in satisfaction of it.

COMM 2013 CCRE12 Crossings Mall Road, LLC v. Tara Retail Group, LLC · filed 2018-08-30(5)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a “claim” as a “right to payment” or a “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such ... breach gives rise to a right of payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... In other words, the proposed plan and creditors’ votes are part of settling the allowed claims, which will still constitute rights to payment at the time that creditors vote on Tara Retail’s plan.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment or a qualifying right to an equitable remedy; an allowed claim remains a right to payment until the agreed settlement is satisfied.

Comm 2013 CCRE12 Crossings Mall Rd., LLC v. Tara Retail Grp., LLC · filed 2018-08-30(5)

The Bankruptcy Code defines a "claim" as a "right to payment" or a "right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right of payment." ... In other words, the proposed plan and creditors' votes are part of settling the allowed claims, which will still constitute rights to payment at the time that creditors vote on Tara Retail's plan.

Section 101(10) treats an entity with a claim arising when the bankruptcy petition is filed as a creditor.

In re Seaman · filed 2018-09-06(10)

Nevertheless, the court agrees with the Former Partners that they hold a "claim" that arose at the time of the bankruptcy filing, which makes them "creditors" under § 101(10).

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

Town of Hingham v. Sirikanjanachai (In re Sirikanjanachai) · filed 2018-11-07(5)(B)

Accordingly, I hold that the Town's right to the remedy of specific performance in its judgment against the Debtor is, though a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance, not one for a breach that gives rise to a right to payment. Accordingly, this right is not a claim under part (B) of the definition in § 101(5).

Section 101 requires a claim to exist before the debtor files a bankruptcy petition, but a creditor may acquire an interest in that claim later.

Lynch v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2018-11-15(5), (10)(A)

Under these definitions, the claim itself (the right to either payment or an equitable remedy) must exist before the debtor’s voluntary petition—not a particular creditor’s interest in the claim.

A disputed right to payment or an equitable remedy can be a claim under § 101(5), and its holder can be a creditor under § 101(10).

In re Horton · filed 2019-01-08(5), (10)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), the term "claim" includes a right to payment or right to an equitable remedy even if that right is disputed. Wilmington Savings is the holder of its claim of a right to foreclose, and thus a creditor as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10).

A contractual right to attorney's fees is a contingent claim from the date of the contract, even if the fees are awarded after the bankruptcy petition.

In re Paxton · filed 2019-01-29(5)(A)

If the relevant contract has an attorney's fee provision, as does the Lease, then an award of attorney's fees based on that contract constitutes a contingent claim as of the date of the contract. In this case, Mr. Quinlan's claims arose from the Lease and are, therefore, prepetition claims. It does not matter that Mr. Quinlan's attorney's fees were awarded post-petition.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment in the definition of a claim, including a contractual right to attorneys’ fees incurred after the bankruptcy petition.

Summitbridge Nat'l Invs. III, LLC v. Faison · filed 2019-02-08(5)(A)

But the Code defines “claim” broadly, and expressly includes “right[s] to payment” that are “contingent.”

Section 101 defines a claim as a right to payment and a debt as liability on a claim; advances that create no right to payment create no debt.

Simon v. Short (In re Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., L.L.C.) · filed 2019-02-01(5), (12)

As such, Plaintiff has established that there exists no right to payment under Michigan law for these remaining Advances. With no right to payment, Defendant does not have a "claim", and in turn, no "debt" as defined under §§ 101(12) and 101(5), respectively.

Section 101 treats a prepetition domestic relations property division award as a debt of the debtor.

In re Lawrence Wohleber, Jr. · filed 2019-03-04(5), (12)

A property division awarded in a domestic relations case prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition is a debt of the debtor.

Under § 101(5) and (12), a property division awarded before a bankruptcy petition is a debt of the debtor.

Wohleber v. Skurko (In re Wohleber) · filed 2019-03-04(5), (12)

A property division awarded in a domestic relations case prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition is a debt of the debtor.

An alleged prepetition right to payment for property damage is a claim under section 101(5) for purposes of standing to seek reopening.

Andrew F Dawson · filed 2019-03-13(5)

Based upon this allegation–that the Movant is owed a prepetition debt for damage to the Home–the Court finds the Movant alleges a right to payment and therefore articulates a claim as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101(5) includes contingent, disputed, and unliquidated claims, but a claim must rest on a legally cognizable and enforceable obligation against the debtor.

Girouard v. Cestaro (In re Cestaro) · filed 2019-03-14(5)

While the concept of a "claim" in bankruptcy is quite broad, including as it does claims that are contingent, disputed or unliquidated, a claim must at least be a legally cognizable and enforceable obligation against the debtor.

Section 101(5)(B) treats a right to equitable relief as a claim when the same breach also gives rise to a right to payment.

Cnty. of San Mateo v. Peabody Energy Corp. (In re Peabody Energy Corp.) · filed 2019-03-29(5)(B)

In this case, the same alleged breach of California's public nuisance statute did indeed give rise to both equitable relief and a right to payment for these Appellants. Under the Bankruptcy Code, the equitable relief they seek is therefore a claim.

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

In re Manhattan Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Inc. · filed 2019-04-03(5)(A)

At most, the Fund's arguments suggest that a withdrawal liability was not fully matured and liquidated at the time of the bar date and perhaps that there were very slight contingencies as to whether the liability would be triggered or negated. But claims are still claims regardless of whether there are contingencies and regardless of whether the claims are fully matured and liquidated.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent, unliquidated rights to payment under a guaranty in the definition of a claim.

In re Taj Graphics Enters., LLC · filed 2019-04-19(5)(A)

The claim was contingent upon K & B failing to repay its loans from Prime when due, something that had not yet happened; and the claim was unliquidated because the amount of the Debtor's liability could not be known unless and until the foregoing contingency occurred.

Section 101(5)(B) includes a tax purchaser’s equitable right to seek a tax deed within the definition of a claim.

In re Woodruff · filed 2019-04-30(5)(B)

Such equitable remedies are claims within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B) (claims include "a right to an equitable remedy").

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

In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. · filed 2019-05-08(5)(A)

The Code provides that a “claim” is any “right to payment, whether or not such right is . . . fixed, contingent, matured, [or] unmatured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A); see also SPV Osus Ltd., 882 F.3d at 341 (“[A]n indemnification right arises at the time the indemnification agreement is executed, and it constitutes a claim under the Bankruptcy Code even if the act giving rise to indemnification has not yet occurred.”). Accordingly, LBHI’s claims were preserved by the Plan.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment that depends on a future event within its definition of a contingent claim.

In re Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2019-03-22(5)(A)

Because American Axle's right to payment depends on a subsequent event, namely, American Axle's eventual liability for cleanup costs, its claim falls within the definition of a contingent claim.

Section 101(5) treats a potential tort cause of action as a contingent claim when it satisfies the fair contemplation test.

Gillispie v. Wilmington Trust Co. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.) · filed 2019-03-27(5)

The Court agrees with the weight of lower court authority in this circuit that the fair contemplation test, rather than the discredited standard articulated in In re M. Frenville Co., is the appropriate analytical template for the determination of whether a potential tort cause of action is a contingent "claim" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim; a final judgment is not required.

In re Collins · filed 2019-03-27(10)

In Beal Bank, the court's use of "creditor" referred to parties with a final judgment (i.e., the actual ability to levy or attach property), whereas, under Title 11, a "creditor" is simply a party ... "that has a claim."

Section 101(10) treats the entity with the right to enforce a debtor’s obligation as the creditor, even when it collects payment for someone else.

Alisha Pate v. Tow · filed 2019-04-23(10)

The 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). ... Thus, the Department is the creditor because it has the right to enforce Pate and Clark-Thigpen’s child support obligations against Clark.

Section 101(5)(A) includes untriggered withdrawal liability as a claim when the debtor is certain to withdraw from the pension fund during its Chapter 11 case before plan confirmation.

In re K&D Indus. Servs. Holding Co. · filed 2019-05-16(5)(A)

The Court does not read CPT Holdings as controlling this case or as preventing the Court from holding that currently untriggered withdrawal liability is a claim in this case under § 101(5)(A) where the Debtors are indisputably selling all assets, ceasing all business operations, and triggering the withdrawal liability during the Chapter 11 cases prior to any order confirming a plan. The Court holds, on the facts of this case, that the Pension Fund does hold a claim for withdrawal liability.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment; payments do not create a debt without an enforceable obligation owed to the payor.

Smith v. Kinzer · filed 2019-05-22(5), (12)

A “debt” is statutorily defined as liability on a claim, which is in turn defined as a right to payment. ... There is no debt, therefore it is not necessary for the court to wade into the “palimony” argument raised by Defendant.

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

ERNEST WOODROW BARSTAD · filed 2019-06-12(5)(B)

This equitable remedy is not a “claim” under § 101(5)(B). Consequently, Davidson and Ide are not “creditors” as defined under § 101(10)(A), and this raises a barrier to relief under § 547(b)(1).

An equitable remedy for breach is a claim under § 101(5)(B) only if the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

DAVIDSON v. BARSTAD · filed 2019-06-12(5)(B)

Under this definition, the right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance is a “claim” only if the underlying breach gives rise to a right to payment.

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

Mitsuwa Corp. v. Orama Hospitality Grp., Ltd. (In re Orama Hospitality Grp., Ltd.) · filed 2019-06-13(5)(B)

Reading these relevant provisions of the Code together, the state law equitable remedy of specific performance falls within the Code's definition of a "claim" and the Bankruptcy Code gives the non-debtor party a "claim" when a debtor rejects its executory contract.

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity holding a claim against the debtor, so a nondebtor’s creditors are not the debtor’s creditors.

Graves Farms · filed 2019-07-26(10)(A)

“Creditors” are entities holding claims “against the debtor” that arose before the order for relief.35 Claims that are “unenforceable against the debtor and the property of the debtor” are disallowed.36 Kylee’s creditors are not these debtors’ creditors.

A creditor must hold a claim against the debtor; a third party’s creditors are not the debtor’s creditors.

Harold Dean Graves and Karen Lynn Graves · filed 2019-07-26(10)(A)

“Creditors” are entities holding claims “against the debtor” that arose before the order for relief. ... Kylee’s creditors are not these debtors’ creditors.

Section 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a prepetition claim against the debtor; a nondebtor’s creditors do not qualify as the debtor’s creditors.

Michael Keith Graves and Rachelle Rae Graves · filed 2019-07-26(10)(A)

“Creditors” are entities holding claims “against the debtor” that arose before the order for relief.35 ... Kylee’s creditors are not these debtors’ creditors.