11 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim, and a claim includes an unliquidated right to payment.

Heslin v. Jones · filed 2023-10-19(5), (12)

A “debt” is a “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). And a “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed . . . .” § 101(5). Based on these findings, Heslin and Lewis have a right to payment based on liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6).

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment, whose existence generally depends on nonbankruptcy law.

Lori Ann Lambert · filed 2023-10-06(5)

In other words, whether a creditor has a “right to payment” from a bankruptcy debtor remains a matter of nonbankruptcy law, not a function of an administrative reporting requirement.

Section 101(5) includes a creditor’s claim against a debtor’s property even when the debtor has no personal liability for the debt.

Arthur Joseph Stevenson · filed 2023-11-08(5)

For the reasons stated herein, the Court holds that, even in the absence of in personam liability against the Debtor, Wesbanco’s in rem claim against the Property is a “claim” for purposes of section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code and can be cured through the Debtor’s Plan in accordance with section 1322(b)(2), (3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5)(A) includes an unfixed tax obligation as a claim when the taxpayer realizes taxable gain.

Perkins, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bamberger · filed 2023-11-20(5)(A)

To require that a tax liability be “fixed” ignores the statutory definition of “claim” that specifically encompasses debts that are not fixed.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment or an equitable remedy; that definition does not govern a debtor’s cause of action disclosed as estate property.

Todd v. Quin · filed 2023-11-30(5)

The Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “claim” does not apply. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), (B) (defining “claim” as a “right to payment” or a “right to an equitable remedy,” impliedly belonging to a creditor); see also Cantu v. Schmidt (In re Cantu), 784 F.3d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing between “claim” as defined in § 101(5) and cause of action that is property of the estate under § 541).

Section 101(5) includes future rent in a landlord’s claim even when the rent is unmatured or contingent.

6525 Belcrest Road, LLC · filed 2023-12-07(5)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the landlord’s “claim” for lost rents as of the petition date includes all future rents, regardless of whether those future rent claims were matured or contingent. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Under § 101(5)(A), a continuing guaranty does not create a claim for future extensions of credit that have not yet been committed to.

Dulles Elec. & Supply Corp. v. Shaffer (In re Shaffer) · filed 2018-02-27(5)(A)

For these reasons, the continuing guaranty signed prepetition, while establishing a right to payment on current or committed rights to payment, did not create the liability for extensions of credit yet to be entered into or contemplated.

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor and defines a claim to include a right to payment.

Basson v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2018-02-20(10)(A), (5)(A)

Based on those allegations and the supporting documents, see Hollywood Mobile Estates, 641 F.3d at 1265, Fannie Mae had a “claim” against Basson, which makes it a “creditor,” see 11 U.S.C. § 101(10)(A), (5)(A).

Section 101(5) includes a tax sale purchaser’s right to payment of a redemption amount or to the debtor’s forfeiture of remaining property rights within its definition of a claim.

In re Alexander · filed 2017-11-13(5)

WCR Project has a right to payment of the Redemption Amount, or the equitable remedy of the Debtor forfeiting all remaining rights in the Property to WCR Project, and therefore it holds a claim for the Redemption Amount in this case as defined by § 101(5), secured by the Property.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment or an equitable remedy for breach that gives rise to a right to payment; an extinguished right to foreclose is not a claim.

Heaney v. Lamento (In re Whiz Kids Development, LLC) · filed 2017-11-17(5)

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, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) and (B). Lamento filed the Land Court Action to foreclose the Debtor’s right of redemption to confer title to the property in himself. He was not seeking a right to payment but, rather, a right to the equitable remedy of foreclosure. ... Lamento’s “right” to the equitable remedy of foreclosure of the right of redemption was not “fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured” but had been extinguished by the Sale.

A future tort claim requires a relationship between the debtor’s conduct and an identifiable claimant; releasing contaminants alone does not establish one.

United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Adams (In re United States Pipe & Foundry Co.) · filed 2017-11-07(5)

The Court rejects the argument that Debtor’s discharge of harmful chemicals into the air, water or soil since 1911, by itself, created the necessary relationship of conduct to identifiable claimant, as required by the Piper test. Defendants did not have claims prior to the Confirmation Order.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent claims arising from prepetition conduct even when the claimant could not yet bring a lawsuit under nonbankruptcy law.

In re Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2017-10-18(5)(A)

It follows that Gillispie’s civil claims are contingent claims within the meaning of section 101(5)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. To preserve the claims in this bankruptcy case, Gillispie had to file a proof of claim before the Bar Date.

Section 101(5) does not treat a revocable prepetition guaranty as a claim for purchases made after the bankruptcy petition; the right to payment arises from the later obligation and breach.

Graybar Electric Co. v. Brand (In re Brand) · filed 2017-09-19(5)

These acts that constituted the breach of the contract are the relevant conduct for purposes of determining when a right to payment arises.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent rights to payment as claims, so a contribution claim can arise when joint liability is incurred even if the right to sue matures later.

Hardegger v. Clark · filed 2017-10-02(5)(A)

“Claim,” in turn, is broadly defined to mean “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). ... Accordingly, we conclude that Hardegger’s contribution claim arose for bankruptcy purposes when C2H2 and its responsible officers incurred tax liability for which Hardegger and Clark were jointly and severally responsible and that, therefore, Hardegger’s contribution claim was a pre-petition claim.

Section 101(5)(A)'s definition of a claim includes a right to payment even when the statute of limitations bars its enforcement.

Casamatta v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (In re Freeman-Clay) · filed 2017-09-01(5)(A)

Initially, the UST suggests that claims barred by the statute of limitations are- not claims at all and not entitled to be filed under § 501. ... This argument has been almost universally rejected.

A restrictive covenant creating a nonmonetary obligation attached to property is not a bankruptcy claim.

Am. Standard Energy, Corp. v. Geronimo Holding Corp. (In re Am. Standard Energy, Corp.) · filed 2017-08-08(5)(B)

A restrictive covenant that creates a non-monetary obligation that attaches to a property interest is not a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code.

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

Holzhueter v. Groth (In re Holzhueter) · filed 2017-10-18(5)

The Code further defines the term “claim” as a “right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... In sum, the Defendants have failed to create a prima facie showing that they hold enforceable claims against Plaintiff and their claims will be disallowed under section 502.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly, but a claim must be tied to a right to payment owed by the debtor.

In re W.O.L.F. · filed 2017-07-25(5)

Nevertheless, it must remain tethered to a right to payment—a debt or an obligation—owed by the debtor to another entity.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include a right to payment that is contingent, unliquidated, or disputed.

Hackerman v. Demeza (In re Demeza) · filed 2017-07-28(5)(A)

The term “claim” includes “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, uniqatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured; ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A); In re Grossman’s Inc., 607 F.3d 114, 121 (3d Cir. 2010); In re Orleans Home Builders, Inc., 2017 WL 665953, at *6 (Bankr. D.Del., Feb. 17, 2017). ... Based upon the above two factors, I conclude that Creditor has an allowable claim against the Debtor.

Section 101(10) treats a person with a prepetition claim as a creditor, even when the debt arose from alleged fraud.

Brothers v. Maddox (In re Maddox) · filed 2017-07-21(10)

The term creditor is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as an entity that holds 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). ... There is no genuine issue of fact about whether listing Plaintiff as a creditor was a false oath. It is a true and accurate statement.

An entity with a disputed claim is a creditor under § 101.

Rhett Sears v. Korley Sears · filed 2017-07-18(5), (10)

Whether the Searses’ claims should have been allowed is distinct from whether the Searses were creditors. A creditor is an entity that has a claim, and a disputed claim is still a claim.

A claim requires a right to payment; a contract requiring advance payment did not give the seller that right before it began work.

Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC v. Kadant Solutions Division (In re NewPage Corp.) · filed 2017-07-12(5)

A claim is a “right to payment,” regardless of whether that right is fixed, contingent, matured, or unsecured. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... Because the contract required prepayment, no right to payment was triggered until after Kadant began work.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and a claim as a right to payment or an equitable remedy for breach of performance; a property ownership interest is distinct from both.

In re Jeffers · filed 2017-06-30(5), (12)

“The term debt means liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C, § 101(12), Claims are a “right to payment” or “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). While claims are defined broadly, they are distinct from property rights.

A person with a prepetition claim arising from a debtor’s misrepresentation is a creditor even without a judgment.

Grassmann v. Brown (In re Brown) · filed 2017-06-23(5)(A), (10)(A)

Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants arose at the time of their discovery of the misrepresentation and conveyance via the faulty deed and, therefore, Plaintiffs are pife-petition creditors of Defendants.

Section 101(5)(A) treats a right to payment as a claim whether or not it has been reduced to judgment.

Allen v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2017-04-18(5)(A)

The plain language of the Code makes clear 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.

A right to payment from a debtor’s interest in jointly owned property is a claim against the debtor; a right to payment from only the nondebtor co-owner’s interest is not.

In re Flournoy · filed 2017-03-31(5)

A “claim” is, among other things, a “right to payment” from the debtor or from the debtor’s property. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), (B). ... As a result, Credit Acceptance’s right to collect Flournoy’s—and Shaw’s—obligation from Flournoy’s interest in the Durango is a “claim” against Flournoy under the Bankruptcy Code. ... Credit Acceptance’s right to collect the debt from Shaw’s interest in the Durango is not a claim against Flournoy or against Flournoy’s property.

Section 101(5) includes contingent rights under a prepetition indemnification contract as claims, even if the resulting obligations arise after confirmation.

In re G-I Holdings, Inc. · filed 2017-05-01(5)

Therefore, if the contract was executed prior to the petition date, any damages arising from the contract constitute “claims” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code and are therefore subject to discharge.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment in the definition of a claim even if the claim is unenforceable because the limitations period has expired.

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson · filed 2017-05-15(5)(A)

Yet this section makes clear that the unenforceable claim is nonetheless a “right to payment,” hence a “claim,” as the Code uses those terms.

Section 101(5) limits the claims a bankruptcy court may bar to rights to payment that arose before the petition or resulted from prepetition conduct fairly giving rise to the claim.

In re Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2017-06-07(5)

Accordingly, it is clear that for both due process reasons and to comport with section 101(5)’s definition of “claim,” a bankruptcy court may only bar claims that, in the words of the Second Circuit, “arise from a (1) right to payment (2) that arose before the filing of the petition or resulted from pre-petition conduct fairly giving rise to the claim,” Motors Liquidation III, 829 F.3d at 156.

Section 101(5) includes contingent future claims arising from performance bonds.

In re Kimball Hill, Inc. · filed 2017-03-20(5)

Those future claims are claims within the meaning of section 101(5) and thus are also within the meaning of Claims under the Plan.

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

National Lumber Co. v. Reardon (In re Reardon) · filed 2017-04-05(5)(A)

“Claim” thus includes even rights to payment that are contingent.

Section 101(5) includes a tax purchaser’s Certificate of Purchase as a claim against the debtor’s estate when the debtor files before the redemption period expires.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Wheeler Financial, Inc. (In re Aguirre) · filed 2017-01-23(5)

When the Debtors filed their Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on June 30, 2014, Wheeler’s Certificate of Purchase entitled it to a claim against the Debtors’ estate. See id. at 409; see also 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5) includes a tax sale purchaser’s right to the redemption payment, or to forfeiture of the debtor’s remaining property rights, within the definition of a claim.

In re Jimerson · filed 2017-01-26(5)

From the Debtor’s perspective, the Debtor holds the Property subject to an obligation to pay the Redemption Amount or forfeit all of its remaining rights to the Property, and therefore, as the court in Scorpion found, Deed Co has a claim secured by a lien.

Section 101(5) includes a former spouse’s contingent claim arising from enforceable divorce stipulations requiring the debtor to pay a joint mortgage, even without an express hold harmless clause.

In re Arias Nussa · filed 2017-01-13(5)

Accordingly, the court finds that Ms. Montaner has at least contingent “claim” against the Debtor which arises out of the property settlement.

Section 101 treats an entity with a disputed prepetition claim as a creditor, so it need not prove the claim’s validity before objecting to discharge.

Sears v. Sears · filed 2015-09-21(5)(A), (10)(A)

Appellees were not required to prove the validity of their claims in order to have standing to object to Appellant’s discharge. Section 727(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[t]he trustee, a creditor, or the United States trustee may object to the granting of a discharge under subsection (a) of this section.” 11 U.S.C. § 727(c)(1). A “creditor” is 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).

Section 101(5)(A) includes disputed, contingent, unliquidated, and unmatured debts within the definition of a claim, supporting their disclosure in bankruptcy schedules without reviving stale debts.

In re Vaughn · filed 2015-09-03(5)(A)

Second, the definition of the term “claim” as including unliquidated, contingent, unmatured, or disputed debts supports the idea of a need for full disclosure. The effect of reviving stale debts simply by including them in the lists would be to permit a creditor who slept on enforcement of its rights to have those rights revived by a debtor seeking relief from debt under federal law and acting consistent with a mandate of full disclosure.

Section 101(5) includes a debtor’s obligation to make a rescission payment within the definition of a claim.

In re Brown · filed 2015-09-21(5)

In fact, the debtor has a further obligation upon giving notice of rescission and that is to make the appropriate rescission payment. This obligation is a claim in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

A debtor’s promise to convey property in exchange for another person’s payment of property taxes creates a claim against the debtor.

Byman v. Denson (In re Edwards) · filed 2015-09-01(5)

A “claim” 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; or 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). The Court finds that the Agreement Regarding San Jacinto County created a claim against the Debtor in' favor of Ms. Washington.

A claim includes a mortgage enforceable against the debtor’s property even when the debtor has no personal liability on the note.

In re Sandrin · filed 2015-08-28(5)

Finally, the fact that the Debtor bears no personal liability with respect to the Note does not affect Thomas’s status as a creditor in this case because he has a mortgage claim against the Debtor’s Residence.

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

Saint Catherine Hospital of Indiana, LLC v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration · filed 2015-08-28(5)(A)

And as noted above, the Code’s definition of “claim” explicitly includes any “right to pay- ment, whether or not such right is … contingent” upon some future event, which may or may not happen after the filing of a bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(10)(A) requires an entity to have its own claim against the debtor to qualify as a creditor; a trustee cannot qualify solely through claims belonging to the estate’s creditors.

Simon v. Miller (In re Miller Parking Co.) · filed 2015-07-21(10)(A)

But the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “creditor” shows that the Bruce Miller bankruptcy, estate trustee does not qualify as a “creditor,” because he concedes that Bruce Miller himself had no “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).

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly enough to include a right to payment that arises before bankruptcy even if payment remains contingent.

Trevino v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (In re Trevino) · filed 2015-06-19(5)(A)

Although the Court rejects the Trevino’s assertion that the claim arose as soon as the tax lien arose on January 1, 2010, they are nevertheless correct that the claim arose pre-petition. ... The definition of claim is as broad as possible.

Section 101(5)(A) broadly defines a claim to include contingent rights to payment; a claim can arise before payment becomes due.

Trevino v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (In re Trevino) · filed 2015-07-31(5)(A)

Although the Court rejects the Trevino’s assertion that the claim arose as soon as the tax lien arose on January 1, 2010, they are nevertheless correct that the claim arose pre-petition. ... The definition of claim is as broad as possible.

Section 101(5) defines a claim broadly as a right to payment, including a disputed right to payment.

Broadrick v. LVNV Funding LLC (In re Broadrick) · filed 2015-06-19(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).

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include an equitable right to payment, even if the right is disputed or unsecured.

In re Wolfe · filed 2015-06-19(5)(A)

Even more revealing, “claims” are 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). ... For better or worse, it is- a creditor.

Section 101(5)(A)’s right to payment includes a debt whose limitations period has expired when the underlying obligation remains.

Perkins v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Perkins) · filed 2015-07-08(5)(A)

Instead, at the time the proof of claim was filed, it is indisputable that the Defendants maintained a right to payment, but could not exercise unconscionable means to collect on the underlying debt. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A).

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a prepetition claim, subject to exceptions.

United States v. Bond · filed 2012-09-17(10)

As discussed above, a creditor is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10) as a holder of a pre-petition claim. Accordingly, Section 1141 does not provide the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity that the Trustee needs.

A contingent or unmatured right to payment is a claim, and the corresponding debt can arise before the bankruptcy petition.

Holber v. Suffolk Construction Co. (In re Red Rock Services Co.) · filed 2012-08-30(5)(A), (12)

The term “debt” is defined under the Bankruptcy Code as a “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). The Bankruptcy Code defines “claim” 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). ... The fact that Suffolk might argue that its obligation to pay Red Rock had not matured or was contingent on it receiving payment from Silo Point does not render the debt post-petition for setoff purposes.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim to include a right to payment; pleading setoff asserts such a claim even without filing a proof of claim.

Souther v. Bacon County Health Services Inc. (In re Matrix Imaging Services Inc.) · filed 2012-08-22(5)(A)

By pleading setoff, Bacon County has asserted a “right to payment”—a “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) includes a claim arising from prepetition conduct even when the creditor files suit after the bankruptcy petition.

In re Pick & Save, Inc. · filed 2012-09-13(5)

In the instant case, the Complaints filed by the Creditors at the PR Court of First Instance constitute pre-petition claims because all the necessary transactions for Debtor’s possible liability occurred on July 29, 2010, the day when the Creditors received their respective letters discharging them from their employments with the Debtor (Docket Nos. 156-1, pp. 1-2, and 161, p. 1, ¶ 1). The fact that the Complaints were filed post-petition, i.e. on December 27 and 28, 2010, respectively, does not make them post-petition claims.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly enough to include a card issuer’s right to payment from a debtor for purchases made using a fraudulently obtained card.

United States v. Marston · filed 2012-09-20(5)(A)

The term "claim" easily comprehends claims of the issuers against Marston.

A claim exists under § 101(5) whether or not a proof of claim has been filed.

In re Vancleef · filed 2012-09-28(5)

In this context, it must be noted that the statutory provisions refer to a “claim”, and not to an “allowed claim”: as stated in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), the term “claim” has nothing whatever to do with the filing of a proof of claim, and one has a “claim” within the definition of that statute whether or not a proof of claim is filed.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment for employment discrimination that occurred before a reorganization plan took effect, even if the employee received a right-to-sue letter afterward.

Cost v. Super Media · filed 2012-10-01(5)(A)

A “debt” is defined to mean “liability on a claim,” and a “claim” is defined to include any “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.” ... A claim arises, for the purposes of discharge in bankruptcy cases, at the time of the events giving rise to the claim, not at the time the plaintiff is first able to file suit on the claim. ... Because the plaintiff admits that he was terminated in April 2007, and bases his claims solely on discrimination that occurred during his employment from 2005 to 2007, his claims necessarily arose prior to the Effective Date, December 31, 2009.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment; creditors owed separate amounts can hold distinct claims even when they enforce them through one judgment.

Murrin v. Hanson (In re Murrin) · filed 2012-08-20(5)(A)

A “claim” is defined as a “right to payment, whether or not such a right is reduced to a judgment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). ... Because these creditors hold distinct claims, the “three creditor” requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1) is satisfied.

A surviving right to foreclose is a claim and a debt even after the debtor’s personal liability is discharged.

In re Branam · filed 2012-08-13(5), (12)

While the foregoing may be generally accurate outside of bankruptcy, the Debtor has failed to address the bankruptcy issue that the term “debt” includes liability on a “claim,” whether such liability is in personam or in rem.

A creditor must have a claim against the debtor in the bankruptcy case at issue.

In re Soderstrom · filed 2012-08-08(9)

Horizons is not a creditor in Stirling’s bankruptcy, and therefore lacks standing to pursue claims against property that properly belongs to Stirling.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment; asserting a claim to proceeds does not establish ownership of the underlying property.

In re Yelverton · filed 2012-08-08(5)

Similarly, Senyi only asserted, by way of her proof of claim, a right to payment from the estate with respect to the debtor’s interest in Yelverton Farms, Ltd., and never filed a proceeding to assert an ownership interest in those shares. ... A debt is a liability on a claim, and, in turn, 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) treats an asserted prebankruptcy contractual right to continued health benefit payments as a claim.

Association of Retired Employees v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton) · filed 2012-08-06(5)

The plaintiffs’ asserted right to require the City to continue to pay for health benefits based on their prebank-ruptcy contractual rights are “claims.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101 defines claim and debt broadly enough that an investor’s right to restitution can qualify as an antecedent debt.

Wagner v. Pruett (In re Vaughan Co., Realtors) · filed 2012-08-02(5), (12)

A defrauded investor’s contractual right to the return of its principal or restitution claim could, thus, qualify as an antecedent debt under these definitional Code sections.

A prepetition contract providing for attorneys’ fees does not, by itself, make fees incurred after the bankruptcy petition a prepetition contingent claim.

In re Old Colony, LLC · filed 2012-07-16(5)(A)

And even not compelled to so by its analysis of First Circuit decisions, this Court would similarly conclude, as have others, that: ... a prepetition contract for postpetition legal services does not give the attorney a claim against the estate. Under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A), a ‘claim’ includes any contingent right to payment, but ... the attorney in this case accrued a ‘claim’ only when he actually provided the post-petition services for which the debtor agreed to pay him; therefore, his ‘claim’ is not a prepetition claim against the estate but a postpetition claim....

Under § 101(5), a creditor's claim arises when it has a right to payment; the court treated the invoice date as that date for the water bills.

In re Colon · filed 2012-05-23(5)

Thus, this court finds that AAA’ right to payment of this claim arose on the date that AAA had a right to payment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(5), namely the invoice date, which was subsequent to date of the filing of the involuntary petition. This court concludes that as of the date of the involuntary bankruptcy filing, AAA was not an eligible creditor since it did not have a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).

Section 101(5) includes a spouse’s pending equitable distribution demand as a prepetition claim even before a divorce judgment or distribution award.

In Re Ruitenberg · filed 2012-05-04(5)

Based on the foregoing, it appears clear that Grossman’s holding of when a claim arises for the purposes of § 101(5) should govern the case at bar. The equitable distribution claim is allowed.

Section 101(5)’s definition of a claim includes a mortgage against the debtor’s property even when the debtor has no personal liability on the debt.

In Re Smith · filed 2012-05-02(5)

The mortgage is a claim in the Debt- or’s chapter 13 case, even though the Debtor does not have personal liability on the debt, in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent.

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

Bushnell v. Bank of West (In Re Bushnell) · filed 2012-05-08(5)(B)

In turn, Bankruptcy Code § 101(5)(B) includes in the broad definition of a claim a “(B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured or unsecured.” ... Bank of the West held a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance, and that breach of performance gave rise to a right to payment.

Section 101(5)(A) defines a claim broadly enough to include a right to payment before it can be asserted in a nonbankruptcy proceeding.

DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2012-05-18(5)(A)

Given this definition, a claim may have arisen for purposes of a bankruptcy discharge even if it could not yet be asserted as a viable claim in a non-bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 101(5)(A) includes contingent, unaccrued requests for indemnity and contribution within the definition of a claim.

In re W.R. Grace & Co. · filed 2012-06-11(5)(A)

Finally, the Court is unconvinced by Montana and the Crown’s arguments that their requests for indemnity and contribution are still too contingent to be deemed “claims” because their rights to assert those claims have not yet accrued.

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

Austin v. BFW Liquidation, LLC (In Re BFW Liquidation, LLC) · filed 2012-03-26(10)

In fact, the Court cannot conclude from the plaintiffs allegations that the plaintiff was even a “creditor,” as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). “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 ...,” either when the debtor filed its bankruptcy case, or when it filed its creditor matrix, or when it noticed the sale, or when the sale took place.

An entity with a right to payment from the debtor is a creditor under Section 101, even if it expected another entity to pay.

Meoli v. Huntington National Bank (In Re Teleservices Group, Inc.) · filed 2012-03-30(5)(A), (10)(A)

However, for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, a "creditor” includes any "entity that has a claim against the debtor” and a "claim” includes any "right to payment.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) and (10)(A). Given, then, that the equipment finance companies would have had the absolute right to demand repayment from Teleser-vices had the fraud ever been revealed, there is no question that equipment finance companies meet the criteria of creditors for purposes of administering the Teleservices' bankruptcy estate.

Section 101(5) defines a claim as a right to payment or a qualifying equitable remedy; a settlement agreement is not itself a claim.

Cantu v. International Bank of Commerce (In Re Cantu) · filed 2012-03-19(5)

First, they mistakenly assume that the parties’ settlement agreement constituted a “claim,” and, second, they conflate the terms “claim” and “security agreement.”

Claims and debts are coextensive under § 101, but they receive different treatment under the Bankruptcy Code.

In re Bridgeport Redevelopment, Inc. · filed 2012-02-07(5), (12)

However, to say that the terms “claim” and “debt” are “coextensive” means that the two concepts are closely related. It does not mean that the two concepts receive the same treatment under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(5) includes a claim arising from a debtor’s prepetition conduct even if the claimant discovers it after the claims bar date.

In Re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. · filed 2012-02-07(5)

Applying the Third Circuit’s holding in Gross-... to the case at bar establishes that the Galope Claim arose out of the Debtor’s conduct toward Ms. Galope that occurred prior to the bankruptcy filing and, therefore, is a pre-petition claim.

Section 101(10) defines a creditor to include an entity with a claim against the estate covered by § 502(i).

Michigan Department of Treasury v. Hight · filed 2012-03-05(10)

The Code defines the term “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” or as an “entity that has a claim against the estate of a kind specified in section 348(d), 502(f), 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) of this title.” § 101(10) (emphasis added). Thus, Hight’s protective claim for her 2008 tax debt, filed on behalf of Treasury, was permitted under §§ 501(c) and 502(i).

Section 101(10) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.

Hurbert v. Cheeks (In Re Cheeks) · filed 2012-03-07(10)

However, a creditor is any entity with a claim against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate. 11 U.S.C. § 101(10). A claim is a right to payment or, in some instances, a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance. § 101(5). It is clear that Plaintiff has a claim against Defendant’s estate; he obtained a default money judgment against Defendant in the Northern District of Illinois in the amount of $278,730. (Compl. Ex. F) He is, therefore, a creditor of the Debtor so that he may object to the Debtor’s discharge.

A surviving in rem mortgage right is a claim under § 101(5), even after the debtor’s personal liability has been discharged.

In re Scotto-DiClemente · filed 2012-01-25(5)

With respect to the issue before the Court, it is clear that the equitable rights inherent in an in rem claim constitute a “claim” for the purposes of § 101(5).

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

In Re Wr Grace & Co. · filed 2012-01-30(5)(A)

Finally, the Court is unconvinced by Montana and the Crown's arguments that their requests for indemnity and contribution are still too contingent to be deemed "claims" because their rights to assert those claims have not yet accrued. This makes no difference under the Bankruptcy Code because § 101(5)(A) expressly encompasses requests that may still be "contingent," "unmatured," and "unliquidated."

Section 101(5) requires a right to payment or an equitable remedy for breach of performance that gives rise to a right to payment; a bill of exchange drawn on a fictitious account creates neither.

In re Fachini · filed 2012-02-10(5)

Therefore, the bill of exchange drawn on the account and the subsequent charge-back have no legal effect and are not sufficient either to create a right to payment or to create an equitable remedy for breach of performance that gives rise to a right to payment. Consequently Mr. Rogers does not hold a claim as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) against Ms. Fachini and does not meet the requirements to file an involuntary bankruptcy petition against her.

Section 101(5)(A) includes a right to payment that has not been reduced to judgment within the definition of a claim.

In re Johnson · filed 2012-02-17(5)(A)

The Court does not suggest that RBC's inability to obtain a deficiency judgment precludes it from filing a proof of claim against the Debtors’ estate. Indeed, 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A) contains a very broad definition of "claim” and does not require that a creditor’s right to payment be reduced to judgment.

Section 101(4) defines a claim broadly enough to include a debtor’s obligations to members of a putative class.

Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation v. Charter Co. (In re Charter Co.) · filed 1989-06-28(4)

The consequence of prohibiting class proofs of claim would be to read out of the broad definition of claim the debtor’s obligations to the putative class.

Section 101(4)(B) treats an equitable cleanup obligation as a claim when the obligation gives rise to a right to payment.

In Re Microfab, Inc. · filed 1989-08-18(4)(B)

Therefore, § 101(4)(B) requires that the relief the Commonwealth seeks — a right to an equitable remedy in the form of an order to clean the property — be treated as a claim if the Commonwealth’s right to an equitable remedy gives rise to a right to payment. ... Clearly it does, primarily because the obligation to remediate this Site can be carried out only by the payment of money. ... I conclude that the Commonwealth’s right to an equitable remedy should be treated as a claim.

Section 101(4) includes unliquidated rights to payment within the definition of a claim.

Rupp v. Cloud Nine, Ltd. (In Re Cloud Nine, Ltd.) · filed 1980-01-31(4)

Therefore, it appears that the claims of Plaintiffs or any other claimants, even though unliquidated in the state court suit, are proper claims in this Court and any disputes thereon, if any, should be decided in these proceedings, not in the state court. There is no requirement to liquidate the claim before it is brought in this Court.

Section 101(9) defines a creditor by reference to a claim against the debtor; a trustee asserting an offset against a lessor is not a creditor.

In Re Standard Furniture Co. · filed 1980-04-08(9)

Here, the trustee is not a “creditor” as defined in Section 101(9) of the Code, as his claim of offset is directed against Norwood and not the Debtor.

Section 101 defines a claim and a lien as distinct concepts.

Second National Bank of Saginaw v. Honaker (In Re Honaker) · filed 1980-06-10(4), (28)

“Claim” is defined in the Code at Section 101(4). A “claim” is distinct from a “lien,” which is defined in Section 101(28).

Section 101(4)(A) defines a claim to include an unmatured or disputed right to payment.

In Re All Media Properties, Inc. · filed 1980-06-25(4)(A)

Under § 101(4)(A) of the Code a claim means a right to payment whether or not reduced to judgment, whether liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, or undisputed. Section 303(b)(1) gives the right to any holder of a claim except those that are contingent as to liability to be a petitioning creditor.

Section 101(9) does not treat a trustee asserting the debtor’s claim against a landlord as a creditor of the debtor.

Tavormina v. Alexander Grant & Co. (In Re Trending Cycles for Commodities, Inc.) · filed 1980-08-15(9)

I reject the argument for the same reasons this argument was rejected by the Bankruptcy Court in ... Here, the trustee is not a “creditor” as defined in Section 101(9) of the Code, as his claim of offset is directed against Norwood and not the Debtor.

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor that arose before the order for relief, and defines a claim to include a right to payment whether secured or unsecured.

United Capital Corp. v. Sapolin Paints, Inc. (In Re Sapolin Paints, Inc.) · filed 1980-10-10(9)(A), (4)

Chemical is indubitably a creditor. The Code defines this term as follows: “[A]n 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(9)(A). The term “claim” is also defined in the Code as follows: “[Rjight of 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(4). Chemical falls squarely within the definition of “creditor”: it has a claim against the debtor that arose before the filing of the petition.

Section 101(4)(A) includes a state court judgment within the definition of a claim because the judgment constitutes a right to payment.

In Re Arker · filed 1980-10-20(4)(A)

It is this Court’s finding that the state court judgment is a claim pursuant to the definitional context of 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), as it constitutes a “right to payment” in the sum of $190,860.06.

Section 101(4)(A) includes contingent and unliquidated rights to payment in the definition of a claim.

Bitner v. Borne Chemical Co. (In Re Borne Chemical Co.) · filed 1980-11-10(4)(A)

It is undisputed that the “claims” referenced by the instant motion of the debtor to temporarily disallow claims from Rolfite-re-lated litigation, are contingent and unliqui-dated. ... 11 U.S.C. § 101[4][A] defines “claim” as “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.”

Section 101(4)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment whether secured or unsecured.

Leasing Service Corp. v. Eastern Equipment Co. (In Re Eastern Equipment Co.) · filed 1981-01-15(4)(A)

The new Bankruptcy Code codifies the general rule against allowance of postpetition interest, even as to secured creditors, by defining a “claim” as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is ... secured, or unsecured....” [11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A)] and then by the specific disallowance of a claim for unmatured interest in section 502(b)(2).

Section 101(4) treats a debt as a claim even when it is on appeal or fully or partially secured.

In Re Hill · filed 1981-01-26(4)

While the Cargill debt is the subject of an appeal, it clearly constitutes a claim in the bankruptcy sense. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). ... The fact that the debts are fully or partially secured is of no consequence. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4).

Section 101(4)(B) includes an unmatured right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance in the definition of “claim” if the breach gives rise to a right to payment.

Lindsey v. Morgan (In Re Cox Cotton Co.) · filed 1981-02-09(4)(B)

Moreover, the defendants reading of the term “claim” is not supported by the text of the Code: (4) “Claim” means— ... (B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured. 11 U.S.C. § 101, emphasis added.

Section 101(4)(A) defines a claim as a right to payment, whether secured or unsecured.

In Re Williams · filed 1981-02-20(4)(A)

A claim, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), 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; or ... This creditor and its claim fall within the definitions and are subject to the stay.

Section 101(4) includes alleged rights to relief for fraudulent conversion of money invested in real property within the definition of “claim.”

Matter of Dill · filed 1981-03-16(4)

Taking the first argument of the Alleged Debtor, the Court finds that the claims of the Petitioners are based, not merely upon the rights of equity security holders, but also upon claims for relief for the fraudulent conversion of monies invested for the purchase of certain real property on behalf of a limited partnership of which they were partners. Such alleged rights fit within the parameters of a “claim,” as that word is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4).

A right to collect an overpayment directly or through payroll deductions is a claim, and the corresponding repayment obligation is a debt, even if repayment restores benefit credits.

National Bank of Detroit v. Olson (In Re Olson) · filed 1981-01-21(4), (11)

The plaintiffs clearly have a claim against the debtor and the debtor just as clearly owes them a debt. The thrust of plaintiffs’ suit is that the AMC SUB Plan gives them the right to collect overpayments and obligates the debtor to return overpayments either directly or indirectly through payroll deductions. And the mere fact that the debtor’s SUB “account” must be credited with any sums he may repay does not change the character of the debtor’s relationship with the plaintiffs or make the transition like an insurance policy loan.

Section 101 defines a claim more broadly than a debt; for a disputed claim to count toward the Chapter 13 debt limit, the court must determine the debtor’s liability and the amount due.

In Re King · filed 1981-03-03(4), (11)

It is to be noted that the term “claim” is broader than the term “debt” under the definitions contained in § 101(4) and § 101(11).

Section 101(9)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor that arose at or before the order for relief.

State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health & Developmental Disabilities v. Pritchett (In Re Pritchett) · filed 1981-02-04(9)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “creditor” to be an “entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at or before the order for relief concerning the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A) (Supp. II 1978). The Department qualifies as an entity with a claim against the debtor.

Under § 101, a debt is liability on a claim, and a claim requires a right to payment.

In Re Dennis & Gail Ann Villarie, Debtors. New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Villarie · filed 1981-05-14

A claim is a “right to payment ....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(4XA). A debt is simply “liability on a claim.” Id. at § 101(11). The two concepts are thus coterminous.

Section 101(11) defines debt as liability on a claim, which can include an unliquidated amount.

Wollman v. Gessler (In Re Gessler) · filed 1981-06-05(11)

Debt is defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(11) as meaning “liability on a claim.” Using this definition, an unliquidated amount could be non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

Section 101(4)(A) defines a claim to include a disputed right to payment.

In the Matter of Royal G. Covey and Norma L. Covey, Individually and as Partners, D/B/A Covey Dodge, Bankrupts-Appellant · filed 1981-06-05(4)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), a “claim” means 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.” ... Thus, the dispute regarding Chrysler Credit’s claim does not bar Chrysler Credit from participating as a creditor in the involuntary bankruptcy petition.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim; a judgment remains a debt regardless of how the underlying action was pleaded.

Citibank N. A. v. Friedenberg (In Re Friedenberg) · filed 1981-07-29(11)

Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the character of a debt as one surviving discharge will depend on whether it had been reduced to a judgment and, if so, how the action was pleaded. 11 U.S.C. § 101(11) of the Code defines “debt” to mean the liability on a claim which is itself defined in the broadest terms in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A).

Section 101(4) defines a claim to include an unmatured right to payment, so a creditor’s claim need not be due for the creditor to petition in an involuntary case.

Matter of Win-Sum Sports, Inc. · filed 1981-09-23(4)

“Claim” is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is ... matured, unmatured . . . ”. Thus, even if these three creditors’ claims were not “due” as alleged by Win-Sum, such fact would not prohibit them from being petitioners.

Section 101(4) defines a claim as a right to payment, including a county’s claim for delinquent real estate taxes.

Young v. Critton (In Re Young) · filed 1981-10-27(4)

A claim is defined as “a right to payment”. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). Before the debtors filed their Chapter 13 petition, Kane County had a claim against the debtors. The claim was one for delinquent real estate taxes. The tax sale sought to enforce payment of that claim.

A child may hold a right to payment even when the debtor must pay a third party.

Deeb v. Morris (In Re Morris) · filed 1981-09-28(4), (10)

Read in combination with definitions provided by 11 U.S.C. § 101, section 523(a)(5) requires only that the debtor owe a duty of payment “to” the child. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) and (10). ... A right to payment is not synonymous with the right to receive payment; an obligee need not in all cases be a payee.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim, which includes a right to payment; a Georgia criminal restitution order is a debt because the victim can enforce it as a civil judgment.

Newton v. Fred Haley Poultry Farm (In Re Newton) · filed 1981-10-15(4), (11)

11 U.S.C. § 101(11) defines “debt” to mean “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) defines “claim” to mean: “(A) right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, secured, or unsecured; or” In the instant case, the victim, who is the subject of an order of restitution, has a cause of action in his own right for enforcement of said order. Georgia Code § 27-3013 provides that “a restitution order shall be enforceable as a civil judgment by execution.” ... Therefore, in Georgia, an order of restitution is a debt within the ambit of § 1328 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(4)(A) includes tenants’ individual claims against a debtor even when an automatic stay abates their pending lawsuit.

In Re 1438 Meridian Place, N. W., Inc. · filed 1981-11-12(4)(A)

While the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) have resulted in an abatement of the pending D. C. Superior Court case, there is clearly no dismissal of that action, and it is clear from the facts of record that the tenants in this case are also creditors by reason of their individual claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A).

Section 101(9) identifies the entity holding a claim against the debtor as the creditor, rather than its attorney.

Matter of Heyward · filed 1981-12-05(9)

It is clear from this definition that the Department was a creditor of Mrs. Hey-ward, not the Corporation Counsel, and that she was clearly justified in listing the Department of Social Services as her creditor in her Schedule A-3 which required her to list the “Name of creditor (including last known holder of any negotiable instrument) complete mailing address including zip code (if unknown so state).” (emphasis added) She was also correct in listing the Department’s “mailing address” as “250 Church Street, New York, New York” for that actually is its “mailing address.”

Section 101 requires a claim to involve a right to payment; a duty to maintain children as life insurance beneficiaries is not a claim when it creates no such right.

Willet v. Willet (In re Willet) · filed 1981-12-14(4)

Therefore, the type of debts which are defined under the Bankruptcy Code are limited to those which involve at some point a “right to payment”. A provision arising from a divorce decree which orders the debtor to maintain the children of his former marriage as beneficiaries on his life insurance policy involves no such “right”.

Section 101(11) treats an employee association loan as a debt when the member borrows from a fund shared with other members, even if the member contributes to that fund.

In Re Enio MIRANDA SOTO, Debtor-Appellee, Appeal of ASOCIACION DE EMPLEADOS DEL ESTADO UBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO · filed 1981-12-30(11)

Miranda may be a part owner of the loan fund, but he has borrowed not only from himself, but from all other members of the Asociación. We find nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that suggests that the loan did not create a debt that was dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Section 101(4) requires a right to payment from the debtor; a lien on the debtor’s property alone does not establish one when the debtor has not assumed the debt.

Burns v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Burns) · filed 1982-01-21(4)

11 U.S.C. § 101(4) defines claim as a right of payment, and Home Federal does not have a right of payment as against the Debtor. Home Federal may have a right against others for payment, including the original makers, but not against Debtor. As shown in the facts, the warranty deed to Debtor contains no reference to the original note and security deed and there is nothing in this record to show that Home Federal has any right of payment running from Debtor to Home Federal.

Section 101(4) treats a single right to payment held by joint payees as one claim.

In Re McMeekin · filed 1982-01-27(4)

A “claim” is defined under the Bankruptcy Code as meaning a “right to payment”, of any nature, whether or not that right be reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidat-ed, fixed, contingent, matured, or disputed. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). ... As such, there arises but one “right to payment”, and therefore, one claim.

Section 101 treats a disputed claim as distinct from a contingent or unliquidated claim, so a dispute alone does not exclude the debt from the Chapter 13 eligibility calculation.

Sylvester v. Dow Jones & Co. (In Re Sylvester) · filed 1982-02-09(4)(A)

Put differently, the quoted sections evidence Congressional intent to make individuals who owe, at the commencement of the case, unsecured debt in excess of $100,000 ineligible for Chapter 13 even though the debtor disputes all or part of that indebtedness. Only contingent or unliquidated debt is excluded from the computation.

Section 101 defines a debt as liability on a claim and includes unmatured rights to payment within a claim, allowing assigned child support accruing after a bankruptcy petition to be discharged.

STATE OF MINN. EX REL. DAGGETT v. Barr · filed 1982-02-17(4), (11)

It is also inconsistent with the definitions provided in the statute. “Debt” means “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(11). “Claim” includes a “right to payment, whether or not such right is .. . liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed [or] undisputed ....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). As a result, “[t]he liability of the debtor for the state’s claim to post-bankruptcy child support payments gives rise to a ‘debt’ which is dischargeable in bankruptcy.”

An obligation under an injunction is a claim and a debt when performance can only be made by paying money.

Ohio Ex Rel. Brown v. Kovacs (In Re Kovacs) · filed 1982-02-23(4), (11)

There is no suggestion by plaintiff that defendant can render performance under the affirmative obligation other than by the payment of money. We therefore conclude that plaintiff has a claim against defendant within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), and that defendant owes plaintiff a debt within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(11).

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity holding a claim that arose no later than the order for relief, and a claim as a right to payment that may be disputed or unsecured.

In Re Bennett · filed 1982-02-24(9)(A), (4)(A)

A “creditor” is an entity holding a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief concerning the debtor was entered. 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A) (1978). 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, secured, or unsecured. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A) (1978). ... Therefore, this Court concludes that Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr., is qualified to serve and will be appointed to the unsecured creditors’ committee in the above bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 101(4) requires a right to payment for a party to have a claim.

In Re New Mexico Properties, Inc. · filed 1982-03-29(4)

A “claim” is a right to payment whether it be liquidated or not, disputed or undisputed. 11 U.S.C. Section 101(4). ... Therefore, this Court finds that these petitioning creditors are not eligible to file an involuntary petition in bankruptcy because they are not “creditors” under the Code since they do not have any right to payment, or “claim.”

Section 101(4) does not treat a limited partner’s equity interest as a claim against the debtor because the interest gives no right to payment.

In Re Pine Lake Village Apartment Co. · filed 1982-05-04(4)

The limited partners’ interests do not constitute “claims” as defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). They are equity security holders, as defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(16), holding equity securities within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(15)(B). Simply put, an equity interest is not a claim against the debtor for which the equity holder may assert a right to payment.

Section 101(9) treats individuals with potential claims against a corporation as creditors in its bankruptcy case.

In Re Linderman · filed 1982-05-25(9)

The nature of these claims render the individual debtors “creditors” of the corporate bankruptcy estate created in bankruptcy number 81-01770T, under the definition contained in 11 U.S.C. § 101(9).

Section 101(9) treats a party with a claim for payment or an equitable remedy as a creditor.

Loeb v. G. A. Gertmenian & Sons (In Re A. J. Nichols, Ltd.) · filed 1982-07-13(9)

Thus it is clear that the defendant had a claim against the debt- or and that the defendant was a creditor within the ambit of § 101(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(4) defines a claim broadly enough to include a contractual right to payment of postpetition interest.

Household Finance Corp. v. Hansberry (In Re Hansberry) · filed 1982-06-04(4)

As indicated by the contractual right to seek payment from Debtor-cosigner, the contractual right to payment for earned interest, regardless whether earned subsequent to a petition filing, is a “claim,” as that term is broadly defined in the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(4)(B) includes a contingent or disputed right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance when the breach gives rise to a right of payment.

West Virginia, Department of Finance & Administration v. Hassett (In Re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.) · filed 1982-07-14(4)(B)

Because rejection of the Equipment Schedules would be equivalent to their breach, ... West Virginia’s motion to set a sum for “use and occupancy” asserts a claim under Section 101(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code in asserting a right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance. Even though this asserted right is both “contingent” and “disputed”, it nevertheless qualifies as a “claim” under Section 106(a).

Section 101 defines claims to include rights to payment and rights to equitable remedies for breach of performance, so liabilities on either kind of claim can be debts for setoff.

Bailey v. Bailey (In Re Bailey) · filed 1982-06-14(4)

William’s obligation is a liability on a claim as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A) while Geneva’s obligation is liability on a claim as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(B). The first requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 553, mutual debt is satisfied.

Section 101(4) treats a right to child support payments fixed by a prepetition dissolution decree as a claim even when installments come due after the bankruptcy filing.

Iowa Ex Rel. Ware v. Ware (In Re Ware) · filed 1982-07-21(4)

As noted by the Thomas court, the Bankruptcy Code defines “debt” to mean “liability on a claim,” 11 U.S.C. § 101(11), and further defines “claim” in expansive terms, 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). ... The Defendant’s obligation, which had been assigned by his ex-spouse to the state in return for ADC payments, to make such support payments was, therefore, a claim in his bankruptcy proceedings and such obligation, including installment payments accruing under such obligation subsequent to the filing of Defendant’s bankruptcy petition, was included within the scope of the Defendant’s bankruptcy discharge.

Section 101(9) includes a tenant with a claim arising from rejection of an unexpired lease under a Chapter 11 plan within the definition of creditor.

Solon Automated Services, Inc. v. Georgetown of Kettering, Ltd. (In Re Georgetown of Kettering, Ltd.) · filed 1982-08-03(9)

11 U.S.C. § 101(9) specifically defines the term, creditor, to include an “entity that has a claim against the estate of a kind specified in (11 U.S.C. § 502(g)).” ... It is the determination of this Court that notice of Chapter 11 proceedings should properly be given to any tenant in a debtor’s property treated as a prepetition creditor by the terms of the plan, since, should the lessee choose to assert a claim against the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 365(h)(1), the protection of that claim through the Chapter 11 process may best be assured by notice and opportunity for hearing.

Section 101(9)(A) defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor at the time of or before the order of relief.

Harris v. Lone (In re Gold Coast Concepts, Inc.) · filed 1982-09-27(9)(A)

Defendant Lone was a creditor as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(9)(A), since he was an entity with a claim against the debtor at the time of or before the order of relief.

Section 101(4)(A) includes unliquidated rights to payment within the definition of a claim, so calculating the amount after filing does not change its prepetition status.

In Re Boogaart of Florida, Inc. · filed 1982-09-16(4)(A)

The mere fact that the overdraft balance was computed or liquidated after the commencement of the bankruptcy ease does not transform the Sun Bank claim into an allowable expense of administration. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A).

Section 101(4) defines a claim by the right to payment without limiting who may hold it.

In Re Saco Local Development Corp. · filed 1982-10-01(4)

The definition of a “claim” in the Bankruptcy Code makes no reference to the nature of the claimant.

Section 101(4)'s definition of “claim” covers solvent co-defendants' potential contribution claims against a debtor.

Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. · filed 1982-10-05(4)

Under the definition of “claim” provided in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) they may file proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court, 11 U.S.C. § 501, and have their claims included in the reorganization plans of Unarco and Johns-Manville.

Section 101(4) gives the cemetery board no claim to unpaid maintenance fund contributions and penalties before a state court orders compliance.

Arkansas Cemetery Board v. Memorial Properties · filed 1982-10-18(4)

The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that the Board had no "claims" to these funds prior to the issuance of state court orders directing compliance with the statute. After carefully reviewing the ruling of the district court, and the arguments of the Board, we are satisfied that the district court was correct in this determination.

Section 101’s definitions of debt and claim cover liability to repay Medicaid overpayments from prior contract years, even when the amount is calculated later.

Massachusetts v. Dartmouth House Nursing Home, Inc. (In Re Dartmouth House Nursing Home, Inc.) · filed 1982-09-30(4), (11)

11 U.S.C. Section 101(11) defines a “debt” as a “liability on a claim.” A claim, as explained in 11 U.S.C. Section 101 (4) means “a right to payment, whether or not reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” ... In the present case, it is obvious that a prefiling debt existed because Welfare considered the providers liable for repayment prior to the filing of the petition because of overpayments for 1975,1976 and 1980.

Section 101(9)'s definition of creditor does not include a post-petition claimant for purposes of routine notice of a proposed dismissal.

In Re Underwood · filed 1982-11-18(9)

It is observed that the term creditor is defined in section 101(9) of the Act and does not for purposes here include a post-petition creditor.

Section 101(9) defines a creditor as a holder of a prepetition claim against the debtor, which excludes a bankruptcy trustee.

In Re Overmyer · filed 1982-11-30(9)

A “creditor” is defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(9) to include only holders of prepetition claims against the debtor; thereby excluding the trustee from this definition.

Section 101 defines a creditor as an entity with a claim against the debtor or estate; a claim requires a right to payment or a qualifying equitable remedy.

In Re Comcoach Corporation, Debtor-Appellee, the Roslyn Savings Bank v. Comcoach Corporation · filed 1983-01-13(9)(A), (B)

The Code in pertinent part defines a creditor as an entity that has a claim against either the debtor or the estate, arising at certain specified times. ... Consequently, the Bank possesses no claim against the debtor or the estate, lacks “creditor” status, and cannot move to lift the automatic stay.

Section 101(9)(A) treats a person with a claim against the debtor as a creditor; auction consignors had claims once the auctioneer sold their property and owed them the proceeds.

Franzwa v. Knez Building Material Co. (In Re Walker Industrial Auctioneers, Inc.) · filed 1983-02-09(9)(A)

Thus, after the auction each defendant possessed a right to payment with respect to the items sold. “Creditor” is defined broadly in § 101(9)(A) of 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”. ... Under the above definitions, defendants were creditors of the debtor immediately after the June 12th auction.

Section 101(9) does not treat a collective bargaining representative as a creditor merely because it acts for employees with claims, and section 101(4) requires the representative to have its own right to payment to hold a claim.

In Re Altair Airlines, Inc. · filed 1982-12-07(9), (4)

We conclude that the collective bargaining representative cannot be so appointed because: (1) it is not a “creditor” ... within the meaning of section 101(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”); and (2) it does not have a “claim” against the debtor within the meaning of section 101(4) of the Code.

Section 101(11) defines debt as liability on a claim; an offset without a right to repayment does not create a debt.

Dwyer v. United States (In re Dwyer) · filed 1982-12-23(11)

For purposes of the bankruptcy estate, therefore, the United States does not possess a claim against the Debtor because no debt is owing by the Debtor to the United States. In this regard, life insurance policy loans are analogous and similarly are not “debt” as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(11).

Section 101 requires a right to payment for a claim; an advance recoverable only by withholding future benefits creates no creditor-debtor relationship.

In Re Peter J. Mullen (Debtor) v. United States · filed 1983-01-03(4)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 101 requires that there be a “right to payment” in order to have a claim. ... No interest accrued on the amount owed nor did the USAF have the right to recoup the readjustment allowance from any other source. ... Therefore, we hold that this transaction gave rise to no creditor-debtor relationship between the USAF and Appellant.

Section 101(4) includes interest imposed by a state court judgment as a claim even when the interest does not arise from a contract.

Turpin v. Maupin (In Re Maupin) · filed 1983-02-07(4)

The fact that the interest accruing on the claim is not by contractual obligation but is Court-imposed by virtue of the terms of the state court judgment is irrelevant to the validity of the accruing interest as a valid substantive claim against Debtor’s estate.

An unpaid purchase-price balance is a claim under § 101(4), and the person owed that balance is a creditor under § 101(9)(A).

Henson v. Beavers (In Re Beavers) · filed 1983-01-14(4), (9)(A)

The evidence shows that, at the time of the filing of the Chapter 13 case, Henson had a claim against the debtor for the balance of the purchase price of the real property, and that constituted Henson as a “creditor.”

Section 101(4) does not treat an equity security holder’s ownership interest as a claim against the debtor.

Corporate Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Vantress (In Re Corporate Jet Aviation, Inc.) · filed 1983-02-28(4)

While Pine Lake is not directly analogous to the instant case, the analysis contained therein, which recognizes that equity security holders are not claim holders, is equally applicable to the preference provisions of § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(4) includes a right to payment in the definition of a claim even if the right has not been reduced to judgment or is unliquidated or disputed.

Farmhand, Inc. v. Lahman Manufacturing Co. (In Re Lahman Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1983-05-10(4)

The definition of “claim” under the Bankruptcy Code includes any right to payment even if it is not reduced to judgment or is unliquidated or disputed. 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). Therefore, these proceedings are unrelated and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter a final order hereunder.

Section 101(4)(A) does not treat a possible future asbestos injury as a contingent claim when the exposed person has no existing right to payment.

In Re UNR Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-03-25(4)(A)

The Code provision for the possibility of the evaluation arid discharge of a contingent claim does not change the definition of “claim.” It is not true that any conceivable claim is contingent. The contingency must be one that arises out of the prior contractual relationship of the claimant and the debtor.

Filing a proof of claim for attorneys’ fees ordinarily sought as an administrative expense does not itself confer creditor status under § 101(9).

In Re Taylor Transport, Inc. · filed 1983-03-30(9)

It should at this point be noted that although the Court in its January 25, 1983 dismissal order determined that Movants did not meet the definition of “creditor” found in § 101(9), in an apparent attempt to confer creditor status upon themselves, Movants have on February 9, 1983 filed a proof of claim for its attorneys’ fees. This, however, is contrary to normal practice of making a “request” for payment of attorneys’ fees as an administrative expense under §§ 330(a) and 503(b)(2), see In re Parker, 21 B.R. 692, 9 B.C.D. 303 (D.C.E.D.Tenn.1982), and will not, for present purposes, be deemed to grant them creditor status.

Section 101(9) treats a shareholder as a creditor when a stock redemption agreement gives the shareholder a claim for payment against the debtor.

Louisiana Industrial Coatings, Inc. v. Pertuit (In Re Louisiana Industrial Coatings, Inc.) · filed 1983-04-25(9)

In the present instance, the confection of the stock redemption agreement created a claim for the recited consideration in favor of Pertuit and against LIC; Pertuit thereby became a creditor for the purpose of sections 101(9) and 547(b).

Section 101(11) excludes an unreaffirmed discharged obligation from debt in a later bankruptcy unless a new obligation is created.

Associates Financial Services Corp. v. Cowen (In Re Cowen) · filed 1983-05-06(11)

Thus, although a lien may survive, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d), a discharged debt which was not properly reaffirmed is not cognizable as “debt” in a subsequent proceeding without either a novation of the prior obligation or the creation of an entirely new debt. 11 U.S.C. § 101(11).

Section 101(4)(A)’s definition of “claim” includes an in rem right to payment from the debtor’s property.

Board of County Commissioners v. Coleman American Properties, Inc. (In Re American Properties, Inc.) · filed 1983-05-15(4)(A)

The “right to payment” is not limited to an in person-am right to payment from the debtor, nor is an in rem right to payment from the debt- or’s property excluded.

Section 101(4)(A) treats contingency as a characteristic of a claim distinct from whether the claim is disputed, liquidated, or adjudicated.

In Re Dill · filed 1983-06-13(4)(A)

Contingency is one of many characteristics of a claim, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A). Contingency is thus distinguishable from other defined characteristics e.g. liquidated, matured, unadjudicated, disputed, etc.

Section 101(4) includes contingent rights in the definition of a claim, but the right must be against the debtor rather than a creditor of the debtor.

In Re American Federation of Television & Radio Artists · filed 1983-06-20(4)

Although a contingent right does constitute a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), that contingent right must exist against the debtor and not against a creditor of the debtor.

Section 101(4) includes allegations of fraudulent conduct in the definition of a claim, even when liability depends on a judicial finding.

In Re Turner · filed 1983-08-09(4)

While the Petitioning Creditors’ allegations of fraudulent conduct constitute a “claim” as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), the clear weight of authority holds that tort claims are contingent since they are dependent upon a judicial finding of liability against the alleged tortfeasor.

Section 101(4) defines a claim broadly as a right to payment, without excluding claims because of their small amount.

In Re Hoover · filed 1983-09-07(4)

We are further reinforced in our opinion by the definition of “claim” as provided for at 11 U.S.C. § 101(4). ... Under such a broad definition, it would stretch judicial interpretation to the breaking point to read into the definition an exception based on the amount of the claim.

Section 101(4) defines a claim to include a right to payment or a qualifying equitable remedy even if it is disputed or has not been reduced to judgment.

In Re Longhorn 1979-Ii Drilling Program · filed 1983-09-13(4)

The petitioners are, thus, entitled to commence the case if they have a right to payment or an appropriate equitable remedy which is not contingent as to liability. By Congressional definition the fact that the claim is “disputed” and not “reduced to judgment” is insignificant.

Section 101 defines a creditor and a claim to include a state with a right to sue and recover an unpaid debt.

In Re Maine · filed 1983-07-08(4), (9)

The State, therefore, is a “creditor” with a “claim” as those terms are defined by the Bankruptcy Act. See, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(9), (4).