Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction Explained

****"case Law'?Case Law The Supreme Court precedent clearly stated in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson: “The trustee normally bears the burden of investigating claims… The audience in Chapter * bankruptcy cases include a trustee, * U. S. C. §*(a), who must examine proof of claim and, where appropriate, pose an objection, §§*(a)(*), *(b)(*) (including any timeliness objection, §§*(b)(*), *). And that trustee is likely to understand that, as the Code says, proof of claim is a statement by the creditor that he or she has a right to payment subject to disallowance (including disallowance based upon, and following, the trustee’s objection for untimeliness). §§*(*)(A), *(b), *(a)(*), *(b)(*).” Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, * U.S. * (*).” The lack of authenticating evidence presented by the debt collector should activate the disallowance of this claim.

Perfect! could you give the next title for this case?In Stern v. Marshall, the court held that: “In Langenkamp v. Culp, * U.S. *, * S.Ct. *, * L.Ed.2d * (*) (per curiam), the Court emphasized that when the individual files a claim against the estate, that individual has * “trigger[ed] the process of ‘allowance and disallowance of claims,’ thereby subjecting himself to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power. If the creditor is met, in turn, with a preference action from the trustee, that action becomes part of the claims-allowance process which is triable only in equity. In other words, the creditor’s claim and the ensuing preference action by the trustee become integral to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship through the bankruptcy court’s equity jurisdiction.” Again, the lack of authenticating evidence presented by the debt collector should activate the disallowance of this claim.

Perfect! Now the next one please:In the 3rd Cir. Court of Appeal stated in Barbato v Greystone Alliance, LLC No *-* Opinion */*/* stated the following: “A debt buyer who purchases defaulted debts for the purpose of collection is considered a debt collector under * U.S.C. § 1692a (*). This interpretation aligns with the FDCPA’s goal of protecting consumers from abusive debt collection practices and ensures that entities engaging in such activities are subject to the Act’s requirements.”

and the next one please-In Veal, * B.R. at *-*. As set down in the bankruptcy code and * U.S.C. *. Rule * (c) (*) requires a “creditor” to file a proof of claim when the claim is disputed, contingent or unliquidated, as here. If the creditor fails to present a proof of claim, it may lose the right to collect on that claim, or at least on that portion of the claim unsecured by a lien on real property, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Blendheim, (In re Blendheim), * F.3d *, *-* (9th Cir. *). Rules of constitutional standing require that a party is not an “creditor” entitled to collect on a “claim” unless it proves it owns the claim.

And the last oneIn Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), * B.R. * (B.A.P. * th  Cir. *), a bankruptcy appellate panel from the Tenth Circuit ("BAP") held that the bankruptcy court is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether a claim or cause of action is property of a * debtors&#*; bankruptcy estate. Consequently, the BAP held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by permitting a state court to determine whether creditors had "standing" to sue third-party recipients of allegedly fraudulent transfers.: