In Re Haugen Constr. Servs., Inc. First Am. Bank & Trust of Minot, Appellant, v. Butler Mach. Co., Appellee, 876 F.2d 681 (1st Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Haugen Constr. Servs., Inc. First Am. Bank & Trust of Minot, Appellant, v. Butler Mach. Co., Appellee, 876 F.2d 681 (1st Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Parrott Broadcasting Ltd. Partnership (idb, 2014-09-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Parrott Broadcasting Ltd. Partnership
Bankr. D. Idaho · 2014 · confidence medium
Servs., Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Farmland Industries, Inc.
Bankr. W.D. Mo. · 2004 · confidence medium
Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989); see also, In re Montgomery, 305 B.R. 721, 725-26 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2004); In re Standard Insulations, Inc., 138 B.R. 947, 958 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992); In re Laclede Cab Co., 186 B.R. 688, 690 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1995) (creditor’s intention to hold debtor liable must be clearly stated to constitute informal proof of claim); Myers v. Halverson (In re Irvine), 105 B.R. 502, 504 (D.Minn.1989) (stating that informal claim cannot be so vague as to require trustee to be mind reader; it must contain written assertion of claim against estate).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Montgomery (2×)
Bankr. W.D. Mo. · 2004 · confidence medium
First American Bank & Trust v. Butler Machinery Co. (In re Haugen Construction Services, Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989). 10 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maynard Savings Bank v. Michels (In Re Michels) (2×)
8th Cir. BAP · 2002 · confidence medium
Servs., Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Griffin Trading Co.
N.D. Ill. · 2001 · confidence medium
Co. (In re Haugen Const. Serv., Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989)(in-formal claim must disclose facts showing assertion of a claim and claimant’s intention to share in estate’s assets); Sambo’s Rests., Inc. v. Wheeler (In re Sambo’s Rests., Inc.), 754 F.2d 811, 815 (9th Cir.1985)(informal claim must state explicit demand showing nature and amount, and it must evidence the intent to hold debtor liable).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Griffin Trading Co.
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 2001 · confidence medium
Co. (In re Haugen Const. Serv., Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Larson
Bankr. D. Minn. · 2000 · confidence medium
Servs., Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989); In re Phillips, 166 B.R. 129, 131-32 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Novak (In re Dove House, Inc.)
Bankr. D. Conn. · 1999 · confidence medium
But as stated in Dazic, 178 B.R. at 333 , (quoting In re Haugen Const. Serv., Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989)): Great liberality in permitting amendments of claims in bankruptcy proceedings is proper, but the statute requiring that a proof of claim in writing be filed is clear, positive and unambiguous and it must not be nullified in the name of equity.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Laclede Cab Co.
Bankr. E.D. Mo. · 1995 · confidence medium
In re Haugen Construction Services Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989), In re Charter Co., 876 F.2d 861, 863 (11 Cir.1989), In re Standard Insulations, Inc., 138 B.R. 947, 958 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Dazic Controls Corp.
Bankr. D. Conn. · 1995 · confidence medium
Id. at 682 (citations and quotation marks omitted.) In Haugen, the creditor had sent a letter to the U.S. Trustee, as the acting trustee in a Chapter 11 proceeding, asserting its claim and requesting that the letter be passed on to the new trustee.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Claremont Towers Co.
Bankr. D.N.J. · 1994 · confidence medium
Services, Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989); Charter Co. v. Dioxin Claimants (In re Charter Co.), 876 F.2d 861, 863 (11th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Dauer
Bankr. D.N.J. · 1994 · confidence medium
Services, Inc.), 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989) (The informal proof of claim must show “an assertion of a claim against the estate and an intention by the claimant to share in its assets.”); Charter Co. v. Dioxin Claimants (In re Charter Co.), 876 F.2d 861, 863 (11th Cir.1989) (An informal proof of claim must state the nature and amount of the claim and “make clear the claimant’s intention to hold the debtor liable for the claim.”); First Nat’l Bank v. West (In re Thompson), 227 F. 981, 983 (3d Cir.1915) (“Whether formal or informal, a claim must show (as the word itself implie…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Vaughn Chevrolet, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. E.D. Tenn. · 1993 · confidence medium
For example, the Eighth Circuit has stated its standard as follows: If the record made within the statutory period, formal or informal, disclosed facts showing an assertion of a claim against the estate and an intention by the claimant to share in its assets, there would be a basis for the proposed amendment_ In re Haugen Const. Serv., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (quoting Tarbell v. Crex Carpet Co., 90 F.2d 683, 685-86 (8th Cir.1937)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Hess
Bankr. E.D. Ark. · 1992 · confidence medium
In re Haugen Construction Services, Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Standard Insulations, Inc. (2×)
Bankr. W.D. Mo. · 1992 · confidence medium
Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Myers v. Halverson (In Re Irvine)
D. Minnesota · 1989 · confidence medium
Serv., Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989), [quoting In re Donovan Wire & Iron Co., 822 F.2d 38, 39 (8th Cir.1987) and Tarbell v. Crex Carpet Co., 90 F.2d 683, 685-86 (8th Cir.1937) ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re National Entertainment Centers, Inc.
Bankr. N.D. Ohio · 1989 · confidence medium
In In re Haugen Construction Services, Inc. 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989), the Court held that: “In reviewing the amendment of informal claims in bankruptcy proceedings, we look to the following standard: Great liberality in permitting amendments of claims in bankruptcy proceedings is proper, but the statute requiring that a proof of claim in writing be filed is clear, positive and unambiguous and it must not be nullified in the name of equity.
discussed Cited "see" Moratzka v. Morris (In Re Senior Cottages of America, LLC)
Bankr. D. Minn. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Haugen Const. Servs., Inc., 876 F.2d 681, 682 (8th Cir.1989); In re Donovan Wire & Iron Co., 822 F.2d 38, 39 (8th Cir.1987); Tarbell v. Crex Carpet Co., 90 F.2d 683, 685-686 (8th Cir.1937); In re Faulkner, 161 F. 900, 903 (8th Cir.1908); In re Irvine, 105 B.R. 502, 503 (D.Minn.1989); In re Michels, 286 B.R. 684, 690 (8th Cir. BAP 2002); In re Clapp, 57 B.R. 921, 924 (Bankr.D.Minn.1986); In re Hart Ski Mfg.
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Interco Inc. (2×)
Bankr. E.D. Mo. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Id. and In re Haugen Const. Services, Inc., 876 F.2d 681 (8th Cir.1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Fink
Bankr. N.D. Ind. · 2007 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, In re Haugen Const. Services, Inc., 876 F.2d 681 (8th Cir.1989)(letter sent to the trustee was an informal claim), with In re Whitaker Const. Co., Inc., 439 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2006)(writing must be filed with the bankruptcy court).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re Wilbert Winks Farm, Inc.
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Haugen Construction Services, Inc., 876 F.2d 681 (8th Cir.1989); and In re Oxridge Investment Group, 43 B.R. 418 (Bankr.D.N.H.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,976 in Re Haugen Construction Services, Inc. First American Bank & Trust of Minot
v.
Butler MacHinery Co.
88-5344.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Jun 7, 1989.
876 F.2d 681
Richard P. Olson, Minot, N.D., for appellant., Edward F. Klinger, Fargo, N.D., for ap-pellee.
Arnold, Bright, Fagg, Per Curiam.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

First American Bank & Trust of Minot (Bank) appeals the district court’s [1] affirmance of a bankruptcy court [2] order permitting Butler Machinery Company (Butler) to amend its informal claim against the debt- or, Haugen Construction Services, Inc. (Haugen), by filing a formal proof of claim. The Bank contends that Butler never made a timely informal claim that it could amend. We affirm.

Haugen filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on June 3, 1985. The Chapter 11[*682] schedules listed Butler as possessing an uncontested state court judgment against Haugen for $821,159.00. Butler participated extensively in the Chapter 11 proceedings, and, on May 22, 1986, the bankruptcy court granted Butler’s motion to convert the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding.

On May 27, 1986, Butler’s attorney sent a letter to the United States Trustee, which served as the acting trustee in the Chapter 11 proceedings. This letter stated that Haugen owed Butler about $800,000, and that Butler wanted a competent trustee appointed to pursue the matter in the Chapter 7 proceedings. Butler asked the United States Trustee to pass the letter on to the new trustee. Butler also requested that the new trustee contact Butler’s attorney.

On June 3, 1986, the clerk of the bankruptcy court sent a notice to all of Hau-gen’s creditors requiring them to file a proof of claim by September 22, 1986, regardless of whether the debt was listed in the Chapter 11 schedules. [3] Although Butler failed to do so, the bankruptcy court construed the letter as an informal claim and, on February 29, 1988, permitted Butler to amend that claim by filing a formal claim for the state court judgment of $821,-159.00. In re Haugen Construction Services, Inc., 88 B.R. 214, 218 (Bankr.D.N.D.1988). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and the Bank appeals. [4]

In reviewing the amendment of informal claims in bankruptcy proceedings, we look to the following standard:

“Great liberality in permitting amendments of claims in bankruptcy proceedings is proper, but the statute requiring that a proof of claim in writing be filed is clear, positive and unambiguous and it must not be nullified in the name of equity. If the record made within the statutory period, formal or informal, disclosed facts showing an assertion of a claim against the estate and an intention by the claimant to share in its assets, there would be a basis for the proposed amendment * *

In re Donovan Wire & Iron Co., 822 F.2d 38, 39 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (quoting Tarbell v. Crex Carpet Co., 90 F.2d 683, 685-86 (8th Cir.1937) (emphasis added)). A valid informal claim need not be filed with the bankruptcy court. County of Napa v. Franciscan Vineyards, Inc. (In re Franciscan Vineyards, Inc.), 597 F.2d 181, 183 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 915, 100 S.Ct. 1274, 63 L.Ed.2d 598 (1980).

We conclude that Butler sufficiently made an amendable informal claim within the bar period under Donovan. Butler explicitly stated the nature and amount of its claim, and its desire to pursue that claim, in the letter it sent to the United States Trustee on May 27, 1986, five days after the bankruptcy court converted the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding. Moreover, Butler’s active participation throughout the earlier bankruptcy proceedings demonstrated Butler’s intent that the letter assert a claim. See Anderson-Walker Indus. v. Lafayette Metals, Inc. (In re Anderson-Walker Indus.), 798 F.2d 1285, 1288 (9th Cir.1986). Thus, the letter constituted a timely and amendable informal claim.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, Chief United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

2

. The Honorable William A. Hill, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of North Dakota.

3

. In a Chapter 11 case, a creditor must file a formal proof of claim only if his or her claim is listed in the schedules as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated. 11U.S.C. § 1111(a) (1982). In the present case, the bankruptcy court held that such a creditor nevertheless must file a formal claim when a court later converts the case to Chapter 7.

4

. Citing Giles World Mktg., Inc. v. Boekamp Mfg., Inc., 787 F.2d 746 (1st Cir.1986), Butler argues that the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order permitting Butler to file a formal proof of claim is interlocutory and nonappealable. We disagree. The order in question in Giles neither conclusively allowed the creditor’s claim nor determined what amount, if any, the debtor owed the creditor. The debtor disputed the claim, and substantial issues remained for the bankruptcy court to decide. Id. at 748 & n. 3.

In the present case, however, Butler already has reduced its claim to judgment in state court, and the Chapter 11 schedules listed the claim as undisputed. Thus, the district court's order is final because unless some party later objects, the claim will be deemed allowed without any further action by the bankruptcy court. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) (Supp. IV 1986).