by Holding. In Duarte, No. 24-5156, 2025 LX 413952 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the disallowance of a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to the filing deadlines under the Bankruptcy Code and underscores that post-bar-date actions by a debtor do not substitute for a timely proof of claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3004.
Background
Creditor Jerry Duarte obtained a pre-petition state‐court judgment against debtor Jenna Hillard. When Hillard filed her Chapter 13 case, Duarte missed the bankruptcy’s proof‐of‐claim deadline set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c)(1). Within the 30-day period during which a debtor or trustee may file a claim on a creditor’s behalf under Rule 3004, Hillard amended her schedules and her proposed plan to include Duarte’s amended claim amount. When Duarte later filed his proof of claim himself, and Hillard objected, the bankruptcy court sustained the objection—and the district court affirmed. Duarte then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
Writing for the panel, the Ninth Circuit held that Hillard’s schedule and plan amendments did not constitute a timely Rule 3004 claim. The court explained that:
- Rule 3004 requires a “proof of claim” to be filed by the debtor or trustee on behalf of a creditor within the applicable time period following the creditor’s bar date.
- The informal proof-of-claim doctrine (as recognized in In re Barker) cannot be used to convert mere schedule or plan amendments into a valid claim when the formal proof of claim was not filed timely.
- Because the creditor’s claim was not filed by either himself, or the debtor/trustee within the Rule 3004 window, and because the debtor’s later amendments did not satisfy the required “additional showing” of intent to hold the estate liable, the claim remained untimely and must be disallowed.
Why It Matters
For consumer bankruptcy practitioners, Duarte yields three key take-aways:
- Timeliness is critical. Missing the creditor’s proof‐of‐claim deadline (Rule 3002) is often fatal unless the debtor or trustee properly files under Rule 3004 within the allowed window—and does so with the formal proof of claim.
- Schedule/plan amendments aren’t a cure-all. – Amended schedules and plan listings do not automatically equate to a Rule 3004 claim filing. A meaningful, timely filing is required.
- Informal claims doctrine remains narrow. – While the informal-proof-of-claim doctrine allows some flexibility under certain circumstances, the Ninth Circuit continues to apply it strictly—requiring actual claimant filing or clear debtor/trustee submission and estate liability.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duarte v. Hillard reaffirms that while bankruptcy relief remains forgiving, it is not boundless. Debtors and their attorneys must remain vigilant about claim-filing deadlines and ensure the proper mechanism (proof of claim) is completed when seeking to preserve a creditor’s claim. Failing to do so risks outright disallowance, no matter how sympathetic the debtor’s circumstances.
The Debtor was pro se in this case. The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) and NCBRC filed an amicus brief in support of the Debtor, authored by the Hon. Meredith A. Jury (Ret.).
Opinion and Briefs