Summary
This unpublished opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to disallow Jason Winick’s proof of claim against debtors Gregory Harding and Denice Henry. The court found that the underlying construction contract was between Winick and G&D Construction, LLC, not the individual debtors, meaning the claim did not constitute prima facie evidence of validity under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f). Additionally, the panel rejected Winick’s arguments regarding corporate veil piercing, evidentiary exclusions, pro se leniency, and alleged judicial bias during the hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Did the Bankruptcy Court err by finding that Winick’s proof of claim did not constitute prima facie evidence of a valid claim?
- Did the Bankruptcy Court abuse its discretion by refusing to pierce the corporate veil and hold Harding liable?
- Did the Bankruptcy Court abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Winick to present evidence?
- Did the Bankruptcy Court abuse its discretion by declining leniency to Winick?
- Did the Bankruptcy Court abuse its discretion by restricting Winick’s testimony?
Holdings
- The Bankruptcy Court did not err; the proof of claim was not prima facie evidence because it was asserted against a non‑debtor.
- The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion; no evidence of fraud or alter‑ego status was shown.
- The Bankruptcy Court did not err; Winick failed to timely raise the hearsay objection and therefore forfeited the argument on appeal.
- The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion; pro se parties are bound by the same procedural rules as counsel‑represented parties.
- The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion; the judge’s questioning complied with Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) regarding leading questions.
Key quotations
“The Bankruptcy Court found that “the creditor had the standing to file this objection” because “[t]he right to object to claims under Section 502(a) to creditors is unqualified.”” (at 8)
““Under Oklahoma law, the separate corporate existence, and the protection from liability it affords, may be ignored: (i) on the basis of alter ego theory; (ii) when incorporation is a design or scheme to perpetrate a fraud; or (iii) when it is used to defeat an overriding public policy.”” (at 10)
Factual background
In July 2017 Winick contracted with G&D Construction, LLC (owned by Gregory Harding and Denice Henry) to add onto his home. The work violated municipal codes, requiring Winick to spend additional money to correct. Harding and Henry filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October 2022, listing the Rosemarie Pelfrey Revocable Trust as a secured creditor. Winick filed a proof of claim asserting breach of contract and fraud, which the Bankruptcy Court disallowed, finding the contract was with G&D, not the debtors personally.
Procedural history
Winick filed a proof of claim for $29,000 (later amended to $53,890.03) asserting breach of contract and fraud. The Bankruptcy Court held the claim was not prima facie evidence because it was against a non‑debtor (G&D Construction) and disallowed the claim. The Trust objected; the Bankruptcy Court affirmed the objection. Winick appealed to the BAP.