## Facts

- The Yoder Company filed a Chapter 11 petition in March 1981 in the Northern District of Ohio.
- The bankruptcy court set July 13, 1981 as the deadline to file proofs of claim and directed that notice be mailed to all creditors.
- Mark S. Bratton had a pending Michigan products-liability action alleging severe injury from Yoder’s equipment, and Yoder scheduled his claim as contingent, unliquidated, and disputed.
- Bratton filed a proof of claim on March 15, 1982, about eight months after the deadline.
- Yoder objected and sought to expunge Bratton’s claim as untimely.
- Yoder presented testimony describing a general process for preparing address labels from the schedules and having a letter service mail the notices, but no copy/list of labels or other record was retained to show a notice addressed to Bratton’s attorney was prepared and mailed.
- Bratton’s attorney testified he never received bar-date notice.
- The bankruptcy court found notice had been mailed to Bratton’s attorney, applied a presumption of receipt, and disallowed the claim; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding that bar-date notice was mailed to Bratton (through his attorney) as required by the applicable bankruptcy notice rules.
2. Whether, absent adequate proof of mailed notice to a known creditor, a late-filed proof of claim may be barred solely as untimely.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed as to Bratton.
- The court held the finding that bar-date notice was mailed to Bratton’s attorney was clearly erroneous on this record.
- Because proper mailed notice was not adequately established, the bar date could not be enforced to disallow Bratton’s claim solely for lateness.

## Legal Principles

- When the bankruptcy rules require mailed notice of a claims bar date to creditors, known creditors are entitled to that formal mailed notice.
- A creditor’s awareness that a bankruptcy reorganization is pending does not substitute for mailed notice of the bar date.
- The common-law presumption of receipt depends on proof that the notice was properly addressed and mailed; generalized testimony about routine mailing procedures, without corroborating records, may be insufficient when a specific creditor credibly denies receipt.
- A bankruptcy court’s factual finding that notice was mailed is reviewed for clear error and must be supported by evidence tying the mailing process to the particular creditor at issue.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that the debtor did not carry its burden to show that bar-date notice was properly addressed and mailed to Bratton’s attorney, so Bratton—identified in the schedules as a known creditor—could not have his claim disallowed merely because his proof of claim was filed after the bar date.


In re Yoder Co., 758 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1985)