Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Logan Beck

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-11438

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THEF OURN ITTHEED DSITSATTREICST B OAFN KCROULPOTRCAYD OCO URT
The Honorable Michael E. Romero

In re:

Case No. 25-11438 MER

Logan Beck

Chapter 7

Debtor.

         ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO CLAIM                         

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Objection to Proof of Claim filed 

by Colorado Department of Law and, in the Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration of
the Allowance of Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 (j) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3008
(“Objection”) filed by the Debtor and the Court’s Order to Supplement (“Supplement
Order”).1

The Debtor filed the instant case on March 19, 2025, under Chapter 7 of the 

Bankruptcy Code. On September 12, 2025, the State of Colorado (the “State”) filed a
proof of claim for $3,307,557.00 (“Claim”).2 The Debtor filed the instant Objection to the
Claim on December 8, 2025. In his Objection the Debtor asserts, among other things,
the Claim should be disallowed because the State has not obtained a judgment or any
other order against the Debtor that supports the amount of its claim, and that the State
has failed to establish any underlying right to payment. However, the Debtor did not
address why he has standing to object to the State’s Claim.3 Generally, Chapter 7
debtors do not have standing to object to claims unless there is a surplus estate.4 As
such, the Court ordered the Debtor to file a supplement explaining why he has standing
to object to the Claim. The Court advised the Debtor that failure to respond to the
Supplement Order may result in his Objection being overruled. The Debtor failed to

1 ECF Nos. 44 & 55.

2 Proof of Claim No. 7-1.

3 The Court notes the State also did not address the Debtor’s standing to object to its Claim in its
response to the Objection.

4 In re Quintero, 513 B.R. 127, 133 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2014) (“Typically, a debtor is not a party in interest
within the meaning of § 502(a) because the debtor will not receive a distribution from estate assets and
therefore has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the claim objection.”) (internal quotations omitted);
see In re Morreale, Case No. 13-27310-TBM, 2015 WL 3897796, at *7-8 (Bankr. D. Colo. June 22, 2015)
(finding that to have standing, the debtor must have a financial interest in the outcome of an order and
that Chapter 7 debtors very rarely have standing to object to matters affecting administration of the
bankruptcy liquidation.); McGuirl v. White, 86 F.3d 1232, 1234 (D.C.Cir. 1996); In re El San Juan Hotel, 809 F.2d 151, 155 n. 6 (1st Cir. 1987)).

respond to the Supplement Order by the February 23, 2026, deadline or to explain
otherwise why he has standing to object to the State’s Claim. Therefore, the Court
ORDERS the Objection is OVERRULED.
Dated March 4, 2026 BY THE COURT:
ME
Michael E. Ro , Judge
United Statés Bankruptcy Court