.jpg)
Chapter 13 Fee Applications
Bert,
I have never had difficulty with a supplemental fee app in chapter 13. I
do make sure I am only requesting fees for items not included in the RARA
fee.
Link W. Schrader
On May 21, 2014 8:19 PM, "Bert Briones bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Recently I have seen a plethora of trustee comments on my chapter 13 fee
> applications in Santa Ana. The argument the trustee seems to making is the
> the new "no look" fee is customary and should be the new cap for fees
> unless the application demonstrates that the services were
> "extraordinary".
>
> My problems with this is that the logic of assuming that the "no look" is
> the same as the maximum fee, seems flawed. Additionally, just a few months
> ago the same type applications with the same amount of compensation
> requests were being approved. Therefore, I fear that the trustee is now
> taking this position across the board. It seems like a move to kill or at
> least minimize the "lodestar" applications.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem? (I assume yes) If so who would like
> to join forces to fight this apparent movement by the trustee in SA? Please
> reply offline. bb@redhilllawgroup.com
>
> Also what about the other trustees? That information I believe would be
> great to share in this thread.
>
>
Bert,
I have never had difficulty with a supplemental fee app in chapter 13. I do make sure I am only requesting fees for items not included in the RARA fee.
Link W. Schrader
On May 21, 2014 8:19 PM, "Bert Briones bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Recently I have seen a plethora of trustee comments on my chapter 13 fee applications in Santa Ana. The argument the trustee seems to making is the the new "no look" fee is customary and should be the new cap for fees unless the application demonstrates that the services were "extraordinary".My problems with this is that the logic of assuming that the "no look" is the same as the maximum fee, seems flawed. Additionally, just a few months ago the same type applications with the same amount of compensation requests were being approved. Therefore, I fear that the trustee is now taking this position across the board. It seems like a move to kill or at least minimize the "lodestar" applications.
Has anyone else had this problem? (I assume yes) If so who would like to join forces to fight this apparent movement by the trustee in SA? Please reply offline. bb@redhilllawgroup.com
Also what about the other trustees? That information I believe would be great to share in this thread.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.