.jpg)
Chapter 13 Fee Applications=20=20=20
Yes, I received similar comments including the requirement to set the matter for a hearing if I didn't agree to a much lower amount than I had requested.
I prepared a response to the SFA commentsand supported it with a detailed declaration explaining why the "no-look" feewas not the appropriate standard against which my fee application should be evaluated. I also explained that but for the trustee's failure to cooperate in resolving his objections to the relatedMOMOD, the SFA would not havebeen nearly as high; the trustee had commented on the MOMOD yetrefused to communicate regarding resolution of the dispute afterdebtor filed apenses, etc., which requiredan otherwise needless 6 hours of travel to/from LA toappear when the court has alengthy calendar.
The trustee's attorney's commented at the SFA hearingthat he hadn't actually reviewed the fee application but thought the amount of the SFA was too large.
The judgewasn't veryhappywith that attorney.
The judge granted the original SFA in full and the also the subsequent SFA for the extra time requiredto prepare the responseto trustee's objections to theoriginal SFA,the detailed supporting declaration,and the extensive time required to travel to andfrom LA to
Get the facts before the court and argue these issue now before SA turns into another Riverside.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:17 AM, "'James T. King' king@kingobk.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Sadly enough it is equally true in Riverside. This topic is on the top of the list for the Courts Chapter 13 committee at next monthFrom:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:20 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Fee Applications
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.