.jpg)
Chapter 13 Supplemental Attorney Fees Application
charsetndows-1252
We used to call that the Bill Brownstein Method, but he used legal length paper and six microscopic page copies per side.
Hi Bill, hope you are on this listserve!
Jason
JASON WALLACH, ESQ.
Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC
4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300
Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925
Tel: (310) 821-9000
Direct: (310) 775-8725
Fax: (310) 775-8775
Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.com
www. gladstonemichel.com
On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:33 AM, John D. Faucher wrote:
>
> On my version of Word, I can set up the printer to print two or four per page. Look in your printer specifications. Also, you can reduce size on your copier sometimes to make this work.
> As for editing the mailing list: I attach a copy of the matrix harvested on the day of service, with handwritten notes crossing out the duplicates and NEF-served recipients, the same as Sam above. I also cross out obviously bad addresses: if I've served three documents, and I've gotten three documents back from the same address as nondeliverable, I'll make a note of that and no longer send something futilely.
>
> John D. Faucher
> Faucher & Associates
> 818/889-8080
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
>
> How do you get 4 per page?
> That's a nice feature for big mailings.
>
> On Jun 28, 2013 12:25 PM, "sambenevento" wrote:
>
>
> For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, cdcbaa wrote:
> >
> > Group:
> >
> > The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
> > So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
> >
> > d
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
> >
> > > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
> > >
> > > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
> > >
> > > Mark Jessee
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee apps over $1000.
> > >>
> > >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen" wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address is free and I believe also updates the BNC
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended creditor matrix?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC, but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address" then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@... wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list upon receipt of POC?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13roups.com CC:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000 require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case, namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that Debtor's counsel should be required to ignore a creditor's written instructions in its proof of claim as to where to serve notices and send creditors notices to several different addresses and to collection agents/attorneys who have nothing to do with the claim any more. This seems especially absurd when judges consider all the time spent making all the extra copies of the notice of motion, and addressing and stuffing the envelopes as well as preparing and filing the proof of service to be secretarial work for which we are not entitled to compensation. For example in my particular instance this equates 49 service packages I need to serve based upon the CMECF Creditor List instead of 12 contained in the respective filed proofs of claim.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am tilting at windmills here? Is everybody else just using the CMECF Creditor List and sending out all the extra notices?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Mark Jessee
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> > >>>>>> CA 92701
> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> > >>>> CA 92701
> > >>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
> > >>>> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
We used to call that the Bill Brownstein Method, but he used legal length paper and six microscopic page copies per side.Hi Bill, hope you are on this listserve!Jason
-- JASON WALLACH, ESQ.Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC4551 Glencoe Avenue, Suite 300Marina del Rey CA 90292-7925Tel: (310) 821-9000Direct: (310) 775-8725Fax: (310) 775-8775Email: jwallach@ gladstonemichel.comwww. gladstonemichel.com
On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:33 AM, John D. Faucher wrote:
On my version of Word, I can set up the printer to print two or four per page. Look in your printer specifications. Also, you can reduce size on your copier sometimes to make this work.
As for editing the mailing list: I attach a copy of the matrix harvested on the day of service, with handwritten notes crossing out the duplicates and NEF-served recipients, the same as Sam above. I also cross out obviously bad addresses: if I've served three documents, and I've gotten three documents back from the same address as nondeliverable, I'll make a note of that and no longer send something futilely.
John D. Faucher
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
On my version of Word, I can set up the printer to print two or four per
page. Look in your printer specifications. Also, you can reduce size on
your copier sometimes to make this work.
As for editing the mailing list: I attach a copy of the matrix harvested on
the day of service, with handwritten notes crossing out the duplicates and
NEF-served recipients, the same as Sam above. I also cross out obviously
bad addresses: if I've served three documents, and I've gotten three
documents back from the same address as nondeliverable, I'll make a note of
that and no longer send something futilely.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates
*818/889-8080*
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> **
>
>
> How do you get 4 per page?
> That's a nice feature for big mailings.
> On Jun 28, 2013 12:25 PM, "sambenevento" wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by
>> ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we
>> shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no
>> envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
>>
>> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, cdcbaa wrote:
>> >
>> > Group:
>> >
>> > The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
>> > So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly
>> served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative
>> that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
>> >
>> > d
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
>> >
>> > > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by
>> the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When
>> not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the
>> amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old
>> addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF
>> creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
>> > >
>> > > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all
>> creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all
>> the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
>> > >
>> > > Mark Jessee
>> > >
>> > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > >
>> > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude
>> redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee
>> apps over $1000.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address
>> is free and I believe also updates the BNC
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and
>> transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete
>> creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am
>> serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's
>> service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to
>> separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended
>> creditor matrix?
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" wrote:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC,
>> but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address"
>> then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the
>> address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
>> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
>> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
>> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@...
>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list
>> upon receipt of POC?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G
>> network.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13
>> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com CC:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a
>> motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected
>> because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee
>> application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have
>> never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every
>> party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does
>> not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a
>> quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13
>> case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as
>> a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from
>> long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and
>> superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000
>> require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to
>> LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes
>> sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate
>> the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address
>> designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all
>> creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case,
>> namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve
>> them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim
>> or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to
>> serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after
>> they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of
>> claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof
>> of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that Debtor's counsel
>> should be required to ignore a creditor's written instructions in its proof
>> of claim as to where to serve notices and send creditors notices to several
>> different addresses and to collection agents/attorneys who have nothing to
>> do with the claim any more. This seems especially absurd when judges
>> consider all the time spent making all the extra copies of the notice of
>> motion, and addressing and stuffing the envelopes as well as preparing and
>> filing the proof of service to be secretarial work for which we are not
>> entitled to compensation. For example in my particular instance this
>> equates 49 service packages I need to serve based upon the CMECF Creditor
>> List instead of 12 contained in the respective filed proofs of claim.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> I am tilting at windmills here? Is everybody else just using
>> the CMECF Creditor List and sending out all the extra notices?
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Mark Jessee
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
>> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
>> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
>> > >>>>>> CA 92701
>> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
>> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
>> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
>> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
>> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
>> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
>> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
>> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
>> > >>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
>> > >>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
>> > >>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
>> > >>>> CA 92701
>> > >>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
>> > >>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
>> > >>>> www.schrader-law.com
>> > >>>> __________________________________________________________
>> > >>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
>> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
>> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
>> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
>> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
>> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New
>> Topic Messages in this topic (7)
>> > >>>> RECENT ACTIVITY:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
On my version of Word, I can set up the printer to print two or four per page. Look in your printer specifications. Also, you can reduce size on your copier sometimes to make this work.
As for editing the mailing list: I attach a copy of the matrix harvested on the day of service, with handwritten notes crossing out the duplicates and NEF-served recipients, the same as Sam above. ents, and I've gotten three documents back from the same address as nondeliverable, I'll make a note of that and no longer send something futilely.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates818/889-8080
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
How do you get 4 per page?
That's a nice feature for big mailings.
On Jun 28, 2013 12:25 PM, "sambenevento" <sam@southbaybk.com> wrote:
For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
@yahoogroups.com, cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@...> wrote:
>
> Group:
>
> The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
> So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee <jesseelaw@...> wrote:
>
> > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
> >
> > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
> >
> > Mark Jessee
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee apps over $1000.
> >>
> >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen" <christiansenlaw@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address is free and I believe also updates the BNC
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader <lschrader@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@...> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended creditor matrix?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" <lschrader@...> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC, but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address" then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@... <bertbri@...> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list upon receipt of POC?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subjecssee To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com CC:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000 require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case, namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
How do you get 4 per page?
That's a nice feature for big mailings.
On Jun 28, 2013 12:25 PM, "sambenevento" wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by
> ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we
> shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no
> envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, cdcbaa wrote:
> >
> > Group:
> >
> > The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
> > So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly
> served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative
> that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
> >
> > d
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
> >
> > > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by
> the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When
> not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the
> amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old
> addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF
> creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
> > >
> > > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all
> creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all
> the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
> > >
> > > Mark Jessee
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude
> redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee
> apps over $1000.
> > >>
> > >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address is
> free and I believe also updates the BNC
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and
> transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete
> creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am
> serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's
> service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to
> separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended creditor
> matrix?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC,
> but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address"
> then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the
> address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@...
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list
> upon receipt of POC?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G
> network.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com CC:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a
> motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because
> I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all
> creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue
> raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the
> CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to
> me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of
> creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes
> every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the
> start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old
> addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new
> addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000
> require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to
> LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes
> sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate
> the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address
> designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all
> creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case,
> namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve
> them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim
> or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to
> serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after
> they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of
> claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof
> of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that Debtor's counsel
> should be required to ignore a creditor's written instructions in its proof
> of claim as to where to serve notices and send creditors notices to several
> different addresses and to collection agents/attorneys who have nothing to
> do with the claim any more. This seems especially absurd when judges
> consider all the time spent making all the extra copies of the notice of
> motion, and addressing and stuffing the envelopes as well as preparing and
> filing the proof of service to be secretarial work for which we are not
> entitled to compensation. For example in my particular instance this
> equates 49 service packages I need to serve based upon the CMECF Creditor
> List instead of 12 contained in the respective filed proofs of claim.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am tilting at windmills here? Is everybody else just using the
> CMECF Creditor List and sending out all the extra notices?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Mark Jessee
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> > >>>>>> CA 92701
> > >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> > >>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> > >>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> > >>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> > >>>> CA 92701
> > >>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> > >>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> > >>>> www.schrader-law.com
> > >>>> __________________________________________________________
> > >>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain
> information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the
> individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use,
> dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (7)
> > >>>> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
How do you get 4 per page?
That's a nice feature for big mailings.
On Jun 28, 2013 12:25 PM, "sambenevento" <sam@southbaybk.com> wrote:
For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
@yahoogroups.com, cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@...> wrote:
>
> Group:
>
> The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
> So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee <jesseelaw@...> wrote:
>
> > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
> >
> > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
> >
> > Mark Jessee
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee apps over $1000.
> >>
> >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen" <christiansenlaw@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address is free and I believe also updates the BNC
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader <lschrader@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@...> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended creditor matrix?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" <lschrader@...> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC, but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address" then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@... <bertbri@...> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list upon receipt of POC?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subjecssee To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com CC:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000 require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case, namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For what it is worth, we also mail to the entire matrix as maintained by ECF. But we redact the clear duplicates and those on the ECF list, plus we shrink the mailings to 4 per page, double sided, tri-folded with no envelopes. And I have no idea if tri-fold is supposed to have a hyphen.
>
> Group:
>
> The court cannot tell which addresses are duplicate, wrong, etc.
> So the court can only look at the whole list to see if you properly served the creditors. I cannot imagine how you would prove the negative that addresses are wrong, so at my office, we just serve the whole list.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
>
> > Change of address forms for creditor filed by debtor are rejected by the clerk in my experience and they require a matrix amendment fee. When not rejected, most times the address is not updated. Even with filing the amended matrix the CM/ECF creditor list is not always updated and old addresses are never deleted. Hence this is why I do not find the CM/ECF creditor list very useful, especially farther into chapter 13 cases.
> >
> > So again the question is does LBR 3015(x)'s requirement to serve all creditors mean we need to use the CM/ECF creditor list for service with all the superfluous names and addresses? VK seems to be saying we do....
> >
> > Mark Jessee
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So perhaps the best practice is to amend the matrix to exclude redundant addresses and then use the matrix for service of supplemental fee apps over $1000.
> >>
> >> On Jun 25, 2013 12:30 PM, "Catherine Christiansen" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If the creditor is already listed then filing a change of address is free and I believe also updates the BNC
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Link Schrader wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The Court will automatically (usually) update from POCs and transfers of claims. A $30 amendment fee is charged to add or delete creditors, DEF, so I normally update my master mailing list to ensure I am serving necessary parties and only amend DEF when necessary for the Court's service. Even then it might be easier toward the end of the case for me to separately serve a party not served through the BNC.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 25, 2013 6:04 AM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you update the creditir list? By filing an amended creditor matrix?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 2013 1:58 AM, "Link Schrader" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not just wise to update the creditors' list based upon the POC, but a requirement of the FRBP. When a POC lists a "notices to this address" then that is the proper address where notices should be sent, not the address the debtor originally listed on the schedules.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55 PM, bertbri@... wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> perhaps it would be wise for us to update the creditors list upon receipt of POC?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -------- Original message -------- Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Sups.com CC:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000 require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case, namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that Debtor's counsel should be required to ignore a creditor's written instructions in its proof of claim as to where to serve notices and send creditors notices to several different addresses and to collection agents/attorneys who have nothing to do with the claim any more. This seems especially absurd when judges consider all the time spent making all the extra copies of the notice of motion, and addressing and stuffing the envelopes as well as preparing and filing the proof of service to be secretarial work for which we are not entitled to compensation. For example in my particular instance this equates 49 service packages I need to serve based upon the CMECF Creditor List instead of 12 contained in the respective filed proofs of claim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am tilting at windmills here? Is everybody else just using the CMECF Creditor List and sending out all the extra notices?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark Jessee
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> >>>>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> >>>>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> >>>>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> >>>>>> CA 92701
> >>>>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> >>>>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> >>>>>> www.schrader-law.com
> >>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link Schrader, Attorney
> >>>> Law Office of Link W. Schrader
> >>>> Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
> >>>> Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana,
> >>>> CA 92701
> >>>> Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
> >>>> San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
> >>>> www.schrader-law.com
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >>>> This communication and any files transmitted with it contain information which is confidential and may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or intended recipient. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7) > >>>> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> >
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree with your analysis. Looking again at FRBP 2002, I think I was offbase in thinking only unsecured creditors filing proofs of claim are
entitled to notice of supplemental fee application, even if unsecured creditors
that have not filed a proof of claim after the expiration of the claims bar
date do not really have an interest in the case or standing to object to an
attorney's fee application. FRBP 2002(g)(2) says if creditors do not filea proof of claim, notice is to be sent to all creditors not filing a proofof claim at the address listed in the later filed of the schedule of
liabilities or creditor mailing list. There is no limitation of the notice
requirement to only creditors filing a proof of claim in the case like there
may be in a Chapter 7 case under FRBP 2002(h).
Accordingly, I conclude the definition of "all creditors" in FRBP
2002(a)(6) and LBR 3015-1(x) is all creditors which file a proof of claim or
electronic notice requests at the address contained therein or as amended or
transferred and to all other creditors listed in the most recently filed
schedules or mailing list. Alas using the CM/ECF Creditor list is much broader
than this containing every alternate address and
agent/representative/predecessor and even those creditors who transferred their claims away or whose
address was corrected. If a particular Judge is being a stickler for
using the CM/ECF Creditor list it is probably easier just serve every name and
address on it and grumble than to go to the mat on the issue....
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 6/25/2013 11:23:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lschrader@schrader-law.com writes:
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) Rule 2002(a) requires
notice to the debtor, the trustee, all creditors and indenture trustees of
not less than 21 days notice by mail of ...(6) a hearing on any entity'srequest for compensation or reimbursement of expenses if the request exceeds
$1,000;... Further, FRBP 2002(g) states that notices required to be
mailed under Rule 2002shall be addressed to such entity or an authorized
agent has directed in its last request filed in the particular case. A proof
of claim filed by a creditor constitutes a filed request to mail notices to
that address. FRBP 2002(g)(1)(A). There is no requirement that notice be
mailed on all parties designated in a debtors schedules as other notification or where the address listed in the schedules have been
changed by an act of the creditor (i.e. filing a POC or transfer).
However, I once had an attorney for the U.S. Trustee in a Chapter 11 caseinsist that I serve all of the creditors listed on the Court's mailing
list. While I let him know the reason I disagreed with him, I did it anyway to
avoid extra work and conflict in that case.
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
_www.schrader-law.com_ (http://www.schrader-law.com/)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
There is a LBR that says all creditors must be served if supplemental
chapter 13 fees are $1000 or greater. It is probably about 3015-1(x) and
(v), just off the top of my head.
*Link Schrader, Attorney*
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
Mail: P.O. Box 3723, Tustin, CA 92781
Office: 106 W. 4th Street, Suite #308, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Office: (714) 542-5922; Mobile/Text: (310) 413-6924
San Diego: (619) 952-8342; Fax: (310) 878-4158
www.schrader-law.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Who are the interested creditors that must be served with a motion for supplemental attorney fees in a Chapter 13 case?
I just had a supplemental fee application order rejected because I allegedly failed to serve the notice of motion and fee application on all creditors listed in the CMECF Creditor List. I have never had this issue raised in 17 years. Are we required to serve every party listed on the CMECF Creditor List? Using the CMECF Creditor List does not make sense to me once the bar date has passed. This list is not a quality compilation of creditors with an actual interest in the Chapter 13 case, but includes every name and address listed in the creditor matrix as a precaution at the start of the case including assignors and agents from long ago and old addresses that creditors subsequently updated and superceded with new addresses in their filed proofs of claim.
Motions for supplemental fees in Chapter 13 cases over $1,000 require service on the debtor, the trustee and "all creditors" pursuant to LBR 3015-1(x). Prior to the bar date using this list for service makes sense unless a creditor filed a proof of claim, in which case I eliminate the bad addresses from service and only serve at the specific address designated on the proof of claim. After the bar date I interpreted "all creditors" to mean only those creditors that had an interest in the case, namely those which filed a proof of claim. Those I winnowed down to serve them at the specific address designated for service in the proof of claim or any amended claim/address change notice, etc. Why should we need to serve notice on purported creditors a few years after the bar date after they chose not to participate in the bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim. What standing do such purported creditors which never filed a proof of claim have to object to a supplemental fee application?
Furthermore, it makes no sense to me that Debtor's counsel should be required to ignore a creditor's written instructions in its proof of claim as to where to serve notices and send creditors notices to several different addresses and to collection agents/attorneys who have nothing to do with the claim any more. This seems especially absurd when judges consider all the time spent making all the extra copies of the notice of motion, and addressing and stuffing the envelopes as well as preparing and filing the proof of service to be secretarial work for which we are not entitled to compensation. For example in my particular instance this equates 49 service packages I need to serve based upon the CMECF Creditor List instead of 12 contained in the respective filed proofs of claim.
I am tilting at windmills here? Is everybody else just using the CMECF Creditor List and sending out all the extra notices?
Mark Jessee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.