I agree with Mark's reading of the Rule; a second (and subsequent)
supplemental fee app which is under $1K but which when added to the prior
fee app takes the total over $1K requires service on all creditors.
Bummer. This of course assumes the max RARA was charged.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jay S. Fleischman wrote:
> **
>
>
> So why wouldn't you bill hourly all the way through, submitting interim
> fee applications each time you hit $900 or so?
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:45 PM,
jesseelaw@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> If the second fee application takes it over $1,000, I unhappily serve all
> creditors.
>
> 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 11/8/2012 1:43:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>
kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
> So you serve all creditors on a subsequent fee app even if the subsequent
> fee app amount is under $1K?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> **
>> I have always understood that to mean, the first $1,000.00 above the RARA
>> fee for basic services, not $1.000 for each fee application.
>>
>> 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 11/8/2012 1:32:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>>
kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> LBR 3015-1(x)(5) states that:
>>
>> "An application by debtors counsel for additional fees and costs not
>> exceeding
>> $1,000 over and above the limits set forth in the RARA and Guidelines
>> need be
>> served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor."
>>
>> Does this mean that any supplemental fee app under $1K only needs to be
>> served on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?
>>
>> What if there is a first fee app for less than $1K, and a second fee app
>> later on for less than $1K. Combined they are over $1K over the limits in
>> the RARA (assuming maximum RARA charge). Does this scenario require
>> service on all creditors in the 2nd supplemental fee app?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>>
www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
>
www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
I agree with Mark's reading of the Rule; a second (and subsequent) supplemental fee app which is under $1K but which when added to the prior fee app takes the total over $1K requires service on all creditors. Bummer. This of course assumes the max RARA was charged.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jay S. Fleischman <
bankruptcy@gmail.com> wrote:
So why wouldn't you bill hourly all the way through, submitting interim fee applications each time you hit $900 or so?
jesseelaw@aol.com wrote:
If the second fee application takes it over $1,000, I unhappily serve all
creditors.
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.
Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 11/8/2012 1:43:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:
So you serve all creditors on a subsequent fee app even if the subsequent
fee app amount is under $1K?
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, <
jesseelaw@aol.com> wrote:
I have always understood that to mean,
the first $1,000.00 above the RARA fee for basic services, not $1.000 for
each fee application.
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T.
Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 11/8/2012 1:32:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:
LBR 3015-1(x)(5) states that:"An application by debtors
counsel for additional fees and costs not exceeding$1,000 over and
above the limits set forth in the RARA and Guidelines need beserved
only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor."Does this mean that
any supplemental fee app under $1K only needs to be served on the chapter
13 trustee and the debtor?What if there is a first fee app for
less than $1K, and a second fee app later on for less than $1K.
Combined they are over $1K over the limits in the RARA (assuming maximum
RARA charge). Does this scenario require service on all creditors in
the 2nd supplemental fee app?Thanks,-- Kirk
Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
