Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

FYI - Trustee decided not to appeal after all.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
*Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Holly Roark wrote:
> Attached is the tentative ruling (which was adopted by the Court today)
> ordering the Chapter 13 Trustee to comply with the terms of the Debtor's
> confirmed Chapter 13 Plan which states in asterisked language that Debtor's
> counsel's admin fees (including those pursuant to supplemental fee
> applications) and fees of Debtor's special counsel are paid prior to other
> admins in the case. Trustee made oral motion to stay pending appeal. Court
> required Trustee to post a bond equal to my fees and special counsels' fees
> in the sum of approx. $40K by 11//9/16 or no stay. *Where do the bond
> funds come from? Trustee's pocket? *
>
>
>
> This is beyond all reason and is outright vindictive. I am attaching here
> the supplemental briefs filed in this case (not all the other pleadings)
> because they are more easily digested for the narrow issues at hand. They
> make reference to sections of other briefs filed that set forth in more
> detail the relevant law. Basically, the Trustee is arguing that Debtor
> cannot alter priority of payment within an administrative class even with *conspicuous
> language in the plan (that no one objected to 2 years ago and where the
> Trustee has been COMPLYING WITH SAID TERMS under that
> asterisked-and-different-font- language for almost 2 years.) Even the
> court found the Trustee's argument to elevate form over substance. *
>
>
>
> Wow,
>
>
>
> The Court also clarified that he was only making a ruling as to the
> alteration of language on a mandatory form as to THIS case and under the
> specific facts of this case. Nevertheless, that was not enough for the
> Trustee. The Trustee fears that everyone will start burying language in the
> Plan that the Trustee won't see. As the Court pointed out, the additional
> language in this plan was *conspicuous. *
>
>
>
> Well, folks, tell me, do you think we will get a good appellate ruling out
> of this? I mean, the language was conspicuous and complied with the local
> rules for *adding *language to a mandatory form; the affected parties
> never objected; the Trustee has been complying with the language for almost
> 2 years.
>
>
>
> I understand there is controlling case law that says I can't get fees for
> fighting for my fees, but what about if I am actually fighting to compel
> the trustee to comply with the confirmed plan, (or, also fighting for the
> fees of the special counsel of the Debtor?) We are not fighting about my
> RIGHT to be paid; the fee orders were granted already. We are fighting
> about my asterisked terms in the Plan which say that I and all of Debtor's
> special counsel get paid before other admin claimants.
>
>
> Note: this motion was originally styled as a motion for contempt against
> the Trustee back in June of this year (2016) for failing and refusing to
> comply with the terms of the Plan. The contempt was denied without
> prejudice on procedural grounds but the Court stated that I would have a
> high hurdle to show the Trustee is acting in bad faith and that he assumes
> the Trustee is acting in good faith in every case. I wonder if he would
> agree now? Today he said the Trustee seems to be "picking and choosing"
> added plan language that he likes and doesn't like. (After all, I had to
> "add" language to the Plan for the step up payments since the form doesn't
> have room).
>
>
> (As to special counsel's fees: we hired special counsel in this Chapter 13
> to represent the debtor in 2 probate actions, which he did. He's now just
> waiting to get paid per the Plan. All the briefs I filed reference both my
> fees and his. He has not made any appearance on the matters, but he would.)
>
>
> If the trustee does post the bond by 11/9/16, and files his appeal, can I
> get fees for fighting this appeal, at least in part?
>
>
> Interested to hear all your thoughts on this matter.
>
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> *and Sports Lawyer*
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> *Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer
> Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
>
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
>
FYI - Trustee decided not to appeal after all.Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601

The post was migrated from Yahoo.