Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

An appeal does not appear economically viable to me. A great deal of
uncompensated time and effort, with a limited likelihood of success. There is
nothing in the record indicating her reasoning for the reduction of the
requested fees and expenses. I just do not see the BAP finding her
supplemental fee award order patently unreasonable on its face. That is why I wonder
if we really just need to set supplemental fee applications for hearing,
so there is at least a chance to persuade her compensate all the time andcosts advanced and a record, if there is a basis for appeal.
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)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENTOF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THISMESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 8/24/2012 3:04:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vle@vlelaw.com writes:
Worth an appeal?
Vernon L. Ellicott, Esq.
Certified Family Law Specialist
California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
A Bankruptcy and Family Law Firm
Law Offices of Vernon L. Ellicott
100 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 147
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-8125
(805) 446-6262 Phone
(661) 222-2922 Phone
(805) 446-6264 Fax
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail
messages attached to it, may contain confidential information from the LAWOFFICES OF VERNON L. ELLICOTT that is legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at (805)
446-6262, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments and all
copies of any kind, without reading them or saving them in any way. Thank you.
Mark Jessee
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:16 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Supplemental Fee Applications - Santa Barbara
Colleagues:
I am frankly about as disheartened as I have ever been in 18 years of
practicing bankruptcy law after receiving orders today on a couple of
supplemental fee applications I submitted for Northern Division Chapter 13 cases. I
know many of you do not practice Chapter 13 in the hinterlands of the
Northern Division, but those of you who do, any advice/commiseration is welcome.
As you know Judge Riblet is quite diligent, has high standards and
requires attorneys to abide by the local rules, the FBRP and demands motions
adhere to the FRE (appraisals supported by detailed authenticating declarations,
etc.) While I wish she that she would institute changes in her hearing
procedures that would save a great deal of attorney time, I nevertheless
respect and appreciate her diligence. As you know she requires both adversary
complaints to strip the junior trust deeds and motions to suspend paymentsduring the course of the plan. Properly prepared, these can be lengthy
motions with numerous supporting exhibits. Multiple copies of the motion and
adversary complaint being served at various addresses of all the trust deed
holders and servicers via certified mail adds up to a hefty amount of out of
pocket postage and photocopy expense.
Although I have appeared in front of Judge Riblet for years, I have neverbefore submitted junior lien stripping fee applications to her before now.I extensively researched attorneys appearing before her in Chapter 13 lienstripping matters for the lay of the land. Frankly, I was shocked at how few (less than 5) of the numerous attorneys I researched actually submittedsupplemental fee applications for their efforts relating to their lien
stripping efforts during the last couple years. I wonder if they are working for
free or just not submitting fee applications? The few attorney
supplemental fee applications I found were all awarded $2,000, regardless of the time
expended, regardless of whether they were based upon a one page motion
stating the attorney and debtor agreed to a flat fee or a detailed description
of attorney efforts and time expended by date as the local rules require.While it looked like Judge Riblet generally awards a flat $2,000 for
attorney fees relating to junior lien stripping efforts, as it was a small number
of fee applications I found, I was not certain that was always the case.
I submitted a couple fee applications in compliance with LBR 3015-1(v) andAppendix IV for two cases that were not simple lien stripping
adversaries/motions. These two lien stripping cases required extra time sorting out
some of the facts and obtaining required documents, so frankly even on thelien strip adversaries and motions I felt $2,000 compensation for my time for
quality motions was a bit low, especially with my extensive out of pocketcosts. Regardless I only sought $2,000 for my time in one case and only afew hundred more than that in the other for the lien strip
adversaries/motions. I did not even seek compensation for my time preparing the fee
application as allowed under the local rules. My fee applications included not only
the compensation requests for the lien stripping adversaries, but also
compensation for separate 522(f) motions to remove a few judgement liens for
the respective debtors. Those of course require all the supporting
documentation of the lien stripping adversaries/motions, plus the recorded abstracts
of judgment. As the lien holders were insured depository institutions,
motions had to be served by certified mail at the varying addresses to ensure
proper service. (i.e. another couple hundred out of pocket for postage andphotocopies). The fee applications included a detailed narrative explaining
the nature of the efforts provided and why the separate motions and time
expended were necessary and beneficial to the estate. In addition I provided
a specified breakdown of effort and time by date and details regarding theexpenses including advanced court costs for filing amended schedules, forobtaining certified copies of the Order granting 522(f) motions and to
record them with the County. I even provided the separate totals by category
of expense as required.
Despite the substantially different amounts of time spent on the differentcases, the addition of prosecuting 522(f) motions to remove multiplejudgment liens and significant costs advanced in my two cases, the same flat
$2,000 attorney fees were awarded by Judge Riblet in each case. No extra
compensation was allowed for the several hours of efforts prosecuting theding court
fees and recorder fees that I am clearly not supposed to responsible for
under my fee agreement or RARA, were denied without comment.
Obviously we are always subject to the vagaries of each Judge's subjectiveinterpretation as to the value of our efforts in such cases. I have had
fees and costs that I believed more than reasonable reduced before, but that
is a couple hundred here or there. Not pleasant, but not devastating.
Today's reductions feel devastating. The two orders combined reduced my fee and
costs reimbursement applications by nearly $4,000, and that was after my
voluntary reductions in the motions. Here I made extra efforts, prosecuted522(f) motions, provided the details in the fee application and was stillawarded nothing for the effort. I was awarded the same amount of fees as if I
had made a barely marginal effort, not prosecuted the 522(f) motions, andsubmitted only a one page fee application without breakdown for $2,000. Infact I would have more money in my pocket if I would not have advanced allthe 522(f) motion court costs, recorder fees and postage and copy costs! How
are we supposed to make a living if we follow the rules by submitting
reasonable fee applications for necessary motion work on behalf of Chapter 13
debtors just to see them eviscerated?
What other economically feasible course of action could I have undertakento obtain approval of fees for all of my work and out of pocket costs? Asdiligent as she is, I have difficulty believing Judge Riblet just missed all
the details regarding the 522(f) motion efforts, court costs and recorderfees advanced in two separate fee applications, but would I have been
better off preparing separate fee applications for the 522(f) motions efforts
even though they were prosecuted during the same time frame as the lien
stripping adversaries/motions? Instead of filing motion a scream or die motion
for fees, set it for hearing at the outset and spend a few more
uncompensated hours commuting to Santa Barbara to wait for and attend the hearing
hoping my personal appearance and persuasiveness might convince her to deviate
from her flat $2,000 fee for lien stripping adversaries/motions? I suppose I
at least would then have a chance to point out 522(f) motions are
additional motions that should be compensated, but that gamble does not strike me
as an efficient use of half a day.
Mark Jessee
An appeal does not appear economically viable to me. Agreat deal of uncompensated time and effort, with a limited likelihood of
success. There is nothing in the record indicating her reasoning for
the reduction of the requested fees and expenses. I just do not see the
BAP finding her supplemental fee award order patently unreasonable on its
face. That is why I wonder if we really just need to set supplemental fee
applications for hearing, so there is at least a chance to persuade her
compensate all the time and costs advanced and a record, if there is a
basis for appeal.

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)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In a message dated 8/24/2012 3:04:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
vle@vlelaw.com writes:




Worth an
appeal?


Vernon L.
Ellicott, Esq.
Certified
Family Law Specialist
California
State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
A Bankruptcy
and Family Law Firm
Law Offices
of Vernon L. Ellicott
100 E.
Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 147
Thousand
Oaks, CA 91360-8125
(805)
446-6262 Phone
(661)
222-2922 Phone
(805)
446-6264 Fax

This
e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information from the LAW OFFICES OF
VERNON L. ELLICOTT that is legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please
immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at (805) 446-6262, and
destroy the original transmission and its attachments and all copies of any
kind, without reading them or saving them in any way. Thank
you.



From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
JesseeSent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:16 PMTo:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Chapter 13 Supplemental Fee
Applications - Santa Barbara





Colleagues: I am frankly about as disheartened as I have ever been
in 18 years of practicing bankruptcy law after receiving orders today on a
couple of supplemental fee applications I submitted for Northern Division Chapter 13 cases. I know many of you do not practice Chapter 13 in the
hinterlands of the Northern Division, but those of you who do, any
advice/commiseration is welcome. As you know Judge Riblet is quite
diligent, has high standards and requires attorneys to abide by the local rules, the FBRP and demands motions adhere to the FRE (appraisals supported by
detailed authenticating declarations, etc.) While I wish she that she would
institute changes in her hearing procedures that would save a great deal of
attorney time, I nevertheless respect and appreciate her diligence. As you
know she requires both adversary complaints to strip the junior trust deeds
and motions to suspend payments during the course of the plan. Properly
prepared, these can be lengthy motions with numerous supporting exhibits. Multiple copies of the motion and adversary complaint being served at various
addresses of all the trust deed holders and servicers via certified mail adds
up to a hefty amount of out of pocket postage and photocopy expense.
Although I have appeared in front of Judge Riblet for years, I have
never before submitted junior lien stripping fee applications to her before
now. I extensively researched attorneys appearing before her in Chapter 13
lien stripping matters for the lay of the land. Frankly, I was shocked at how
few (less than 5) of the numerous attorneys I researched actually submitted
supplemental fee applications for their efforts relating to their lien
stripping efforts during the last couple years. I wonder if they are working
for free or just not submitting fee applications? The few attorney
supplemental fee applications I found were all awarded $2,000, regardless of
the time expended, regardless of whether they were based upon a one page motion stating the attorney and debtor agreed to a flat fee or a detailed description of attorney efforts and time expended by date as the local rules
require. While it looked like Judge Riblet generally awards a flat $2,000 for
attorney fees relating to junior lien stripping efforts, as it was a small
number of fee applications I found, I was not certain that was always the case.I submitted a couple fee applications in compliance with LBR 3015-1(v) and Appendix IV for two cases that were not simple lien stripping
adversaries/motions. These two lien stripping cases required extra time
sorting out some of the facts and obtaining required documents, so frankly
even on the lien strip adversaries and motions I felt $2,000 compensation for
my time for quality motions was a bit low, especially with my extensive out of
pocket costs. Regardless I only sought $2,000 for my time in one case and only
a few hundred more than that in the other for the lien strip
adversaries/motions. I did not even seek compensation for my time preparing
the fee application as allowed under the local rules. My fee applications included not only the compensation requests for the lien stripping
adversaries, but also compensation for separate 522(f) motions to remove a
few judgement liens for the respective debtors. Those of course require all
the supporting documentation of the lien stripping adversaries/motions, plus
the recorded abstracts of judgment. As the lien holders were insured
depository institutions, motions had to be served by certified mail at the
varying addresses to ensure proper service. (i.e. another couple hundred out
of pocket for postage and photocopies). The fee applications included a
detailed narrative explaining the nature of the efforts provided and why the
separate motions and time expended were necessary and beneficial to the
estate. In addition I provided a specified breakdown of effort and time by
date and details regarding the expenses including advanced court costs for
filing amended schedules, for obtaining certified copies of the Order granting
522(f) motions and to record them with the County. I even provided the
separate totals by category of expense as required. Despite the
substantially different amounts of time spent on the different cases, the addition of prosecuting 522(f) motions to remove multiple judgment liens and
significant costs advanced in my two cases, the same flat $2,000 attorney fees
were awarded by Judge Riblet in each case. No extra compensation was allowed
for the several hours of efforts prosecuting the 522(f) motions. All of the
costs advanced, which exceed $1,000 including court fees and recorder fees
that I am clearly not supposed to responsible for under my fee agreement or
RARA, were denied without comment. Obviously we are always subject to
the vagaries of each Judge's subjective interpretation as to the value of our
efforts in such cases. I have had fees and costs that I believed more than
reasonable reduced before, but that is a couple hundred here or there. Not
pleasant, but not devastating. Today's reductions feel devastating. The two
orders combined reduced my fee and costs reimbursement applications by nearly
$4,000, and that was after my voluntary reductions in the motions. Here I made
extra efforts, prosecuted 522(f) motions, provided the details in the fee application and was still awarded nothing for the effort. I was awarded the
same amount of fees as if I had made a barely marginal effort, not prosecuted
the 522(f) motions, and submitted only a one page fee application without breakdown for $2,000. In fact I would have more money in my pocket if I would
not have advanced all the 522(f) motion court costs, recorder fees and postage
and copy costs! How are we supposed to make a living if we follow the rules by
submitting reasonable fee applications for necessary motion work on behalf of
Chapter 13 debtors just to see them eviscerated? What other
economically feasible course of action could I have undertaken to obtain approval of fees for all of my work and out of pocket costs? As diligent as
she is, I have difficulty believing Judge Riblet just missed all the details
regarding the 522(f) motion efforts, court costs and recorder fees advanced in
two separate fee applications, but would I have been better off preparing separate fee applications for the 522(f) motions efforts even though they were
prosecuted during the same time frame as the lien stripping
adversaries/motions? Instead of filing motion a scream or die motion for fees,
set it for hearing at the outset and spend a few more uncompensated hours commuting to Santa Barbara to wait for and attend the hearing hoping my
personal appearance and persuasiveness might convince her to deviate from her
flat $2,000 fee for lien stripping adversaries/motions? I suppose I at least
would then have a chance to point out 522(f) motions are additional motions
that should be compensated, but that gamble does not strike me as an efficient
use of half a day. Mark Jessee

The post was migrated from Yahoo.