.jpg)
Chapter 13 Supplemental Fee Applications - Santa=
I was thinking the same thing after reading David's post! I will never
again file a fee application combining any request for other compensationwith voluntary junior lien stripping applications.
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 8/24/2012 6:20:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
Mark: in the future,how about filing separate applications for each 522f and a separate app for the adversary. Sounds like her clerks see a lien strip
adversary fee app and just say $2k. Because they have a flat fee, they probably don't see a reason to read them. It is a type of triage to deal with
the heavy work load. Pat Green
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
____________________________________
Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:06:50 -0400 (EDT)
To:
ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Supplemental Fee Applications - SantaBarbara
I may not like it, but I understand that she caps compensation at the
$2,000 figure for the adversary complaint lien stripping the junior consensual
liens and motions to stay postpetition payments. However that was only part
of my fee application. I also had to prosecute 522(f) motions and then
advance the court costs for certification of the orders avoiding the judgment
liens and the recorder's fees to record the certified copies of the
orders. That was alone over $100 out of pocket, not to mention the additional
time spent. There were unrelated amended schedule filing fees advanced aswell. In the fee applications I saw, which were all awarded $2,000, nonereferred to prosecuting 522(f) motions in addition to the adversary complaints
and motions to suspend postpetition payments. Have you seen her lumpingin 522(f) motion prosecution into her flat $2,000 figure as well?
David, Judge Riblet always refers the less enlightened to your work
product for guidance on how to properly prosecute the adversary complaints to
avoid junior liens and motions to suspend payments. Obviously, in the future
I will now mimic your flat fee compensation application and avoid the
unrewarded effort of keeping track of my time and expenses. 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 8/24/2012 4:17:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david@commonsnet.com writes:
I have done many lien-strips by adversary complaint in front of Judge
Riblet over the last 4-5 years. In the early days she allowed fees based upon
my hours and expenses, but at some point several years ago she decided that
$2,000 was a reasonable fee for these cases and that is what she allows regardless of the hours spent. I imagine she would be more liberal if therewere truly unusual circumstances, but as a rule, $2k is it. That is why many
of us have gone to 1-page fixed fee agreements with our clients--at least we
don't have to keep track of our time.
David Commons
jesseelaw@... wrote:
>
> 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 iswhy 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. 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
RECIPIENT
> OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGEDBY
> 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@... 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 notthe
> 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 andall
> copies of any kind, without reading them or saving them in any way.
Thank you.
>
>
[mailto:_cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of
> Mark Jessee
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: _cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto: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 Chapter13 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 iswelcome.
>
> 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 motionand
> 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 timesorting 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
> costs. Regardless I only sought $2,000 for my time in one case and onlya
> 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 sameflat
> $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, butthat
> is a couple hundred here or there. Not pleasant, but not devastating.
> Today's reductions feel devastating. The two orders combined reduced myfee 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 asif 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 missedall
> 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 diemotion
> 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 notstrike me
> as an efficient use of half a day.
>
> Mark Jessee
>
I was thinking the same thing after reading David's post! I willnever again file a fee application combining any request for
other compensation with voluntary junior lien stripping
applications.
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 8/24/2012 6:20:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
Mark: in the future,how about filing separate applications for each 522f
and a separate app for the adversary. Sounds like her clerks see a lien strip
adversary fee app and just say $2k. Because they have a flat fee, they
probably don't see a reason to read them. It is a type of triage to deal with
the heavy work load. Pat Green
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:06:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: Chapter 13 Supplemental Fee Applications
- Santa Barbara
I may not like it, but I understand that she caps compensation at
the $2,000 figure for the adversary complaint lien stripping the junior
consensual liens and motions to stay postpetition payments. However that
was only part of my fee application. I also had to prosecute 522(f) motions and then advance the court costs for certification of the orders
avoiding the judgment liens and the recorder's fees to record the
certified copies of the orders. That was alone over $100 out
of pocket, not to mention the additional time spent. There were unrelated amended schedule filing fees advanced as well. In the fee applications I saw, which were all awarded $2,000, none referred to
prosecuting 522(f) motions in addition to the adversary complaints and motions
to suspend postpetition payments. Have you seen
her lumping in 522(f) motion prosecution into her flat $2,000
figure as well?
David, Judge Riblet always refers the less enlightened to your work
product for guidance on how to properly prosecute the adversary
complaints to avoid junior liens and motions to suspend
payments. Obviously, in the future I will now mimic your flat fee
compensation application and avoid the unrewarded effort of keeping track
of my time and expenses.
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 8/24/2012 4:17:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
david@commonsnet.com writes:
I have done many lien-strips by adversary complaint in front of Judge
Riblet over the last 4-5 years. In the early days she allowed fees based
upon my hours and expenses, but at some point several years ago she decided
that $2,000 was a reasonable fee for these cases and that is what she allows
regardless of the hours spent. I imagine she would be more liberal if there
were truly unusual circumstances, but as a rule, $2k is it. That is why many
of us have gone to 1-page fixed fee agreements with our clients--at least we
don't have to keep track of our time. David Commons--- In
The post was migrated from Yahoo.