supp fee app in ch 13
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:07 pm
Interesting. I agree "application" is singular, but I really wonder if
the rule's drafters intended to create a loophole for the attorneys to submit
several fee applications under $1,000 to skirt the requirement to serve all creditors? I have always believed that at least the intent of the LBR3015-1(x)(5) was to draw a line after which the creditors needed to be
notified in order to provide due process notice for protecting their interests.
I have always interpreted the intent of the LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to be cumulative because it says "...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." If the rule was
intended to be per application wouldn't LBR 3015-1(x)(5) only say "...additional
fees and costs not exceeding $1,000 need be served only on the chapter 13trustee and the debtor?" Attorneys must disclose all prior fees paid andfee applications pending, in each supplemental fee application. It seemsantithetical to the intent of the rule to me that an attorney could file a fee
application every couple days or weeks for under $1,000 and be able to
ignore all previous supplemental fee applications in determining whether
creditors need be served.
That said, if judges are letting it slide, I would love to save myself a hassle on future supplemental fee 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 11/8/2012 2:24:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
I read it the other way. It is written in the singular which I take to
mean each fee application.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
_pat@fitzgreenlaw.com_ (mailto:pat@fitzgreenlaw.com)
jesseelaw@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:37 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
I have always understood that to mean, the first $1,000.00 above the RARAfee 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 needbe
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 inthe 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_ (http://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 notifyus 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 notbe used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for thepurpose 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.
Interesting. I agree "application" is singular, but I really
wonder if the rule's drafters intended to create a loophole for the attorneys to
submit several fee applications under $1,000 to skirt the requirement to serve
all creditors? I have always believed that at least the intent of the
LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to draw
a line after which the creditors needed to be notified in order
to provide due process notice for protecting their interests. I
have always interpreted the intent of the LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to be
cumulative because it says "...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." If the rule
was intended to be per application wouldn't LBR 3015-1(x)(5) only say
"...additional fees and costs not exceeding $1,000 need be served only on the
chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?" Attorneys must disclose all
prior fees paid and fee applications pending, in each supplemental fee
application. It seems antithetical to the intent of the rule to me that an
attorney could file a fee application every couple days or weeks for under
$1,000 and be able to ignore all previous supplemental fee applications indetermining whether creditors need be served.
That said, if judges are letting it slide, I would love to save myself a
hassle on future supplemental fee 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 11/8/2012 2:24:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
I read it the
other way. It is written in the singular which I take to mean each fee
application.
If you have
any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T.
Green
Attorney at
Law
Fitzgerald
& Green
1010 E. Union
St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA
91106
Tel:
626-449-8433
Fax:
626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
jesseelaw@aol.comSent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:37
PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] supp
fee app in ch 13
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.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY 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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.