Bert,
I have never had difficulty with a supplemental fee app in chapter 13. I
do make sure I am only requesting fees for items not included in the RARA
fee.
Link W. Schrader
On May 21, 2014 8:19 PM, "Bert Briones
bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Recently I have seen a plethora of trustee comments on my chapter 13 fee
> applications in Santa Ana. The argument the trustee seems to making is the
> the new "no look" fee is customary and should be the new cap for fees
> unless the application demonstrates that the services were
> "extraordinary".
>
> My problems with this is that the logic of assuming that the "no look" is
> the same as the maximum fee, seems flawed. Additionally, just a few months
> ago the same type applications with the same amount of compensation
> requests were being approved. Therefore, I fear that the trustee is now
> taking this position across the board. It seems like a move to kill or at
> least minimize the "lodestar" applications.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem? (I assume yes) If so who would like
> to join forces to fight this apparent movement by the trustee in SA? Please
> reply offline.
bb@redhilllawgroup.com
>
> Also what about the other trustees? That information I believe would be
> great to share in this thread.
>
>
Bert,
I have never had difficulty with a supplemental fee app in chapter 13. I do make sure I am only requesting fees for items not included in the RARA fee.
Link W. Schrader
On May 21, 2014 8:19 PM, "Bert Briones
bertbri@ymail.com [cdcbaa]" <
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.