.jpg)
VZ (and others?) and 506 Complaints/Fees
Along the same lines, we just experienced a significant reduction in our
fees requested. Filed a Fee App for work done on an uncontested AP in front
of VZ and Curry for almost $5000, all of the time was documented with
detail. Trustee objected to fees and recommended our fee app conditioned
that we accept a reduction in fees by more than 50%. The comments briefly
mention that we provided little or no evidence of extraordinary
circumstances citing the In re Garcia case. If we disagree, we set it for
hearing.
In our fee app, after reading the posts below, we thoroughly addressed
debtors good faith and preference for peace of mind and certainty in filing
an AP over the Motion to Value. It doesnt look like that was the issue. The
fee app itself is actually quite robust with a narrative summary of the
case, statement of services, excluded services performed (lien strip),
itemization of time, and lengthy attorney bios. Total costs were only $110
using .10 for printing and copying expense.
Not sure what to do
N. Stephen Vokshori, Esq.
Managing Attorney
213-986-4323 x100 (direct) | 310-881-6996 (fax)
stephen@voklaw.com (email) |
www.VokLaw.com (website)
png-style-blue.png
Vokshori Law Group
1010 Wilshire Boulevard | Suite 1404 | Los Angeles, CA 90017
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
Remember when we speculated that the purpose of BAPCPA was to discourage attorneys from filing bankruptcies. Well, this is discouraging.
How much did you ask for (with a tip of the cap to Pat Green; this was a matter of public record)?
And I assume you would get the same objection if you went outside the RARA.
Really discouraging.
Jason Wallach
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
>
> It was my hearing and yes the trustee opposed my application for supplemental fees on 2 grounds: (1) the fees were unreasonable and (2) the work was not necessary as I could have proceeded by way of motion for 506 relief
>
>
>
Jason Wallach
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 6:01 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ (and others?) and 506 Complaints/Fees
>
>
>
>
>
> An extra appearance and an extra pleading (and the thought and follow through required for the extra pleading).
>
> I really don't know why VZ is doing that. Aren't all the AP's going by default anyway?
>
> Any other reports of other judges doing the same thing? Also, going back to where this conversation started, did the Trustee oppose the supplemental fee app?
>
> Jason
>
> On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To me its certainty. If I obtain a judgment early in the case, I can tell the debtor all you have to do is make your payments for 3-5 years and you will have avoided the junior mortgage. Not sure you can deliver that same certainty by having to wait until mid case to file the AP.
>
>
>
P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> The points regarding closure and efficient are well taken and I'm not disagreeing that our clients should be allowed to proceed with the AP at the beginning of the case. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, once valuation is determined early in the case, there isn't much left to the AP other than proper service and entry of the judgment. What is the debtor really losing by waiting on the AP?
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:03:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> *The fact that many of these cases do not consummate is not relevant to case will consummate. If we did not believe it would consummate, we would not be filing in good faith.
>
>
>
> *In addition, my client (usually) does not want to wait. My client wants action and peace of mind. When told that we can file a motion and an AP and the cost involved, my client almost always chooses to file the AP. He/she want to save themselves the money.
>
>
>
> *As stated by others, I want to strike while the iron is hot. If we wait too long the market may change. The mortgage company may claim that by not acting timely I have denied them an opportunity to inspect the interior of the property at the time the valuation was initially done and the debtor may have let the house become rundown. Or the mortgage company may unfairly benefit from the fact that the debtor has made improvements to the property since the date of filing.
>
>
>
> *If the market changes and there is equity in the property in four years (if the case were to be dismissed), the creditor will now be motivated to file an answer and draw out the process as long as possible in hopes that the debtor runs out of money and gives up the fight. The court would be buried in status conferences, discovery, pretrial motions and trials. That is not practical for my client and it boarders on malpractice not to advise them to act quickly.
>
>
>
> *Finally, this is my clients case not the Judges. How the client chooses to prosecute the case is up to them as long as it is within the bounds of the law.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy B. Clark
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Ave, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791
>
> Tele: (626) 332-8600
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.blclaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:21 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> In reply to myself...
>
>
>
> the creditor gets more on the front end prior to the eventual costs of the AP and that fact aligns the creditor and the court regarding the court's preferred procedure for the point at which debtor's counsel's fees are most appropriate. Nonetheless, where the work was performed and the fee reasoanble, and there is a reasonable prospect that the case will fully consummate, I believe that your fees should have been allowed without reduction (Dennis made this last point earlier).
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 3:08:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> The argument is that the 506(a) motion is a rather nominal and not avoidable (no pun intended) cost in the ultimatle goal of 506(d) lien avoidance. The AP cost and be postponed and the burden on the court avoided entirely in some cases, for a nominal additional costs of a separate AP for the 506(d) leg. If the case makes it past the mid-point, then there is plenty of room for SFA and by then, there may be less burden on the court calendar.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 2:54:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> Peter, I dont disagree with your assessment. However, utilizing that strategy, the estate will now have to bear a Rule 3012 motion and an AP to strip. Not sure how that is more cost effective. I just bring this point up because I was before the judge on an objection from the trustee that my fees were unreasonable (due to filing an AP).
>
>
>
Of P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:46 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> My guess is that VZ would not frown upon a mid-plan AP where debtor has substantiall consumated and prospects are good to fully consummate. Keep in mind the calendar is crowded right now and overwhelmed judges welcome kicking ceratin nonessential items down the road a bit.
>
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 2:04:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> Is it possible the plan could be written to reserve fees for the AP at the end of the case? If so, it will be as if it were a flat fee and wed be working for free to some extent, especially if contested.
>
>
>
Of Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:54 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> What Larry left out is that the decision was disappointing to everyone in the courtroom. The judge decided that he wanted to encourage everyone to use his menthod and shaved $500 from Larry's fee request.
>
>
>
> This is not the law. If we have to file two actions, we will charge more. If we have to file two actions, and wait for the end of the case to file the second action, there will no longer be any plan to pay us.
>
>
>
> Also, who knows who/what will own the loan after 5 years. We will have to fight to find out.
>
>
>
> my 2 cents
>
>
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/11/11, lsimons_esq wrote:
>
>
> Subject: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, April 11, 2011, 1:40 PM
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I had the chapter 13 trustee object to my request for supplemental fees in a case before VZ. The fees related to the filing and prosecution of a lien strip AP. At the hearing on my application, the judge stated that he believed we should be filing simple motions under Rule 3012 and then filing the APs at the end of the case right before consummation, given the percentage of cases that make it that far. He stated that the filing of the AP at the beginning of the case was not the preferred course of action.
>
> He also stated that the motions brought under 3012 do not need the same evidence as to value and outstanding lien balances.
>
> Food for thought...........
>
> Larry Simons
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Remember when we speculated that the purpose of BAPCPA was to discourage attorneys from filing bankruptcies. Well, this is discouraging.How much did you ask for (with a tip of the cap to Pat Green; this was a matter of public record)?And I assume you would get the same objection if you went outside the RARA.Really discouraging.Jason WallachOn Apr 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
It was my hearing and yes the trustee opposed my application for
supplemental fees on 2 grounds: (1) the fees were unreasonable and (2) the
work was not necessary as I could have proceeded by way of motion for 506
relief
_____
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
An extra appearance and an extra pleading (and the thought and follow through required for the extra pleading).
I really don't know why VZ is doing that. Aren't all the AP's going by default anyway?
Any other reports of other judges doing the same thing? Also, going back to where this conversation started, did the Trustee oppose the supplemental fee app?
Jason
On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
>
> To me its certainty. If I obtain a judgment early in the case, I can tell the debtor all you have to do is make your payments for 3-5 years and you will have avoided the junior mortgage. Not sure you can deliver that same certainty by having to wait until mid case to file the AP.
>
>
>
P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> The points regarding closure and efficient are well taken and I'm not disagreeing that our clients should be allowed to proceed with the AP at the beginning of the case. However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, once valuation is determined early in the case, there isn't much left to the AP other than proper service and entry of the judgment. What is the debtor really losing by waiting on the AP?
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 5:03:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> *The fact that many of these cases do not consummate is not relevant to case will consummate. If we did not believe it would consummate, we would not be filing in good faith.
>
>
>
> *In addition, my client (usually) does not want to wait. My client wants action and peace of mind. When told that we can file a motion and an AP and the cost involved, my client almost always chooses to file the AP. He/she want to save themselves the money.
>
>
>
> *As stated by others, I want to strike while the iron is hot. If we wait too long the market may change. The mortgage company may claim that by not acting timely I have denied them an opportunity to inspect the interior of the property at the time the valuation was initially done and the debtor may have let the house become rundown. Or the mortgage company may unfairly benefit from the fact that the debtor has made improvements to the property since the date of filing.
>
>
>
> *If the market changes and there is equity in the property in four years (if the case were to be dismissed), the creditor will now be motivated to file an answer and draw out the process as long as possible in hopes that the debtor runs out of money and gives up the fight. The court would be buried in status conferences, discovery, pretrial motions and trials. That is not practical for my client and it boarders on malpractice not to advise them to act quickly.
>
>
>
> *Finally, this is my clients case not the Judges. How the client chooses to prosecute the case is up to them as long as it is within the bounds of the law.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy B. Clark
>
>
>
> 100 N. Barranca Ave, Suite 250
>
> West Covina, CA 91791
>
> Tele: (626) 332-8600
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
> www.blclaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:21 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> In reply to myself...
>
>
>
> the creditor gets more on the front end prior to the eventual costs of the AP and that fact aligns the creditor and the court regarding the court's preferred procedure for the point at which debtor's counsel's fees are most appropriate. Nonetheless, where the work was performed and the fee reasoanble, and there is a reasonable prospect that the case will fully consummate, I believe that your fees should have been allowed without reduction (Dennis made this last point earlier).
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 3:08:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> The argument is that the 506(a) motion is a rather nominal and not avoidable (no pun intended) cost in the ultimatle goal of 506(d) lien avoidance. The AP cost and be postponed and the burden on the court avoided entirely in some cases, for a nominal additional costs of a separate AP for the 506(d) leg. If the case makes it past the mid-point, then there is plenty of room for SFA and by then, there may be less burden on the court calendar.
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 2:54:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> Peter, I dont disagree with your assessment. However, utilizing that strategy, the estate will now have to bear a Rule 3012 motion and an AP to strip. Not sure how that is more cost effective. I just bring this point up because I was before the judge on an objection from the trustee that my fees were unreasonable (due to filing an AP).
>
>
>
Of P L
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:46 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> My guess is that VZ would not frown upon a mid-plan AP where debtor has substantiall consumated and prospects are good to fully consummate. Keep in mind the calendar is crowded right now and overwhelmed judges welcome kicking ceratin nonessential items down the road a bit.
>
>
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
>
> The Personal Financial Law Center * Culver City & Costa Mesa * 800-307-DEBT
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 2:04:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
> Is it possible the plan could be written to reserve fees for the AP at the end of the case? If so, it will be as if it were a flat fee and wed be working for free to some extent, especially if contested.
>
>
>
Of Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:54 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
>
>
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> What Larry left out is that the decision was disappointing to everyone in the courtroom. The judge decided that he wanted to encourage everyone to use his menthod and shaved $500 from Larry's fee request.
>
>
>
> This is not the law. If we have to file two actions, we will charge more. If we have to file two actions, and wait for the end of the case to file the second action, there will no longer be any plan to pay us.
>
>
>
> Also, who knows who/what will own the loan after 5 years. We will have to fight to find out.
>
>
>
> my 2 cents
>
>
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/11/11, lsimons_esq wrote:
>
>
> Subject: [cdcbaa] VZ and 506 Complaints
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, April 11, 2011, 1:40 PM
>
>
>
> All,
>
> I had the chapter 13 trustee object to my request for supplemental fees in a case before VZ. The fees related to the filing and prosecution of a lien strip AP. At the hearing on my application, the judge stated that he believed we should be filing simple motions under Rule 3012 and then filing the APs at the end of the case right before consummation, given the percentage of cases that make it that far. He stated that the filing of the AP at the beginning of the case was not the preferred course of action.
>
> He also stated that the motions brought under 3012 do not need the same evidence as to value and outstanding lien balances.
>
> Food for thought...........
>
> Larry Simons
>
>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
An extra appearance and an extra pleading (and the thought and follow through required for the extra pleading).I really don't know why VZ is doing that. Aren't all the AP's going by default anyway?Any other reports of other judges doing the same thing? Also, going back to where this conversation started, did the Trustee oppose the supplemental fee app?JasonOn Apr 11, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Larry Simons wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.