Critical Case Comment – Repeat: No Fee Splitting • NACTT Academy

Critical Case Comment – Repeat: No Fee Splitting

A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that it constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022)

Case Summary

Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto accident resulting in a personal injury claim against her insurer and the owner of the automobile. She negotiated a representation agreement with a personal injury firm, Butler & Boyd, with a 25 . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville)

Henry E. Hildebrand, III has served as Standing Trustee for Chapter 13 matters in the Middle District of Tennessee since 1982 and as Standing Chapter 12 Trustee for that district since 1986. He also is of counsel to the Nashville law firm of Belcher Sykes Harrington, PLLC. Mr. Hildebrand graduated from Vanderbilt University and received his J.D. from the National Law Center of George Washington University. He is a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy and the Nashville Bar Foundation. He is Board Certified in consumer bankruptcy law by the American Board of Certification and serves on its faculty committee. He is Chairman of the Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee for the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT). He is on the Board of Directors for the NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. and is an adjunct faculty member for the Nashville School of Law and St. Johns University School of Law. In addition, he served as a commissioner to the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy.

Ask Ms. Ps & Qs

Nancy B. Rapoport

June 4, 2023

Dear Readers: We’re now at the season where things go a bit wacky, and one thing that can go wacky has to do with people who are represented by counsel who want to talk with you. “Let’s cut out the middleman,” they think. After all, what harm could it be to save time? Plenty of harm, actually: Model Rule 4.2...

Members

Conflicting Interpretations: A Chapter 13 Trustee’s Compensation After Pre-Confirmation Dismissal or Conversion* Part 3 of 3

Brittani Bushman

February 13, 2022

(Used with expressed permission from the MI Bankruptcy Journal and the Steven W. Rhodes Consumer Bankruptcy Conference)By Brittani Bushman, Judicial Law Clerk to the Hon. John T. Gregg, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan B. Illustrative Decisions (Minority Approach) The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a comprehensive unpublished decision adopting the minority...

Members

Cars, Fines, and Chapter 13 in the Windy City

January 12, 2020

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be,...

Members

Acquisition of Post-Confirmation Property in Chapter 13: What Remains of the Estate?

February 10, 2019

By Leo G. Spanos, Senior Staff Attorney to Martha G. Bronitsky, Chapter 13 Trustee, Northern District of California (Oakland Division) Courts around the country are split on whether property acquired post-chapter 13 confirmation remains property of the estate or vests in the debtor for all purposes absent contrary language in the plan or confirmation order under 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b).1...

Members

IRS Warns of Impersonation Email Scam; Reminds Taxpayers IRS Does Not Send Unsolicited Emails

August 25, 2019

On 8/22/19 the IRSe and its Security Summit partners warned taxpayers and tax professionals about a new IRS impersonation scam campaign spreading nationally on email. Remember: the IRS does not send unsolicited emails and never emails taxpayers about the status of refunds. The IRS detected this new scam as taxpayers began notifying [email protected] about unsolicited emails from IRS imposters. The...

Discharging Student Loans Under §523(a)(8)? Don’t Consolidate After Filing!

Scott Waterman, Josh Cohen

November 12, 2023

If you intend to seek to discharge student loans under §523(a)(8), do not consolidate the loans after the case is filed. Prebankruptcy planning is most important if one wishes to discharge student loans. A recent Texas Chapter 7 case highlights the pitfalls if one does not act accordingly. Debtors obtained 27 separate student loans prior to when they filed their...

Members

Progeny of Law v. Siegel: Sixth and Ninth Circuits Say Right to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case is Absolute, Not Qualified by Section 105

September 26, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) "Equity is not an old man, with a long grey beard, sitting under a tree. Equity has rules."1 Introduction Section 105 When enacted in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code in section 105 included an "all writs" statute for the Bankruptcy Courts: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that...

Members

Chapter 13 No-Look Fees – Additional Thoughts

The NACTT Emeritus Trustees

January 7, 2024

As a follow-up to The Academy’s December 3, 2023, issue, three Emeritus Trustees weighed in. The 12/3/23 issue included Cathy Moran’s Chapter 13 NoLook Fees: The Horns of a Dilemma and Trustee Hildebrand’s Critical Case Comment, You Gotta Fix Your Own Screw-ups, On Your Own Dime. You may also want to take note of comments on each article and add your own. Today, we offer the thoughts of two additional Emeritus Trustees. Thus a follow-up to our follow-up. 😊

Members

Critical Case Comment – Prime vs. Riskless Treasury Rate

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

May 28, 2023

In determining the appropriate “present value” factor to be added to the payment of a secured claim in a Chapter 12, the Court should look at the “riskless” treasury rate rather than the “prime rate” before enhancing it with a risk factor. (Ebinger) Farm Credit Services of America v. Topp, 2022 WL 2981590 (S.D. Iowa, July 19, 2022) Case Summary...

Members

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Ten Years After

May 3, 2020

By Hon. Brian Lynch, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division When the Supreme Court issued United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa1 on March 23, 2010, commentators were perplexed.2 On the one hand, the Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling allowing a hardship discharge of student loans in a chapter 13 plan. The Court held that...

Members