Mortgagee’s challenge to “best practices” addendum to Central District of California Chapter 13 plan was rejected in large part by Ninth Circuit in Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. v. Herrera (In re Herrera), 422 B.R. 698 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) (Pappas, Hollowell, Dunn), aff’d and adopted sub nom. Home Funds Direct v. Monroy (In re Monroy), 650 F.3d 1300 (9th Cir. June 20, 2011) (Pappas, Hollowell, Dunn); challenge is otherwise not supported by any evidence that the reporting requirements in the addendum are unduly burdensome or costly. “[T]he bankruptcy court was not obliged to consider as ‘evidence’ the statements of U.S. Bank’s attorneys that fees of $75 per month and $100 per quarter would be added to each debtor utilizing the Addendum. . . . [T]his information was not probative concerning the principal harm alleged by U.S. Bank—that the Addendum would cause significant expense to the bank because it would require new accounting systems, training, and associated costs. . . . [I]t is difficult to understand how add-on attorney fees create significant accounting burdens, let alone a need for restructuring U.S. Bank’s whole accounting system. . . . [W]hether compliance with the Addendum may cause a given creditor to incur burdensome costs, either on an individual or general basis, may still be an open question. . . . However, U.S. Bank did not provide any competent, evidentiary support for its position that the Addendum imposes unreasonable and unnecessary burdens on its financial and accounting systems.”