Although the retention of collateral validly repossessed prior to the filing of the petition does not violate the stay, the sale of that property does violate the stay and the sale is void. (Bonapfel) In re Rakestraw, 2022 WL 4085881 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2022) Case Summary Ms. Rakestraw filed Chapter 13 on August 12, 2022, listing her ownership...
Don’t Give Me That Lamie Excuse For The Increase In Attorney Fee-Only Plans
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By John Gustafson, Chapter 13 Trustee (Toledo, OH)
In Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S. Ct. 1023, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1024 (2004), the Supreme Court held that debtors’ attorneys in Chapter 7 cases could not be paid from estate funds.
The concurring judgment in Berliner v. Pappalardo (In re Puffer), 674 F.3d 78, 84-84 (1st Cir. 2012) gave credence to the popular claim that the Lamie decision has had something to do with the increased number of “fee-only” Chapter 13 cases that are being filed around the country . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or sign in below:
Related Articles
To Conduit, Or Not To Conduit? That Is The Question. Or Less Shakespearean: “Conduit Mortgage Case Law”
From the Editor – Plan Modification
2019 Legislation Affecting Bankruptcy Practice
From the Editor
Generative A.I. – Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
Do Not Despair: The Challenge of Declining Chapter 13 Caseloads
Less Than 100% Dividend Can a Chapter 13 Plan be Paid off Early?
Critical Case Comment – Stay Violation: Repossession No, Sale Yes
TFS Bill Pay Announces New Attorney Report Center
“How Long, O Lord?”