Ask Ms. Ps & Qs

By Professor Nancy Rapoport

Dear Readers:

I know, I know—I’ve been absent from this column for a while,1 but I’ve found a set of cases that intrigued me, so here goes. In several cases, bankruptcy courts here in Nevada have made it clear that lawyers should do a better job of proving up their fees (and proofreading them), especially when the fee application contains the red flag of additional fees above the basic ones mentioned in the engagement letter.

In In re Covacevich, Case No. 17-12821-gs . . .

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

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

The Collector

The Academy

January 14, 2024

Bankruptcy Judge (E.D. Washington) serves up classics with wooden tennis racket collection.

Plan Confirmation, Valuation of Claims, and Burden of Proof

Robert G. Drummond

November 10, 2024

Some courts require debtors to prove collateral value as part of plan confirmation, while others shift the burden to creditors if debtors cast doubt on claim validity. Here Drummond looks at a new decision casting the burden on the debtor.

Members

Critical Case Comment – Debtor’s Counsel’s Fee Reduced to $48k

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 4, 2022

Chapter 13 debtor’s counsel’s fee award was reduced to $48,116 from the requested $95,480 due to pre-petition payments, confusing and “lumped” time entries, and excessive hourly rates for some services performed, even though the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was never even proposed much less confirmed. The debtor never attended a meeting of creditors, but the debtor managed to recover his...

Members

From the Editor – Discharge Injunction

May 31, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Application of Taggart to lien avoidance. When the Chapter 13 confirmed plan bifurcated the secured creditor’s claim and the secured portion had been paid in full with interest, the completion of payments voided any lien, and the creditor violated the discharge injunction by commencing foreclosure. The Panel found the plan’s language, although “inartful,”...

Members

“Jan Hamilton” – Need We Say More?

Teresa L. Arnold

September 25, 2022

Just prior to a confirmation docket in September of 2006, a local creditor attorney asked me if I would be interested in coming to work at his firm. The chapter 13 trustee was in the room and could not help but overhear. After the docket that trustee asked me if I was looking for a job. I wasn’t . ....

Does Section 1325(b)(1)(A) Hold Your Interest?

Daniel M. Tavera, The Honorable John P. Gustafson

July 9, 2023

When Does The Bankruptcy Code Require The Payment Of Interest On Unsecured Claims In Chapter 13? I. Introduction This article primarily discusses the interpretation and application of § 1325(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code in relation to the payment of interest to general unsecured creditors in chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. Section 1325(b)(1)(A) generally states that a court may not approve a chapter...

Members

Locked Out: Blocked Mortgage Portals May Be Violation of the Stay

Kara K. Gendron

November 10, 2024

A new case has shed light on a common practice by mortgage companies -- denying Chapter 13 debtors access to online payment portals. This case brought to the forefront a significant issue for Chapter 13 debtors across the country—the need for accessible payment methods that allow them to stay current with their mortgage payments and successfully complete their repayment plans.

Members

In re Fulton: Seventh Circuit Affirms Its Position with Majority of Circuits on Passive Retention of Property as Violation of Sections 362 and 542

June 30, 2019

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction In In re Fulton,1 the Seventh Circuit has restated its position on passive violation of the automatic stay, holding that failure by the City of Chicago to turn over impounded vehicles after the owners' bankruptcy filings violated Bankruptcy Code sections 362 and 542. Fulton – Background and Ruling The...

Members

Pump the Brakes: Bad Faith Debtors Are Not Gaming the System (Part II)

January 27, 2019

By Kathryne M. Shaw1 Boleman Law Firm, P.C. (Virginia Beach, VA) Click here for Part 1 In Part I of this article, we reviewed In re Holman, in which the debtors violated their confirmation order and exhibited bad faith . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members. Join...

Members

Preferences: When does the Clock Start Running?

Alan C. Hochheiser

February 19, 2023

Creditors may now be subject to more preference actions, especially for those cases filed in Indiana. The Seventh Circuit recently overturned long-standing precedent that the preference period on garnishment of attachment would no longer run from the date of service or knowledge of the attachment but when the funds were paid over. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Mark...

Members

Ask Ms. Ps & Qs

Link to Post:

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

Or Sign In Below:

Related Articles

The Collector

Plan Confirmation, Valuation of Claims, and Burden of Proof

Critical Case Comment – Debtor’s Counsel’s Fee Reduced to $48k

From the Editor – Discharge Injunction

“Jan Hamilton” – Need We Say More?

Does Section 1325(b)(1)(A) Hold Your Interest?

Locked Out: Blocked Mortgage Portals May Be Violation of the Stay

In re Fulton: Seventh Circuit Affirms Its Position with Majority of Circuits on Passive Retention of Property as Violation of Sections 362 and 542

Pump the Brakes: Bad Faith Debtors Are Not Gaming the System (Part II)

Preferences: When does the Clock Start Running?

Academy

Members

Website

Legal

Looking to Become a Member?

Webinars

Member Articles

Industry News

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: