Henderson v. Kisseberth

Sixth Circuit

Henderson v. Kisseberth

24 F. App'x 539

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2002

DocketNo. 00-3715

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 F. App'x 539 (Henderson v. Kisseberth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. Kisseberth, 24 F. App'x 539 (6th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Appellant Ronald R. Henderson has moved for a clarification of our decision filed December 12, 2001. Such a clarification is in order because our decision specifically allocated $6,787.98 of the $9.600.00 in disgorged fees to the Debtors, but did not state who is to receive the remaining $2,813.02.

We agree with the result reached by the bankruptcy court regarding the disposition of these funds. Unlike the $6,787.98 in “transcript funds” that we allocated to the Debtors, there is no reason to conclude that the remaining $2,813.02 is not properly part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Following the principles of allocation set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 329, the fees should therefore be returned to the bankruptcy estate.

As the bankruptcy court noted, this is the equitable result because “a large portion of the fees charged by Henderson were not excessive and, in addition, many of the legal services performed by Attorney Henderson actually benefitted the Debtors.” It would unjustly enrich the Debtors to allocate to them the remaining fees. Instead, the remaining $2,813.02 in disgorged fees should be returned to the bankruptcy estate. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court to the extent that it allocated the $2,813.02 in “non-transcript” disgorged fees to the Debtors.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Appellant Ronald R. Henderson has moved for a clarification of our decision filed December 12, 2001. Such a clarification is in order because our decision specifically allocated $6,787.98 of the $9.600.00 in disgorged fees to the Debtors, but did not state who is to receive the remaining $2,813.02.

We agree with the result reached by the bankruptcy court regarding the disposition of these funds. Unlike the $6,787.98 in “transcript funds” that we allocated to the Debtors, there is no reason to conclude that the remaining $2,813.02 is not properly part of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. Following the principles of allocation set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 329, the fees should therefore be returned to the bankruptcy estate.

As the bankruptcy court noted, this is the equitable result because “a large portion of the fees charged by Henderson were not excessive and, in addition, many of the legal services performed by Attorney Henderson actually benefitted the Debtors.” It would unjustly enrich the Debtors to allocate to them the remaining fees. Instead, the remaining $2,813.02 in disgorged fees should be returned to the bankruptcy estate. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court to the extent that it allocated the $2,813.02 in “non-transcript” disgorged fees to the Debtors.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. App'x 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-kisseberth-ca6-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack