In Re Cordero

185 B.R. 882, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1242, 1995 WL 516596
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJune 28, 1995
DocketBankruptcy 95-0265-6B7
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 185 B.R. 882 (In Re Cordero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Cordero, 185 B.R. 882, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1242, 1995 WL 516596 (Fla. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court on the Debtors’ Verified Motion for Judgment Imposing Bankruptcy Code Section 110 Sanctions on Bankruptcy Petition Preparer re: Virginia Bell d/b/a Action Paralegal Service (the “Debtor’s Motion”) [Document No. 9]. Appearing before the Court were Andrew Baron, attorney for Debtors, Miguel A. Cordero and Annie Bladotioty Cordero; Margaret Hull, Assistant United States Trustee; and Virginia Bell d/b/a Action Paralegal Service, pro se. After reviewing the pleadings, evidence, receiving testimony, exhibits, arguments of counsel and parties, and authorities for their respective positions, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 19, 1995. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors obtained assistance from Virginia Bell d/b/a Action Paralegal Service in Orlando, Florida (“Bell”). Bell prepared the Debtors’ bankruptcy schedules including their Statement of Financial Affairs.

The Debtors paid the total sum of $335.00 to Bell which included a $160.00 court filing fee and $175.00 for services rendered. In response to Question 9 of the Statement of Affairs, Bell prepared a response that a fee of $100.00 was paid from the Debtors’ earnings. Bell purposefully misrepresented the amount of fees charged in preparing the Statement of Financial Affairs with the intention of deceiving the Court and circumventing the restrictions on fees permitted by non-lawyers providing typing services.

*884 It was Bell’s ordinary practice at the time this petition was prepared to accept filing fees from clients. Bell did not sign the bankruptcy schedules as the preparer, and did not print on the document her name, address, and her Social Security number. Bell advertised her services in the yellow pages under the category of legal clinics and paralegals before the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-294 (“the 1994 Reform Act”) was enacted. There was no evidence the advertisements were placed after October 22, 1994, the date of enactment of the 1994 Reform Act.

At the time this petition was prepared, Bell advised the Debtors they were entitled to a $1,000.00 automobile exemption and a $1,000.00 personal property exemption in connection with the filing of their Chapter 7 petition. This advice was rendered at a time when many were unaware of this Court’s decision in In re Porter, 182 B.R. 53 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994). Bell’s representations concerning exemptions did not result in damage to the Debtors. The Debtors’ primary reason for filing bankruptcy was because they could not pay all their debts when they became due. The Debtors failed to establish they were damaged as a result of the information provided by Bell concerning their exemptions.

On April 8, 1994, the local form, “Statement of Assistance Received in Connection with Filing of this Case,” required of pro se debtors, was amended by this Court, adopting In re Cochran, 164 B.R. 366 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994) and adding the following statement:

This Court has entered an Order that determined that a reasonable fee to be charged by a non-lawyer providing assistance in preparing a bankruptcy case for filing is $50.00. If the non-lawyer is required to make changes to the paperwork to be filed through no fault of its own, an additional, reasonable fee can be charged. However, in no event may the fees charged by a non-lawyer exceed $100.00.

(Citation omitted). On October 22, 1994, 11 U.S.C. § 110, Penalty for persons who negligently or fraudulently prepare bankruptcy petitions, was enacted by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-294, effective in cases filed on or after the date of enactment. At the time Bell prepared the Debtors’ bankruptcy schedules, she was aware that the Orlando Division restricted the amount of fees which may be charged by a non-lawyer. 1 She was also aware of the restrictions imposed upon bankruptcy petition preparers by Section 110. Bell engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices intended to circumvent the restrictions imposed upon bankruptcy petition preparers and with the intention of deceiving the Court. Bell presented no evidence of reasonable cause for her violations of Section 110. Therefore, a significant sanction of $250.00 for each of these violations is appropriate.

The Debtors’ Attorney has submitted Debtors’ Attorney’s Verified Affidavit of Attorney’s Time Spent [Document No. 20] in support of the Debtors’ request for damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, indicating in excess of 12 hours were spent including preparation and presentation of the motion, research, conferring with the Debtors, trial time, preparation of a draft memorandum opinion, and the affidavit at his normal billing rate of $200.00 per hour. For services rendered in this case, a reasonable fee is $1,500.00.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A “bankruptcy petition preparer” is defined as, “a person, other than an attorney or an employee of an attorney, who prepares for compensation a document for filing.” 11 U.S.C. § 110(a)(1). Bell is not an attorney and is not an employee of an attorney, satisfying the definition of “bankruptcy petition preparer” provided by Section 110.

For those who find the cost of traditional legal services prohibitive, typing services such as those provided by bankruptcy peti *885 tion preparers may provide a service to certain debtors. The House Judiciary Committee’s Report on the 1994 Reform Act reveals that Section 110 2 was intended to address the proliferation of typing services. “These preparers often lack the necessary legal training and ethics regulation to provide such services in an adequate and appropriate manner. These services may take unfair advantage of persons who are ignorant of their rights both inside and outside the bankruptcy system.” 2 Collier on BankRuptcy § 110.01 (15th ed. 1995); 140 Cong.ReC. H10,770 (daily ed. Oct. 4, 1994).

Bell prepared the Statement of Assistance Received in Connection with the Filing of this Case [Document No. 3] for the Debtors’ signatures which inaccurately stated a fee of $100.00 was paid when, in fact, $175.00 was paid. Bell failed to sign the bankruptcy petition and print on the document the preparer’s name and address in contravention of 11 U.S.C. § 110(b)(1). Bell failed to provide her Social Security account number as the identifying number of the bankruptcy petition preparer in contravention of 11 U.S.C. § 110(c)(1). Bell collected filing fees for court costs as was her ordinary practice at the time this petition was filed in contravention of 11 U.S.C. § 110(g)(1).

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

Related

United States Trustee v. Burton (In re Rosario)
493 B.R. 292 (D. Massachusetts, 2013)
In Re Moore
290 B.R. 287 (E.D. North Carolina, 2003)
In Re Doser
281 B.R. 292 (D. Idaho, 2002)
In Re Moran
2000 BNH 45 (D. New Hampshire, 2000)
Kangarloo v. Arotionians (In Re Kangarloo)
250 B.R. 115 (C.D. California, 2000)
In Re Guttierez
248 B.R. 287 (W.D. Texas, 2000)
Fessenden v. Ireland (In Re Hobbs)
213 B.R. 207 (D. Maine, 1997)
Marshall v. Bourque (In Re Hartman)
208 B.R. 768 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
Walton v. Levinson (In Re Schweitzer)
196 B.R. 620 (M.D. Florida, 1996)
Interpreting 11 USC § 110
198 B.R. 604 (C.D. California, 1996)
In Re Burdick
191 B.R. 529 (N.D. New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 B.R. 882, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1242, 1995 WL 516596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cordero-flmb-1995.