In Re Hagensick

73 B.R. 710, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 784, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 28
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa
DecidedFebruary 5, 1987
Docket19-00382
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 73 B.R. 710 (In Re Hagensick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Hagensick, 73 B.R. 710, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 784, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 28 (Iowa 1987).

Opinion

Memorandum of Law and Order re: Computation of Chapter 12 Trustee’s Fee

MICHAEL J. MELLOY, Bankruptcy Judge.

The matter before the Court is the confirmation of Debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 Plan. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (L).

Having reviewed the Debtors’ Chapter 12 plan and briefs on this issue, the Court enters the following ruling and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Debtors are farmers who live in Monona, Iowa. Their operation consists of both crops and beef and dairy cattle, based on three parcels of real estate in Allamakee County. Their schedules reflect that they meet the jurisdictional standard for Chapter 12 relief, found at 11 U.S.C. § 101(17).

The Debtors filed their Chapter 12 petition, statement of financial affairs and schedules, and plan on November 26, 1986. Federal Land Bank, one of four secured creditors, holds a first mortgage on each of the three parcels of farm real estate. Lua-na Savings Bank of Luana, Iowa, holds a second mortgage on two parcels of farm real estate, and a blanket security agreement on machinery, livestock, and crops. Union State Bank of Monona, Iowa holds a security agreement covering a BMB mower. Monona Cooperative Company, a supplier of feed and fertilizer, is secured by a right of setoff in deferred patronage dividends of the Debtors declared prior to the bankruptcy filing. All other creditors are unsecured.

Payments to secured and priority creditors were proposed as follows:

[[Image here]]

*712 [[Image here]]

By operation of their Chapter 12 plan, the Debtors are modifying the priority tax claims and the claim of Luana Savings Bank by spreading payments over five years.

The Debtors are modifying the claim of Federal Land Bank by proposing to “write down” the claim, that is, to treat Land Bank as secured only to the value of the real estate, or $190,300. The remaining $177,656 of the Land Bank claim is to be treated as unsecured.

The Debtors are modifying the claim of Union State Bank by writing down the claim to the value of the security, $250, and treating the remaining $5,179 as unsecured.

Debtors’ plan proposes that the Debtors will make all payments on the priority tax claims and secured claims directly and not through the Chapter 12 trustee.

Debtors propose to pay to the trustee $14,758.35 each year, to be distributed by the trustee to holders of allowed unsecured claims commencing on the first anniversary of the plan confirmation and continuing for four years thereafter. It is on these annual payments to unsecured creditors through the trustee, and these payments only, which the Debtors propose to compute and pay to the trustee the percentage fee as provided in § 1202(d)(1)(B).

Federal Land Bank had objected to its treatment under Debtors’ proposed plan. At the confirmation hearing, Debtors and Federal Land Bank advised the Court that an agreement had been reached to amend the plan treatment setting the Federal Land Bank claim at $200,300.00 and raising the interest rate to be paid on the Land Bank secured claim from 10 percent to 11 percent. The plan amendment reflecting that change was to be submitted.

The only objection to confirmation lodged at the confirmation hearing was put forth by the Standing Chapter 12 Trustee. She advised the Court that she felt the plan was feasible, was proposed in good faith, and was in compliance with Chapter 12, except as to the payment of the Trustee fees under § 1202(d)(1)(B). She indicated that she would have to object to confirmation, unless the Debtors agreed to amend their plan to provide for a trustee’s fee computed on all payments, including payments to secured creditors.

At the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, this Court entered an Order taking under advisement the issue of the Trustee’s compensation and expenses. The Court also indicated on the record that if the plan were amended to reflect the change in treatment of the Federal Land Bank claim and the plan were amended to conform to this Court’s ruling as to Trustee’s fees and expenses, the plan would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 12 and an Order of Confirmation could then enter.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Section 1202(d)(1)(B) provides that the court shall set for the standing trustee

a percentage fee not to exceed the sum of—
(i) not to exceed ten percent of the payments made under the plan of such debtor, with respect to payments in an aggregate amount not to exceed $450,-000; and
(ii) three percent of payments made under the plan of such debtor, with respect to payments made after the aggregate amount of payments made under the plan exceeds $450,000;
based on such maximum annual compensation and the actual, necessary expenses incurred by such individual as standing trustee.

*713 In computing the Chapter 12 trustee’s percentage fee, two issues are presented. First, the Court must determine which payments are subject to the trustee’s percentage fee, which involves defining “under the plan” and conversely, the appropriateness of making payments outside the plan. Second, the Court must establish the percentage rate to be applied to payments subject to the fee.

Section 1202(d)(1)(B) and the whole of Chapter 12 are closely modeled after Chapter 13 of the Code. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, reprinted in 134 Cong.Rec. H8999 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1986). Section 1302(e) applies a structurally similar method of computing a percentage fee “from all payments under plans.” Chapter 13 cases which interpret the phrase “payments under plans”, discuss the appropriateness of making payments outside the plan, and establish percentage rates at which fees are computed, are analogous to the case at bar, and provide guidance.

I. Payments Subject to the Percentage Fee

By proposing to make all payments directly to secured creditors, Debtors seek to exempt these payments from inclusion in computation of the trustee’s fee. The Court, while concluding that the Debtors may act as disbursing agent for these payments, also concludes that such payments are “under the plan” and must be included in computation of the trustee’s fee.

The concept of payments outside the plan, much litigated in Chapter 13 cases, is often confused for the situation in which the debtor acts as disbursing agent for payments made under the plan. At the Court’s discretion, a debtor may assume the trustee’s role and act as disbursing agent for plan payments. 11 U.S.C. § 1326(c); In re Tartaglia, 61 B.R. 439, 441 (Bkrtcy D.R.I.1986) This replacement of the trustee is subject to a demonstration of the debtor’s ability to make direct payments, 11 U.S.C.

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

Related

In re: Andrew L. Johnson
M.D. Georgia, 2026
Wagner v. Armstrong (In re Wagner)
36 F.3d 723 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
In Re Marriott
161 B.R. 816 (S.D. Illinois, 1993)
In Re Wagner
150 B.R. 753 (D. North Dakota, 1993)
In Re Fulkrod
126 B.R. 584 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
Fulkrob v. Barmettler (In re John Fulkrob)
126 B.R. 584 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
In Re Heller
105 B.R. 434 (N.D. Illinois, 1989)
Matter of Finkbine
94 B.R. 461 (S.D. Ohio, 1988)
In Re Rott
94 B.R. 163 (D. North Dakota, 1988)
In Re Cannon
93 B.R. 746 (N.D. Florida, 1988)
Matter of Pianowski
92 B.R. 225 (W.D. Michigan, 1988)
Matter of Sutton
91 B.R. 184 (M.D. Georgia, 1988)
Matter of Logemann
88 B.R. 938 (S.D. Iowa, 1988)
In Re Caudill
82 B.R. 969 (S.D. Indiana, 1988)
In Re Wright
82 B.R. 422 (W.D. Virginia, 1988)
In Re Land
82 B.R. 572 (D. Colorado, 1988)
Greseth v. Federal Land Bank (In Re Greseth)
78 B.R. 936 (D. Minnesota, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 B.R. 710, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 784, 16 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hagensick-ianb-1987.