In re: Josefina Cruz Maldonado & Carlos Manuel Bairan Rivera

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico·Decided October 14, 2014·No. 10-09211·Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 5 THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 4 || IN RE: CASE NO. 10-09211 BKT 5 Chapter 13 . JOSEFINA CRUZ MALDONADO &

7 CARLOS MANUEL BAIRAN RIVERA FILED & ENTERED ON 10/14/2014 8 Debtor(s) 9 10 OPINION AND ORDER 11 Before this court is a Motion to Withdraw Consigned Funds as Payment of Legal Fee filed by Carlos I. Leén Camacho (“Mr. Leén”), special counsel for Debtor, Josefina Cru Maldonado [Dkt. No. 188], Trustee’s Motion Outlining Controversy and Motion to Dismiss file 15 Chapter 13 Trustee, Alejandro Oliveras Rivera (“Trustee”) [Dkt. No. 192], Motion t 16 || Withdraw Settlement Funds in Compliance with Settlement and to Deem the Plan Bas Completed filed by Debtors, Josefina Cruz Maldonado and Carlos Manuel Bairan River: (“Debtors”) [Dkt. No. 194], Opposition to Motion Requesting Withdrawal of Consigned Fund by Carlos I. Leon Camacho, Esq. filed by Debtors [Dkt. No. 195], and Opposition to Trustee’ 21 || Motion Outlining Controversy and Motion to Dismiss filed by Debtors [Dkt. No. 197]. For th 22 ||reasons set forth below, Debtors’ Motion to Withdraw Settlement Funds in Compliance wit Settlement and to Deem the Plan Base Completed is GRANTED, Mr. Leén’s Motion t Withdraw Consigned Funds as Payment of Legal Fees is DENIED, and Trustee’s Motio Outlining Controversy and Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

i I. Factual Background 2 On September 30, 2010, Debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Cod 3 [Dkt. No. 1]. Thereafter, Debtor Josefina Cruz Maldonado, learned of the existence of a cause 0 4 5 action (“Tort Claim”) in her favor against Wal-Mart De Puerto Rico, Inc. (“Walmart”). Debtor 6 amended their schedules to include said Tort Claim as part of the bankruptcy estate [Dkt. No. 7 1163]. On May 20, 2011, Debtors submitted their application to employ Mr. Leén as Specia 8 Counsel for the Debtors in the Tort Claim on a contingent basis at 33% of any amount 9 recovered for the Debtors and/or the estate, plus actual costs and expenses [Dkt. No. 64]. O 11 9, 2011 this Court approved said application [Dkt. No. 69]. 12 On December 8, 2011, this Court confirmed the Debtors’ amended plan [Dkt. No. 105], *S || At the time of approval, the Tort Claim was still pending. Therefore, this Court approved 14 contingent payment provision in the plan to account for any proceeds derived from the To 15 16 Claim. Said provision reads that a lump-sum payment of $7,753.00 is to be received: 17 From settlement or judgment of non-exempt proceeds from law suit. 18 19 Payment is contingent to when and if prevailing in the judicial action. 20 If the non exempt amount to be received, if and when received, 21 provides for greater distribution, this lamp sum amount should be 22 deemed amended for the lesser of: 23 (a) up to the non-exempt amount received, or (b) to the amount needed to pay 100% to general unsecured 24 creditors and 6% for present value for general unsecured creditors. 25 A few months later, the Tort Claim was settled for $35,000.00. This Court subsequentl approved Mr. Leén’s Application for Compensation, awarding $11,550.00 in attorney’s fees an

1 |} $1,002.00 in expenses [Dkt. No. 136]. On March 13, 2014, Walmart motioned for leave t 2 consign the $35,000.00 with the court [Dkt. No. 176]. This Court denied the motion, and ordere Walmart to deliver the settlement amount to the Trustee within fourteen (14) days [Dkt. No

|| 178]. 6 On April 1, 2014, Walmart and the Debtors requested that this Court reconside ’ || Walmart’s motion to consign the settlement funds [Dkt. No. 180]. Due to Walmart’s interna ° bureaucratic process, the reissuing of a new check paid to the order of the Trustee would tak months. Given the aforementioned, this Court granted the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. No,

31 || 182]. 12 On April 30, 2014, Mr. Leén submitted a motion requesting the withdrawal of hi consigned attorney’s fees [Dkt. No. 188]. Mr. Leén’s attorney’s fees and expenses tota $12,552.00. On May 13, 2014, the Trustee submitted a motion outlining the controversy and

16 motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 192]. 17 In his motion, the Trustee argues that the non-exempt funds should be used to pa 18 unsecured creditors, as was allegedly envisioned when the plan was confirmed. The Debtor claimed a $22,447.00 exemption from the Tort Claim proceeds. This leaves $12,553.00 in non exempt funds (“non-exempt funds”). However, if the $12,552.00 in attorney’s fees and expense |{are deducted, only $1.00 in non-exempt funds will be left to distribute amongst the creditors. 23 || The Trustee argues that because the plan called for the possible payment in full of the genera 24 unsecured debt, the unsecured creditors have priority over the non-exempt funds. This woul leave $4,800.00 to compensate Mr. Leén.

i On June 9, 2014, Debtors filed their Motion to Withdraw Settlement Funds i 2 Compliance with Settlement and to Deem the Plan Base Completed [Dkt. No. 194], an 3 Opposition to Motion Requesting Withdrawal of Consigned Funds by Carlos I. Leédn Camacho, 4 5 Esq. [Dkt. No. 195]. In said motions, Debtors note that on March 14, 2014, they reached a 6 agreement with the Trustee as to the funds from the Tort Claim [Dkt. No. 177]. Said agreemen || states: 8 a. the tort claim proceeds of joint debtor JOSEFINA CRUZ 9 MALDONADO, in the amount of $35,000.00 are to be tendered, by defendant Wal-Mart de P.R. Inc., to the Chapter 13 trustee, Mr. 10 Alejandro Oliveras Rivera. 11 b. upon receipt of the $35,000.00, the trustee shall forthwith 12 disburse to JOSEFINA CRUZ MALDONADO, the portion claimed by her as exempt, $22,447.00 and, $12,552.00 to special counsel Mr. Mr. Carlos I. Leon Camacho. 14 As a result, the Debtors’ request that the court deny Mr. Ledn’s motion requesting fund 15 16 consigned with the court, and grant an order issuing a check for $35,000.00 in favor of th 17 || Trustee, to be distributed as agreed upon. 18 Lastly, on June 17, 2014, the Debtors submitted their Opposition to Trustee’s Motio 19 Outlining Controversy and Motion to Dismiss filed by Debtors [Dkt. No. 197]. Aside fro 20 reemphasizing the language in the aforementioned agreement, the Debtors note that there exist 21 55 || Strong public policy favoring settlement agreements. The Debtors argue that the parties ar 23 || bound by their agreement, particularly given the fact that it was made in writing and filed wit 24 || the court. For the following reasons, the court agrees with the Debtors. 25

1 Ii. Legal Analysis and Discussion 2 The main issue before this Court is whether Mr. Leén’s attorney’s fees and expense have priority over the payment of unsecured creditors. In order to resolve the matter at hand, “a

5 understanding of the statutory framework dealing with the allowance and payment of priorit 6 claims in Chapter 13 cases is required.” In re Busetta-Silvia, 314 B.R. 218, 222-23 (B.AP. 10t 7 |! Cir. 2004). ° Under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2), unless the holder of a priority claim agrees to differen treatment, a Chapter 13 plan shall “provide for full payment, in deferred cash payments, of al 11 Claims entitled to priority under section 507.” Id. Section 507(a)(2) affords first priority t 12 ||“administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b). 11 U.S.C. § 507. Furthermore, 11 U.S.C. tS § 503(b) states, in relevant part, that “there shall be allowed administrative expenses, . . including— .. . (2) compensation and reimbursement awarded under section 330(a) of this title.’

16 Busetta-Silvia, 314 B.R. at 222-23. “Section 330 authorizes the Court to award reasonabl 17 Compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by professionals.” In re Chewning & Fre 18 || Sec., Inc., 328 B.R. 899, 912 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2005).

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

In re: Josefina Cruz Maldonado & Carlos Manuel Bairan Rivera, (prb 2014).

In re: Josefina Cruz Maldonado & Carlos Manuel Bairan Rivera (In re: Josefina Cruz Maldonado & Carlos Manuel Bairan Rivera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caminetti v. United States
242 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 1917)
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.
489 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1989)
In Re Chewning & Frey Security, Inc.
328 B.R. 899 (N.D. Georgia, 2005)
In Re Busetta-Silvia
314 B.R. 218 (Tenth Circuit, 2004)