In Re Lexington Hearth Lamp and Leisure, LLC

402 B.R. 135, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1124, 2009 WL 395674
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 17, 2009
Docket19-10068
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 402 B.R. 135 (In Re Lexington Hearth Lamp and Leisure, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Lexington Hearth Lamp and Leisure, LLC, 402 B.R. 135, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1124, 2009 WL 395674 (N.C. 2009).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS W. WALDREP, JR., Bankruptcy Judge.

These matters are before the Court upon consideration of the respective Applications for Final Allowance of Compensation for Attorney for Trustee (the “Applications”) filed by Bruce Magers (the “Trustee”) in each of the above-referenced Chapter 7 cases. In each case, Mr. Magers served not only as the Chapter 7 trustee but also as the attorney for the Trustee. The United States Bankruptcy Administrator filed an objection to each of the Applications, arguing that they improperly contained requests for attorney compensation for services that should be properly characterized as trustee duties. Because of the identity of issues, the Court has consolidated its consideration of these matters.

For the most part, these cases are examples of relatively uncomplicated Chapter 7 asset cases routinely seen in this court. Assets were recovered by the Trustee in each case, but little or no dividend will be paid because administrative claims will consume all or almost all of the funds in the estate. While that situation is an unfortunate but common occurrence, it emphasizes the need for and, indeed, the duty of bankruptcy courts to scrutinize Chapter 7 trustee commissions and fees. These cases provide an opportunity for examining and resolving recurring fee issues involving the attorney for Chapter 7 trustee.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Lexington Hearth Lamp and Leisure, LLC

This case was initiated by the filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 on May 5, 2005. Mr. Magers was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee. Mr. Magers also served as the attorney for the Trustee. 1 On July 11, 2005, the Trustee filed an application to employ Robert E. Price, Jr. as special counsel for the Trustee, and such an order was entered on October 31, 2005. On November 23, 2005, Mr. Price, in his capacity as special counsel for the Trustee, filed two adversary proceedings to recover preferences. One adversary proceeding was settled for $5,900.00, and the other was voluntarily dismissed. On May 8, 2006, the Court authorized the Trustee to pay allowed fees and expenses of $1,961.12 to Mr. Price as special counsel, and such compensation was paid. The Trustee reviewed the claims filed in the case and filed three objections. Two objections were sustained because the claims in question were unsecured claims rather than secured ones. The third objection was denied. The Trustee has $5,390.31 on hand.

The case administration in this case was routine, and the legal services for which attorney compensation is sought by Mr. Magers consist primarily of negotiating with creditors, reviewing pleadings, communicating with special counsel, and objecting to claims. For the rendition of legal services to this estate, Mr. Magers *138 seeks compensation as attorney for the Trustee in the amount of $3,547.50 and Trustee commission and expenses of $1,529.71, for total compensation of $5,076.92. 2 The amended objection of the Bankruptcy Administrator asserts that $646.00 of attorney compensation should be disallowed because some of the requested compensation pertains to routine statutory duties that must be performed by the Trustee pursuant to Section 704 of the Bankruptcy Code, including discussions with special counsel in which Mr. Magers was functioning as the Trustee or client, not as the attorney for the Trustee.

Elite Furniture Manufacturing, Inc.

This case was initiated by the filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 on May 26, 2006. Mr. Magers was appointed as the Chapter 7 trustee, and he also served as the attorney for the Trustee. On August 4, 2006, the Trustee filed an application to employ Mr. Price as special counsel for the Trustee, and such an order was entered on September 15, 2006. On November 7, 2006, the Trustee filed a motion to sell certain personal property. Lexington State Bank (the “Bank”), a secured creditor of the Debtor, filed an objection, which was eventually resolved by a consent order entered on December 18, 2006. On January 4, 2007, Mr. Price, in his capacity as special counsel for the Trustee, filed a motion for authority to conduct a Rule 2004 examination of an officer of the Debtor, which was granted by order entered on February 5, 2007. On February 19, 2007, Mr. Price filed a motion for court approval of a post-petition lease of the Debtor’s premises, to which the Bank objected. The motion to approve the lease was withdrawn in favor of a global settlement with the Bank. The Court initially denied the Trustee’s settlement with the Bank but reconsidered and approved the settlement by order entered on May 21, 2007. The settlement netted the estate more than $34,000.00. On December 3, 2007, the Court authorized the Trustee to pay allowed fees and expenses of $8,602.48 to Mr. Price as special counsel, and such compensation was paid. Pursuant to the Final Report filed by the Trustee on July 15, 2008, the estate has $13,627.26 on hand.

The case administration in this case was not routine. The legal services for which attorney compensation is sought by Mr. Magers consist primarily of negotiating with counsel for the Bank, reviewing pleadings, communicating with special counsel, and communicating with other parties in the case. For the rendition of legal services to this estate, Mr. Magers seeks compensation as attorney for the Trustee in the amount of $18,214.00 and Trustee commission and expenses of $7,607.36, for total compensation of $26,428.72. 3 The amended objection of the Bankruptcy Administrator asserts that $1,851.80 of attorney compensation should be disallowed since it pertains to tasks that should be properly characterized as trustee duties, including discussions with special counsel.

Jeffrey Dale DUPREE

This case was initiated by the filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 on June 11, 2007. Mr. Magers was appointed *139 as the Chapter 7 trustee, and he also served as the attorney for the Trustee. On August 2, 2007, the Trustee filed an application to employ Mr. Price as special counsel for the Trustee, and such an order was entered on August 6, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Trustee filed an application to employ Daniel C. Bruton as special counsel for the Trustee, substituting Mr. Bruton for Mr. Price, and such an order was entered on October 15, 2007. On October 16, 2007, Mr. Bruton, in his capacity as special counsel for the Trustee, filed an adversary proceeding to recover a preference, which resulted in the receipt of $3,191.11 by the estate. On April 4, 2008, the Court authorized the Trustee to pay allowed fees and expenses of $1,331.92 to Mr. Bruton as special counsel, and such compensation was paid. Pursuant to the Final Report filed by the Trustee on May 28, 2008, the estate has $1,861.88 on hand.

The ease administration in this case was routine, and the legal services for which attorney compensation is sought by Mr. Magers consist primarily of reviewing pleadings, communicating with special counsel, and reviewing applications for compensation. For the rendition of legal services to this estate, Mr.

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

Related

Vaughn v. Gold
E.D. Virginia, 2025
Meredith Lynne Alexander
District of Columbia, 2022
Ronald Lee Gage
District of Columbia, 2022
Angela Yvonne Holyfield
N.D. Georgia, 2019
In re Peterson
566 B.R. 179 (M.D. Tennessee, 2017)
Henley v. Malouf (In re Roberts)
556 B.R. 266 (S.D. Mississippi, 2016)
In re King
546 B.R. 682 (S.D. Texas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
402 B.R. 135, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1124, 2009 WL 395674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lexington-hearth-lamp-and-leisure-llc-ncmb-2009.