In re: Lynda Fay Layton

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois·Decided September 3, 2025·No. 25-05385·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

In re: ) ) Case No. 25bk5385 ; ) Lynda Fay Layton, ) Chapter 11 Debtor. ) . ) Judge Timothy A. Barnes

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO GREGORY K. STERN, MONICAL C. O’BRIEN, DENNIS E. QUAID AND RACHEL S. SANDLER, ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: $41,525.00 TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: — $1,738.00 TOTAL FEES REDUCED: $ 1,808.00 TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: $ 0.00 TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: $39,717.00 ‘TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: $ 1,783.00 TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $ 41,500.00 THIS CAUSE COMING ON TO BE HEARD on Debtor’s Attorneys’ Application for Allowance of Final Compensation and Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses [Dkt. No. 56] (the “Application”); TT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. ‘The Application is granted, as set forth herein. 2. Gregory K. Stern, Monica C. O'Brien, Dennis E. Quaid and Rachel S. Sandler (the “Attorneys”’) are allowed final compensation of $39,717.00 and reimbursement of costs of $1,738.00 for services rendered. 3. The Attorneys are authorized to apply any remaining amount of the retainer or funds previously received from the Debtor to the unpaid balance of the total fees and costs allowed. 4, ‘The attached time and expense entries have been underlined to reflect disallowance in whole or in part. The basis for each disallowance is reflected by alphabetical notations that appear on the left of each underlined entry. ‘The alphabetical notations correspond to the paragraphs below. (A) = Lumping — TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 88.00 ‘The Court may impose a ten percent penalty on entries that appear to be “lumping.” ‘The Court will reduce each entry marked as such per the penalty. I” re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709

(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (‘Applicants may not circumvent the minimum time requirement or any of the requirements of detail by “lumping” a bunch of activities into a single entry. [citation omitted]. Each type of service should be listed with the corresponding specific time allotment.”’). (B) Duplication of Services — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 1,720.00 The Court denies the allowance of compensation for services that duplicate those of another professional or paraprofessional. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A)(@). Reduction in fees is warranted if multiple attorneys from the same firm appear in court on a motion or argument or for a conference, unless counsel adequately demonstrates that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful way. I” re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 307 (Bankr. N.D. IIL 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (‘A debtor’s estate should not bear the burden of duplication of services. If found in the record, such duplication shall be disallowed by the court as unnecessary.”). It 1s also an accepted principle that generally no more than one attorney may bill for time spent in an intra-office conference or meeting absent an adequate explanation. See In re Adventist Living Cirs., Inc.. 137 B.R. 701, 716 (Bankr. N.D. IIL 1991) (Sonderby, J.); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303; Bat see In re MEP Infrastructure Sols., Inc., 654 B.R. 922, 925 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023) (Goldgar, J.) Gncorrectly citing In re Stainless Sales Corp., Case No. 17 B 3148, 2017 WL 2829675, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. IIL June 27, 2017) (Barnes, J.) for the proposition that intra- office meetings between multiple lawyers are never compensable when S/ainless cites to Pettibone for the foregoing—that an application must “adequately demonstrate[| that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful way” and thus satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(D) by demonstrating that the meeting is “necessary” or “beneficial” and must have taken a “reasonable amount of time.”).

ENTERED: > CS Dated: September 3, 2025 — = ‘Timothy A. Barnes, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court

53 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1442 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312)-427-1558 Statement Date: August 5, 2025 Linda Layton Statement No. 1 Account No. Layton.Admin Page: 1

Fees . Hours rrech 11 filing, real property, debt, income isc., review UST | " Cram, subvT and including retainer in projections . □ RDS Call with B Handler re ch 11 filing and income/expenses and cash collateral. 0.20 é RDS Email to LL requesting P&L for Sub V Trustee. 0.10 □ RDS Review file and call with LL re DIP account, insurance, and IDI. 0.30 12 RDS _ Update filing letter and email to LL re same with attachments. RDS Review P&L and 2024 expenses and email to LL re same. 0.20 ‘ GKS_ Telephone conference with LL prepping for ID] and discussing sd(s) - meeting with RSS re discussions with LL (.2) Review LL email and 2024 and 2025 ytd p&l(s) and email to LL re same and revisions needed (.2) 0.40 2€ RDS Review P&L 0.10 RDS Meeting with GKS re security deposits and discussion with LL in preparation of IDI 0.10 □□□ □ Representation at IDI 0.60 24 RDS _ Review email from LL with insurance declarations. 0.10 4 RDS Discussion with LL re Kathy Bellas lawsuit and Twin Property Management (.3); Review email from LL with Kathy Bellas lawsuit and court order (.1) 0.40 □□ RDS _ Review Cook County Treasurer for yearly taxes on properties and estimated monthly tax withholdings for same (.5) Multiple email exchanges with LL re

Layton-/ Statement No:

Hours

A & B and finalize May operating report. gExt are Expt ogo MCO_ Telephone conference with Kathy Bellas and Bob Jones re: stay violation with proceeding with state court lawsuit, explanation of the rules re: a creditors obligation to cease all actions after the bk filing; advised that must either place matter on the bankruptcy calendar or dismiss the action with leave to reinstate; confirming deadline of July 8 to take action to stop all activity in state court action 0.30 1 MCO_ Email to Kathy Bellas confirming conversation and need for proof that state court action stopped before July 9, 2025. 0.10 MCO_ Review email and attachments from Kathy Bellas (.10); prepare response advising that filing pleadings in the Bk court not sufficient to cure stay violation (.10); email and telephone conference with GKS re: documents and information to prepare motion for sanctions for stay violations (.20). 0.40 2: GKS_ Review LL and MCO bellas emails and telephone conference with MCO re bellas and drafting stay violation motion 0.20 1 MCO Multiple emails from and to Kathy Ballas re: her continued stay violations, advising of steps to cease such violations and deadline for same . 0.30 □ GKS_ Reviewing file, bellas communications, 5th amended complaint and exhibit, bk notice of ch 11 case and drafting stay violation motion 1.30 8 MCO_ Telephone conference with Kathy Ballads re: pending status in state court case and advising of options to ensure that no further stay violations. 0.20 1 MCO_ Email to LL re: filing of Motion for Sanctions against Kathy Bellas and status hearing to be held in Bellas' state court case. 0.10 MCO_ Telephone conference with LL re: appearing at hearing on Kathy Bellas’ Motion for Relief and filing Motion for Sanctions against her. 0.20 41 MCO_ Court - Representation of Debtor at hearing on Kathy Bellas' Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay. 0.60 3. RDS _ Draft Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys and Proposed Order. 0.50 2: RDS Email to LL re status of approval for plan, operating report and rent roll.

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

In re: Lynda Fay Layton, (Ill. 2025).

In re: Lynda Fay Layton (In re: Lynda Fay Layton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Wildman
72 B.R. 700 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
In Re Pettibone Corp.
74 B.R. 293 (N.D. Illinois, 1987)
In Re Adventist Living Centers, Inc.
137 B.R. 701 (N.D. Illinois, 1991)