In re: Rita Ramos Carrasquillo

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedDecember 6, 2018
Docket14-08936
StatusUnknown

This text of In re: Rita Ramos Carrasquillo (In re: Rita Ramos Carrasquillo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Rita Ramos Carrasquillo, (prb 2018).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 || IN RE: CASE NO. 14 - 08936 (ESL) 4 || RITA RAMOS CARRASQUILLO CHAPTER 13 5 Debtor 6 7 OPINION AND ORDER

8 On October 24, 2018 the Chapter 13 trustee (“trustee”) brought to the attention of the 9 ||court that there is pending since 2016 a contested matter regarding an application for 10 || compensation filed by debtor’s counsel and the trustee’s opposition to the same (dkt. #72). The 11 || court has no explication for the omission and assumes responsibility for the same. Thus, at the 12 outset, the court apologizes to the parties for the delay. The court proceeds to decide the pending 13 || matter, acknowledging anachronistic consequences as a result of post 2016 events. 14 The sequence of events commenced with the filing of an application for compensation 15 || (“application”) filed by debtor’s counsel on January 11, 2016 (Dkt. #44), that is, four days after 16 || the court entered an order confirming debtor’s chapter 13 plan dated December 17, 2015. The 17 ||application prays for the approval of fees in the amount of $7,000.00. On February 4, 2016 the 18 || trustee filed an opposition to the application (dkt. #45). The trustee alleges that the terms of the 19 confirmed chapter plan bind all parties, including the award of attorney’s fees performed prior to 20 || the confirmation of the chapter 13 plan. Since the confirmation order provides for the allowance 91 || of fees in the amount of $3,000.00, the application for fees in excess of the allowed amount should | □ 22 || be denied. 23 Debtor’s counsel replied to the trustee’s opposition (dkt. #49) alleging the following: the 24 ||trustee’s position is substantially based on this court’s opinion in the case of In re Medina- 25 || Espinosa, 2015 WL 2400092 (Bankr. D. P.R. 2015), however, the instant case was filed prior to 96 || the issuance of the Medina-Espinosa decision and conformed to the practice up to said date; there 97 || was no set deadline for the filing of an application for compensation; the chapter 13 plan was

-1-

1 ||confirmed without a hearing and, thus, there was no opportunity to file an application for 2 || compensation; and, the services actually performed merit the award of the $7,000.00 requested. 3 The key legal issue before the court is whether, under the facts and circumstances of this 4 |\ case, the confirmation order is binding as to the attorney’s fees claimed up to the confirmation of § || the chapter 13 plan, 6 Before entering into the analysis of the legal issue, the court will preemptively state that 7 || many, if not ail, of the procedural issues and concerns raised by the debtor’s counsel have been 8 || addressed by PR LBR 3015-3, made effective on June 19, 2018 by General Order 18-01(Exhibit 9 to this order); the local chapter 13 plan form (LBG-G) adopted on November 14, 2017 by 10 || General Order 17-08 (Exhibit 2 to this order); the chapter 13 confirmation order being currently 11 |jentered by this bankruptcy judge (Exhibit 3 to this order); and the administrative order 12 || (Administrative Order 18-01) entered on December 3, 2018 for cases assigned to this bankruptcy 13 || judge (Exhibit 4 to this order). In this court’s opinion, the concerns raised by debtor’s counsel in 14 || this and other cases, to a large extent, consciously or unconsciously, prompted the court’s actions 15 || regarding chapter 13 plan confirmation procedures and the award of attorney’s fees in chapter 13 16 || cases. The court also notes that on July 31, 2018 it entered an opinion and order in In re Rodriguez 17 || Pérez, 2018 WL 3655656 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2018) regarding its views on services contracts in 18 || chapter 13 cases and their impact on the “flat fee” and applications for compensation. Therefore, 19 || the particular predicaments in this case are unlikely to recur, 20 The court will first address the due process allegations, that is, that the court entered the 21 confirmation order without prior notice and without a hearing. The sequence of events and the 22 || adverse impact on the debtor of the confirmation order are the two critical factors to consider, 23 The voluntary chapter 13 petition was filed on October 30, 2014. On the same date the 24 debtor filed the Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor statement. The same 25 discloses fees in the amount of $3,000.00, of which $2,178.00 were paid pre-petition, leaving a 26 || balance to be paid under the plan in the amount of $822.00. On petition date, the debtor also filed 27 ||a chapter 13 plan dated October 30, 2014. Paragraph 3 of the chapter 13 plan states that the

. -2-

1 || attorney’s fees are those provided in the Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor 2 || statement, detailing the amounts in the same manner, that is, fees in the amount of $3,000.00, of 3 || which $2,178.00 were paid pre-petition, leaving a balance to be paid under the plan in the amount 4 || of $822.00. 5 The initial confirmation hearing was held on January 9, 2015 and continued to May 6, 6 |}2015 as the chapter 13 plan was not confirmed on account of the trustee’s unfavorable 7 || recommendation. 8 On January 12, 2015 the debtor filed an amended chapter 13 plan dated January 12, 2015. 9 {|The same included in paragraph 3 identical provisions to the ones in the chapter 13 plan dated 10 |] October 30, 2014 as to the attorney’s fees. After several continuances of the confirmation hearing, 11 || upon debtor’s requests, a confirmation hearing was held on November 18, 2015. The minutes of 12 || the hearing show that the debtor was ordered to file evidence of being current on the proposed 13 plan payments and to file an amended chapter 13 plan which incorporates the terms of the 14 |i agreement with Oriental Bank in AP 14-0287, The trustee was granted 14 days after the chapter 15 || 13 plan was filed to file a report on confirmation; and, if the report is favorable, then the chapter 16 4} 13 plan may be confirmed. 17 On December 17, 2015 an amended chapter 13 plan dated December 17, 2015 was filed. 18 || The same included, this time in paragraph 2, the same provisions regarding attorney’s fees as in 19 the prior chapter 13 plans, The trustee filed a favorable report on December 29, 2015. There 20 || were no objections filed by the creditors to any of the proposed plans. The order confirming the 21 || December 17, 2015 chapter plan was entered on January 7, 2016. The confirmation order was 22 not appealed. Thus, it became a final order. 23 After considering the above sequence of events, the provisions in the Disclosure of 24 || Compensation of Attorney for Debtor statement, the provision in the confirmed chapter 13 plan 25 ||regarding attorney’s fees, and the minute order of November 18, 2015, the court concludes that 26 ||the confirmation order was entered granting the requests made by the debtor. Therefore, the 27 || debtor nor her counsel may claim to be adversely affected by the confirmation order.

-3-

] The disclosure of compensation statement and the chapter 13 plan provisions regarding 2 || compensation for the services rendered by debtor’s counsel were incorporated in the confirmation 3 || order entered on January 7, 2016. Consequently, the binding effect of the confirmed chapter 13 4 |} plan as to the award of attorney’s fees applies to the facts of this case; and so, do this court’s 5 || decisions in In re Medina-Espinosa, 2015 WL 2400092 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015); In re Lugo Parrilla, 6 530 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015); and In re Jimenez Galindez, 514 B.R. 79 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2014) 7 In view of the foregoing, the court finds and concludes that the attorney’s fees in this case, 8 || up to the confirmation order, are those allowed in the January 7, 2016 confirmation order, that is, 9 || $3,000.00. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 5" day of December 2018.

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

Related

In re Galindez
514 B.R. 79 (D. Puerto Rico, 2014)
In re Parrilla
530 B.R. 1 (D. Puerto Rico, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Rita Ramos Carrasquillo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rita-ramos-carrasquillo-prb-2018.