In Re Roberts

80 B.R. 565
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia·Decided January 15, 1988·No. 19-51646·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

ORDER

STACEY W. COTTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

Before the court is the application by the Chapter 7 trustee for approval of the trustee’s attorney’s fees and expenses, approval of auctioneer’s fees and expenses, approval of real estate agent’s fees and approval of Chapter 7 trustee fees. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 157.

This case commenced as a Chapter 7 petition filed on May 14, 1982 and converted to Chapter 13 on or about March 15, 1985. This conversion resulted from actions taken with regard to the Chapter 7 trustee’s efforts to adopt and pursue sale of the debtor’s residence pursuant to a contract obtained by the debtor. Judge William L. Norton, Jr. by his order of April 29, 1985, among other things, denied the trustee authority to sell the property and denied the trustee and counsel allowance of interim or other compensation. This order was subsequently affirmed in part and reversed in part by United States District Judge Horace T. Ward on August 27, 1986.

The matter before the court upon remand is the trustee's claim for allowance of compensation and reimbursement of expenses as Chapter 7 trustee and as attorney for the Chapter 7 trustee to be paid from the converted Chapter 13 debtor’s estate. The applications before the court are for such allowances.

First the court will address the real estate agent’s fees and commissions for ERA Blaine Mabry Realty, Inc. and M. Dukes & Associates Realty in the sum of $3,570. This court has never authorized or approved the employment of the subject real estate agent, and no sale of the subject property has been approved which would entitle the real estate agent to a commission. The evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support this claim. Further, the trustee abandoned this claim during the course of the hearings. Accordingly the application for allowance of real estate agent fees or commissions is DENIED.

Next the court will address the application for allowance of fees and expenses for David Arwood d/b/a Arwood Auction Company. While the employment of Arwood was authorized, no sale pursuant to the employment has been approved and no fees earned. The evidence submitted at trial does not substantiate or warrant this allowance and the same is DENIED.

Finally the court will address the request for allowances of compensation and expenses to the Chapter 7 trustee and his attorneys. These applications present three issues: (1) Whether compensation and expenses are allowable to a Chapter 7 trustee and his attorney for services rendered after the Chapter 7 case is converted to Chapter 13; (2) Whether the Chapter 7 trustee may be allowed compensation and expenses on a quantum meruit basis, and (3)The amount allowable to the trustee and the attorneys.

This case began as a voluntary Chapter 7 filing by debtor on May 14, 1982. Mr. Wheeler Bryan was duly appointed as the Chapter 7 interim trustee, thereafter becoming trustee at the Section 341 creditors’ meeting on June 7, 1982. As trustee, Mr. Bryan applied for and was authorized to employ his own law firm as his attorney by ex parte order of December 13,1982, nunc fro tunc as of June 7, 1982.

*567 Thereafter, the trustee, acting as his own counsel, or members of his law firm, rendered professional services to the Chapter 7 trustee from November 16, 1982 through March 26,1985, the date the Chapter 7 case was converted to Chapter 13. These services totalled 46.6 hours.

This case presents both a unique and difficult problem. As a result of the Chapter 7 trustee’s actions, the debtor exercised his right to convert his case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. Upon conversion, the Chapter 7 trustee was confronted with an order which he believed to be objectionable. He appealed the order and obtained a partial reversal. While this court is satisfied from the record that the appeal was prosecuted for laudable reasons, the question arises as to whether the services rendered after conversion are compensable from the Chapter 13 debtor’s estate. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, the court concludes that they are not compensable.

Subject to eligibility, Section 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code grants to a debtor a one time absolute right to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11, 12, or 13. 11 U.S.C. Section 706(a). This conversion right is not subject to court discretion nor is it waiva-ble by the debtor. In re Kleber, 81 B.R. 726 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1987) (Kahn, B.J.); In re Longhorn 1979-II Drilling Program, 32 B.R. 923, 929 (Bankr.W.D.Okl.1983); Street v. Lawson (In re Street), 55 B.R. 763, 765 (9th Cir. BAP 1985).

Under Section 348(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the conversion of a case from Chapter 7 to a Chapter 13 “terminates the service of any trustee ... serving in the case before such conversion.” Thereafter, the Chapter 7 trustee has no standing in a fiduciary capacity in the converted case. In re Kleber, supra. Any and all services rendered after that date could not have been rendered by or on behalf of the trustee as his position had terminated. Such services rendered were on behalf of Mr. Bryan, or the attorneys, individually and not on behalf of the Chapter 7 trustee. He could not simply ignore such termination. When he did so, he proceeded at his own risk and expense.

This case provides a graphic illustration of at least one reason Congress elected to terminate a trustee’s services under Section 348(e) upon conversion. The estimated net realizable to the estate from the proposed sale was approximately $20,000. Allowable fees and expense at conversion on March 26, 1985 should have approximated $5,000. Yet, two years later the asserted claims total in excess of $26,000, and the asset has not yet been administered.

Adequate safeguards are in place in Chapter 13 to protect against abuse and to protect creditors’ interests. These include the Chapter 13 trustee, the good faith requirements of a case and plan, the requisites for a plan, and the requirement that creditors must receive under the plan at least what they would have received in Chapter 7. While a Chapter 7 trustee’s appointment is generally for the duration of that case, upon conversion his appointment terminates. He has no further standing as a fiduciary.

If the Chapter 7 trustee possesses information relevant to the Chapter 13 estate, he .can furnish it to the Chapter 13 trustee or creditors. If he is a claimant, as here, he can assert it in his individual capacity but not as the Chapter 7 trustee of the estate. While this may seem a harsh result, the Code is quite clear that upon conversion the Chapter 7 trustee’s services and standing terminate. Accordingly, this court concludes that all trustee and attorney services rendered and expenses incurred after conversion of this case to Chapter 13 are not allowable or compensa-ble from the Chapter 13 debtor’s estate.

The court will now address the quantum meruit claim for trustee compensation. Mr. Bryan has requested allowance of compensation for services as Chapter 7 trustee in the sum of $2,500. The trustee has couched his claim in quantum meruit; and not as a statutory claim under Sections 326 and 330 of the Bankruptcy Code.

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

In Re Roberts, 80 B.R. 565 (Ga. 1988).

80 B.R. 565 (In Re Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Holdings, LLC
574 B.R. 895 (S.D. Florida, 2017)
In re Spence
497 B.R. 99 (D. Colorado, 2013)
In Re Czykoski
320 B.R. 385 (N.D. Indiana, 2005)
In re Main Realty & Management, LLC
277 B.R. 1 (D. Connecticut, 2002)
In Re Colburn
231 B.R. 778 (D. Oregon, 1999)
In Re Collins
210 B.R. 538 (N.D. Ohio, 1997)
Mann v. Hahn (In Re Hahn)
167 B.R. 693 (N.D. Georgia, 1994)
In Re Rakosi
99 B.R. 47 (S.D. California, 1989)
In Re Wells
87 B.R. 732 (N.D. Georgia, 1988)
Matter of Martin
87 B.R. 20 (E.D. Louisiana, 1988)