In Re Shannon

180 B.R. 189, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 446, 1995 WL 152990
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee
DecidedMarch 28, 1995
Docket19-20590
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 180 B.R. 189 (In Re Shannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Shannon, 180 B.R. 189, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 446, 1995 WL 152990 (Tenn. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE DEBTOR’S “APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF THE CHAPTER 7 FILING FEE ...”

WILLIAM H. BROWN, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this Chapter 7 case, the debtor, Ezell Shannon, moves this Court for waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee in a consumer no-asset case. 1 Initially, on October 17, 1994, the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition with, among other papers, an attached application and order to pay the filing fee in installments under Fed. R.Bankr.P. 1006(b)(1). Pursuant to Fed. R.Bankr.P. 2016(b), the debtor’s attorney, Jerome C. Payne, filed a statement that the debtor had promised to pay him $100.00 for representation in this Chapter 7 case but that none had been paid. On February 28, 1995, approximately four months after filing the Chapter 7 petition, Mr. Shannon filed an “Application for Waiver of the Chapter 7 Filing Fee...,” and it’s filing was triggered by the Court’s “Sua Sponte Order and Notice of Hearing to Consider Dismissal of Case for Failure to Pay Filing and/or Administrative Fee.” 2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a), and H.R. 2519, the Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Shannon and the subject matter herein. An application for waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee pursuant to the provisions of H.R. 2519 is a core proceeding, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

In accordance with Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7052, the following shall serve as the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The paramount question presented to the Court is whether this application should be granted, and the underlying question is whether the application was timely filed, and if not timely filed, whether that untimeliness is fatal to the fee waiver being granted.

First, the debtor has failed to make any installment payments in accordance with his initial application and the resultant order to pay the filing fee in installments. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1006(b)(1). On February 2,1995, the clerk’s office scheduled the Court’s sua sponte hearing to consider dismissal of the case for the debtor’s failure to make the installment payments. The debtor’s attorney appeared in open court, on February 23, 1995, and requested additional time to pay the filing fee or in the alternative to file the fee waiver application. 3 Such applications seek in forma pauperis (“IFP”) relief.

*191 Fed.R.Bankr.P. 5005(a) states that “[t]he clerk shall not refuse to accept for filing any petition or other paper presented for the purpose of filing solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices.” Thus, the Bankruptcy Court clerk is required to accept all IFP applications for filing, whether considered timely or not. It is then a judicial function to determine the effects of any untimeliness.

The facts presented before the Court for determining whether the filing fee in this case should be waived are as follows: Presently, the debtor is unemployed. The debtor wishes to receive a discharge and avoid attachment on a 1978 Ford pick-up truck valued at approximately $1,000.00, following a general sessions judgment for First Tennessee Bank. It appears that this is a single creditor case. The debtor’s Schedule F to his bankruptcy petition reflects that the bank is owed the sum of $2,000.00.

The debtor’s petition states that he earned $17,000 in 1992 and 1993 while employed by the Memphis Defense Depot and that his earnings dropped to $9,000.00 in 1994 after becoming self-employed. 4 Mr. Shannon states that he has no cash nor nonexempt assets. In the fee waiver application, the debtor claims one “Ford 1979” 5 truck valued at approximately $800.00. Mr. Shannon fives a meager lifestyle that includes rent of $150.00, electricity of $160.00, telephone of $55.00, food of $100.00, clothing of $30.00, laundry/cleaning of $55.00, totaling $550.00. His Schedule J consistently reflects monthly expenses of $550.00.

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), the debtor claiméd an exemption in his 1978 Ford truck under TENN.CODE ANN. § 26-2-102 6 valued at $800.00, household goods under TENN.CODE ANN. § 26-2-103 7 valued at $400.00, and wearing apparel, also, under TENN.CODE ANN. § 26-2-103 valued at $200.00. He has no real property.

*192 The debtor is actively searching for employment although he has been unsuccessful. Mr. Shannon has promised to pay or does anticipate paying $100.00 to his attorney, Jerome C. Payne, but he has not paid any monies to his counsel. Mr. Payne stated in open court on March 23, 1995, that he had not yet been paid.

Recently, the Honorable G. Harvey Boswell of this District held that “Rule 1006(b)(3) clearly states that the filing fee must be paid in full before the debtor may pay an attorney for services rendered in the debtor’s bankruptcy ease.” In re Beecham, 181 B.R. 335 (W.D.Term.1994); In re Thompson, 177 B.R. 890 (W.D.Tenn.1994). The court reaffirmed the analysis in In re Take-shorse, 177 B.R. 99 (Bankr.D.Mont.1994) that “the debtor has not shown inability to pay the filing fee when the Debtor has the financial ability to pay an attorney fee, which substantially exceeds the amount of the filing fee.” Id. at 100-01. The Honorable David A. Scholl of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, another IFP pilot study participant, has disagreed holding that Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1006(b)(3) is not applicable to the IFP pilot program. In re Koren, 176 B.R. 740 (Bankr.E.D.Penn.1995). This Court need not address the applicability of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1006(b)(3) in this case as it is clear that Mr. Shannon has not paid his essentially pro bono counsel.

Compensating counsel is only one factor to consider in determining whether a debtor is able to pay the filing fee. Chief Judge David S. Kennedy established that “[i]n proceedings filed by individual chapter 7 debtors under H.R.

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

Related

Benoit v. Lassina (In Re Lassina)
261 B.R. 614 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2001)
In Re Stephenson
205 B.R. 52 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1997)
In Re Caldwell
203 B.R. 666 (W.D. Tennessee, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 B.R. 189, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 446, 1995 WL 152990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shannon-tnwb-1995.