In Re United Maintenance of Auburndale, Inc.

226 B.R. 275, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1322, 33 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 379, 1998 WL 744582
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedOctober 15, 1998
DocketBankruptcy 96-14306-8C7
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 B.R. 275 (In Re United Maintenance of Auburndale, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re United Maintenance of Auburndale, Inc., 226 B.R. 275, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1322, 33 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 379, 1998 WL 744582 (Fla. 1998).

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND, UPON RECONSIDERATION, DETERMINING FEE APPLICATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR

C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN, III, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case came on for consideration of the motion for rehearing or reconsideration filed by counsel for the debtor (Document No. 86). The debtor filed this case as a case under Chapter 11 but quickly converted the case to a ease under Chapter 7. The motion seeks a reconsideration of the court’s determination of counsel’s fee application (Document No. 73) that the court memorialized in the order allowing administrative expenses, authorizing disbursements, and directing payment of dividends (Document No. 85).

The basis for counsel’s motion is contained in paragraph 6. Counsel recites:

6. This Court without hearing entered its Order Allowing Administrative Expenses, etc. awarding counsel for the Debt- or and Debtor-in-Possession the sum of $0.00. This failure to award fees to counsel for the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession is contrary to the law and the uneon-troverted facts before the Court. Further, this denial of fees to counsel for the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession without an evi-dentiary hearing to determined [sic] the reasonableness of counsel’s fees is a denial of due process under the Constitution of the United States.

It is apparent from counsel’s motion that counsel misunderstands what the court in fact did in this case and the applicable law supporting the court’s action. To correct counsel’s misunderstanding, the court grants counsel’s motion for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, determines counsel’s fee application as follows:

First, What the Court Did:

After the Chapter 7 trustee filed his preliminary report in this case (Document No. 84) and the time for filing objections expired, the court received the trustee’s worksheet. This is the sheet by which the court gives instructions to the trustee as to how to prepare the order allowing administrative expenses, authorizing disbursements, and directing payment of dividends.

Among other things, the worksheet revealed counsel’s fee application that requested total fees of $17,002.50 and total costs of $205.58. After applying the debtor’s prepetition retainer of $8,000, the application sought the additional net amount of $9,208.08. Upon a review of the fee application itself as well as the entire file (which the clerk submits to me with the worksheet), I wrote on the worksheet in reference to counsel’s application:

$8,000.00 fee approved. After crediting retainer, no add’l amounts are allowed. Counsel’s benefit to estate does not exceed the retainer. Sorry. 9/10/98 CTC

*277 The trustee then prepared and submitted the order allowing administrative expenses, authorizing disbursements, and directing payment of dividends (Document No. 85). Among other things, this order shows the $8,000 retainer and provides that no additional amounts are allowed to counsel. Counsel’s timely motion for reconsideration followed.

Now, Reconsideration:

The Legal Standards

The bankruptcy court typically uses the lodestar method in considering fee applications. Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co., 908 F.2d 874, 879 (11th Cir. 1990). The lodestar method is based on multiplying the reasonable number of hours expended on services by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). After calculating the fee according to the lodestar method, the court may consider other factors to adjust the fee upward or downward. Id. These factors are set forth in Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code and in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir.1974), which was made applicable to bankruptcy cases in American Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Baddock (In re First Colonial Corp. of America), 544 F.2d 1291, 1298-1300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 904, 97 S.Ct. 1696, 52 L.Ed.2d 388 (1977). The court should award the full lodestar amount only if the results obtained are excellent. Hensley at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933.

Awarding fees in a bankruptcy ease is a three-step process. To begin the fee award process, counsel has the initial responsibility to file an application containing sufficient documentation of the amount of time spent and the type of work performed. First Colonial Corp. of America at 1299. The court need not conduct a hearing unless there are disputed fact issues requiring resolution. Id. at 1300.

Next, “[o]nce the nature and extent of the services rendered have been determined, the bankruptcy judge must assess the value of those services. Because judges are familiar with the fees charged by the legal profession and experienced at gauging the quality of legal work, no expert opinion evidence is required on this issue.... ” Id.

Finally, the court must explain its award. Id. In explaining its award, however, the court is not required to perform “an hour-by-hour review” when it is “impractical and a waste of judicial resources.” Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir.1994).

Applying the Legal Standards and Determining a Reasonable Fee

The file reflects that the debtor filed this case as a case under Chapter 11 on October 21, 1996. The debtor’s business was phosphate mine maintenance and steel fabrication. The debtor’s business quickly failed, however, and the court converted the case to a case under Chapter 7 on March 6, 1997, based upon the debtor’s motion to convert filed on February 24,1997.

During the brief time the case was in Chapter 11, the debtor sought and obtained authority to employ counsel and an accountant, sought and obtained authority to pay the principal of the debtor a salary of $1,000 per week, and negotiated a use of cash collateral and adequate protection stipulation with SunTrust Bank that the court included in an order. Of course, counsel also prepared the petition, schedules, and lists and attended the Section 341 meeting. Otherwise, nothing else of substance occurred during the Chapter 11 period.

After the court converted the case to a case under Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee closed the debtor’s bank account, sold estate property, collected accounts receivable, and obtained a refund of unearned insurance premiums. The trustee realized $28,530.83 as a result of this liquidation.

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

Related

In re Stout
236 B.R. 851 (M.D. Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 B.R. 275, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1322, 33 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 379, 1998 WL 744582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-united-maintenance-of-auburndale-inc-flmb-1998.