In Re Wallace

227 B.R. 826, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1776, 1998 WL 878231
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Indiana·Decided February 13, 1998·No. 61-JMC-13·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ENTRY ON UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO REVIEW PAYMENTS TO PETITION PREPARER

ROBERT L. BAYT, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Review Payments to Petition Preparer (“Motion to Review”), filed by Edward B. Hopper, II (“US Trustee”) on July 1, 1997. Kathy A. Settles (“Ms. Settles”) filed a response (“Response”) to the Motion to Review on July 10, 1997. A hearing on the Motion to Review was held on January 8, 1998. The Court, having considered the Motion to Review, the Response, and the matters presented at the January 8, 1998 hearing, now makes the following Entry.

*827 Ms. Settles is a non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparer. Ms. Settles prepared the bankruptcy petition filed by Ronald S. Wallace (the “Debtor”) in the instant bankruptcy case.

In the Motion to Review, the U.S. Trustee asks the Court to resolve several issues regarding the tasks that a non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparer may and may not perform. The parties have informed the Court that they have resolved all but one of the issues raised by the Motion to Review. 1 The remaining issue concerns whether Ms. Settles may receive monies from her customers to be paid to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, and whether Ms. Settles may, on behalf of her customers, deliver documents to, and file documents with, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court.

11 U.S.C. § 110 was enacted in 1994 to regulate the activities of non-lawyer bankruptcy petition preparers. With regard to filing fees, Section 110(g)(1) 2 provides that a petition preparer may not collect fees from customers for payment to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court. At least one court has explained the reasons for enactment of Section 110(g)(1) as follows:

[TJhere were three reasons for the enactment of [Section] 110(g)(1): (1) preventing the unauthorized filing of petitions; (2) preventing or curtailing the preparer’s influence on a debtor’s decision and timing on petition filing; ■ and (3) preventing a preparer’s misrepresentation, or misquoting of the filing fee.... In light of these concerns, [Section] 110(g)(1) prohibits a petition preparer from taking ‘control’ of the filing fee and ultimately controlling the timing of the bankruptcy filing.

In re Green, 197 B.R. 878, 879 (Bankr.D.Ariz.1996) (citation omitted). According to Colliers, Section 110(g)(1) was intended to prevent petition preparers from

*828 —filing the petition without the debtor’s authorization;
—influencing the debtor’s decisions about whether and when to file;
—misrepresenting the filing fees to the debtor; or
—misappropriating filing fees collected from the debtor.

2 Collier on Bankruptcy, Section 110.08, p. 110-12.

Based on the foregoing, the Cpurt concludes that Section 110(g)(1) prevents Ms. Settles from receiving from her customers any monies, in any form, that are intended to be paid to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court. Ms. Settles’s argues that the policies behind Section 110(g)(1) will be met, if her customers tender filing fees to her only by checks or money orders made out to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court (rather than to herself). Given the importance of the policies articulated by Section 110(g)(1), it is the conclusion of the Court that the compromise suggested by Ms. Settles does not meet the requirements of Section 110(g)(1).

Given the foregoing, the Court further holds that Ms. Settles may not deliver documents to the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court on behalf of her clients. Permitting Ms. Settles to deliver documents would enable Ms. Settles to control the timing of the her customers’ bankruptcy filings, a result clearly at odds with Congress’ intent in enacting Section 110. See Green, 197 B.R. at 879.

For all the foregoing reasons, it is the conclusion of the Court that the arguments of the U.S. Trustee concerning the payment of filing fees and delivery of documents to the Court should be sustained.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Review be, and hereby is, GRANTED, to the extent provided hereinabove.

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

In Re Wallace, 227 B.R. 826, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1776, 1998 WL 878231 (Ind. 1998).

227 B.R. 826 (In Re Wallace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re McDonald
318 B.R. 37 (E.D. New York, 2004)
In Re Paysour
313 B.R. 109 (E.D. New York, 2004)
Scott v. Tighe (In Re Buck)
307 B.R. 157 (C.D. California, 2004)
Alba v. Tighe (In Re Shoup)
307 B.R. 164 (C.D. California, 2004)
Tighe v. Scott (In Re Buck)
290 B.R. 758 (C.D. California, 2003)
Tighe v. Alba (In Re Shoup)
290 B.R. 768 (C.D. California, 2003)