In Re Wallace

14 F.2d 534, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1366
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 10, 1926
Docket2914
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 14 F.2d 534 (In Re Wallace) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Wallace, 14 F.2d 534, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1366 (E.D. Okla. 1926).

Opinion

KENNAMER, District Judge.

This is a petition for review of a referee in bankrupt’s order allowing attorney’s fees, receiver’s and trustee’s fees, and a commission claimed by the referee. On May 22, 1922, a petition' in bankruptcy was filed in this court against one Harold Wallace, who was subsequently adjudged a bankrupt. H. L. Sturm was appointed receiver of the bankrupt estate on the 12th of September, 1922, and acted as such until October 20, 1922, at which date he was selected as trustee. The bankrupt was engaged in the business of operating for oil, and had extensive holdings, some of which produced oil. The affairs of the bankrupt were greatly involved, he having disposed of as much of his property as it seems was possible, and having been ingenious in the means employed to secrete and conceal his assets. The receiver employed as his counsel a firm of attorneys, who represented creditors and persons vitally interested in the bankrupt estate, and at their suggestion, in view of a possible conflict of the interests of their clients with *536 the interest of the estate, the receiver employed another firm of attorneys. The latter firm likewise represented parties interested in the bankrupt estate. Approximately two years have been required for the liquidation of the estate. The attorneys for the receiver and trustee have been paid the total sum of $8,-000, and have filed a claim for an additional and final allowance of $12,000. In accordance with General Order No. 42, promulgated by the Supreme Court, due and proper notice has been given to the creditors. The referee allowed the attorneys an additional $8,000, making a total of $16,000, to which objections have been filed.

It is well settled that fees are allowed the attorneys for the trustee, not by reason of any specific provision of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9585 et seq.), but as administration expenses. Such fees are properly a part of the trustee’s expenses. The only standard or rule by which such a fee is to be fixed is that it must be reasonable. This should be determined by the facts and circumstances governing each particular case; it should be a relative standard, and one in keeping with the purposes and objects of the Bankruptcy Act. In the instant case the fact that two firms of attorneys were employed by the trustee is not to he considered in determining the reasonableness of the fees to be allowed, because it clearly, appears from the record that either of the firms could have performed all of the services required. However, in certain cases, where more than one firm is required for the accomplishment of the work, the fact that two or more were employed should he considered, unless the fees be allowed to them separately.

Certain other elements should be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee to be allowed an attorney, such as the time necessarily consumed in the administration, and the time properly spent on the particular controversies involved, the amounts involved in the particular controversies, and the amount in the entire bankrupt estate, the strenuousness of the opposition encountered, and the results achieved therein. See Remington on Bankruptcy, vol. 6, at page 152. In fixing fees, sight must not he lost of the ifaet that the real purpose for such actions is to pay the creditors of the bankrupt as much as possible upon their claims, and while the attorneys and all engaged to assist in recovering assets and to liquidate them should be paid reasonable fees, still such fees must not-consume the greater portion of the estate and deprive the creditors of the funds to which they are entitled. ' -

In the instant case approximately $800,000 worth of unsecured claims have been filed with the referee against the estate. These creditors have been paid a dividend of six per cent., and there remains in the estate the approximate sum of $26,800. The amount of attorney’s fees to be charged against a bankrupt estate as an expense of administration is subject to examination and approval by the court. Bankruptcy Act, § 62a (Comp. St. § 9646); Watkins, Trustee, et al. v. Sedberry et al., 261 U. S. 571, 43 S. Ct. 411, 67 L. Ed. 802. An inspection of the record discloses that the attorneys for the receiver obtained a number of. restraining orders, restraining a sheriff’s sale of some of the property, restraining grantees under various recent transfers of the property of the bankrupt from making further transfers, and in preparing for further litigation. As attorneys for the trustee, without any court action, they were successful in recovering one oil-producing property which had been conveyed by the bankrupt, and which netted the estate approximately $120,000. A’mortgage held by the mother of the bankrupt was attacked by the attorneys, but its validity was sustained through no fault of the trustee’s attorneys. Another property which had been conveyed to a relative of the bankrupt was recovered for the estate without court action, and was subsequently sold for $12,000. Another controversy involving approximately $70,000 was unsuccessfully contested by the trustee’s attorneys in both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals. The attorneys were successful in recovering for the estate a new automobile, from which was realized the sum of $3,000, and in defeating the homestead claim of the bankrupt.

Various settlements were effected and a large number of general unsecured claims were defeated; there were a number of abstracts to be examined and a number of sales of the property to be made. Without setting forth all the details of the performances of the attorneys, it appears that a vast amount of work was involved, and beneficial results, for the estate, were achieved. The record further shows that in many instances the separate clients of the attorneys for the trustee were directly benefited by the aehievments, and that these attorneys were em-r ployed by these clients to do the very things they did for the trustee. These attorneys have been paid well by their clients for the services rendered. -In other words, the attorneys were contesting matters pertaining to the bankrupt estate, not only for the trustee, but also for their individual clients, whose *537 interests were directly interwoven with those of the trustee. The record also shows that these attorneys represent a number of the unsecured creditors, and their efforts were expended directly for the benefit of the trustee, but indirectly for their clients, who were creditors of the bankrupt estate. Certainly, a discretion should be exercised by the court in fixing such attorney’s fees which will carry out and effectuate the will of Congress and'the manifest policy of the law, which looks to great economy of administration. In re Goldville Mfg. Co. (D. C.) 123 F. 579. The record contains evidence sufficient to support as a reasonable allowance to the attorneys for the trustee, the total sum of $12,000, of which sum $8,000 has been paid. The order of the referee fixing $16,000 as attorney’s fees will therefore be modified in accordance with the views herein contained.

It is next insisted that the trustee has paid himself fees in excess of those allowed by the specific provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. The compensation to which trustees are entitled is governed by section 48a of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9632), which is as follows:

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

Related

In Re Orient River Investments, Ltd.
133 B.R. 729 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
In Re New England Fish Co.
34 B.R. 899 (W.D. Washington, 1983)
In re Sapphire Steamship Lines, Inc.
373 F. Supp. 727 (S.D. New York, 1974)
In re Barry Yao Co.
172 F. Supp. 375 (S.D. California, 1959)
In re Tapp
65 F. Supp. 171 (W.D. Kentucky, 1946)
Albers v. Dickinson
127 F.2d 957 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F.2d 534, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wallace-oked-1926.