Jose Michael Medina v. Devin Derham-Burk

District Court, N.D. California·Decided February 17, 2026·No. 5:25-cv-02823·Unknown

Opinion

JOSE MICHAEL MEDINA, Case No. 25-cv-02823-PCP

Appellant, ORDER RE: BANKRUPTCY APPEAL v.

Appellee.

Appellant Jose Medina appeals a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California denying his motion for a return of trustee fees. The motion arose from Medina’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Medina sought to compel the return of fees collected by appellee Devin Derham-Burk, the Chapter 13 trustee, based on payments made to certain creditors using the proceeds from the sale of Medina’s residential property. Medina claims that because the bankruptcy court dismissed his case without confirming his proposed Chapter 13 plan, the trustee was not entitled to retain her statutory fees under 28 U.S.C. § 586, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in In re Evans, 69 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2023). For the reasons below, the Court finds that the bankruptcy court erred in denying Medina’s motion. The ruling of the bankruptcy court is therefore REVERSED. Medina filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in December 2023. “Chapter 13 bankruptcies provide debtors receiving a regular income an opportunity to pay off their debts while retaining their property.” In re Evans, 69 F.4th 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2023). Within fourteen days after filing a Chapter 13 petition, the debtor must file a plan with the court detailing how they will pay off standards to be ‘confirm[ed],’ which is bankruptcy parlance for ‘approved.’” Id. at 1104 (quoting 11 U.S.C. § 1325). Once a Chapter 13 petition has been filed, a trustee supervises the case, “shepherding [the] petition[] through the bankruptcy process. Among other things, the trustee collects the debtor’s payments, ensures that payments are timely made to creditors, and objects (when necessary) to plan confirmation.” Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)). In return, the trustee receives a statutory fee. See id. A “standing trustee”—i.e., one appointed to supervise all the Chapter 13 cases in a particular region, see 28 U.S.C. § 586(b)—collects a percentage fee of no more than ten percent from payments received by creditors “under [a] plan[].” See id. § 586(e)(2); Evans, 69 F.4th at 1104. That percentage fee is paid “before or at the time of each payment to creditors under the plan.” 11 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Chapter 13 plans generally must provide for the payment of debts using the debtor’s future earnings. Specifically, plans must provide for the debtor to submit a portion of his monthly income to the trustee, which the trustee then uses to pay creditors. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(1); Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 327 (1993). Under 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(A), the debtor must begin making such payments to the Chapter 13 trustee “in the amount … proposed by the plan” no later than 30 days after the filing of the plan or petition. See Evans, 69 F.4th at 1104. And § 1326(a)(2) requires that any “payment made under [§ 1326(a)(1)(A)] shall be retained by the trustee until confirmation or denial of confirmation” of the plan by the bankruptcy court. 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2). Thereafter, “[i]f a plan is confirmed, the trustee shall distribute any such payment in accordance with the plan as soon as is practicable.” Id. “If a plan is not confirmed, the trustee shall return any such payments not previously paid and not yet due and owing to creditors … to the debtor, after deducting” certain allowed administrative fees. Id. In addition to providing for payments from a debtor’s future earnings, Chapter 13 plans may provide for other means of paying creditors. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322; Nobelman, 508 U.S. at 327 (explaining that Chapter 13 allows individual debtors to design “flexible repayment plan[s]”). For example, as relevant here, a plan may “provide for the payment of all or part of a claim against while the statutory scheme presumes that a debtor’s payments to a trustee usually will not be disbursed to creditors until a plan is confirmed, see 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2); Evans, 69 F.4th at 1107–08, it contemplates that plans may require trustees to distribute some payments to creditors prior to confirmation, see 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (requiring as a prerequisite to confirmation the payment of “any fee, charge, or amount required … by the plan[] to be paid before confirmation[]”); id. § 1326(a)(2) (requiring that, where a plan is never confirmed, a trustee return § 1326(a)(1)(A) payments that were “not previously paid” to creditors). Medina submitted a proposed plan to the bankruptcy court in January 2023. As required, the plan provided for monthly payments to the trustee from Medina’s future income in the amount of $180.86. But the plan also proposed another way for Medina to pay off three mortgages on his residential property: Medina would seek court approval for sale of the property, and the trustee would use the proceeds from the sale to pay the mortgage creditors in full. The plan contemplated that the trustee would make payments to the mortgage creditors “upon close of escrow by demand of the chapter 13 Trustee.” In accordance with his proposed plan, Medina filed a motion to sell his residential property, which the bankruptcy court granted. The trustee then sent a written escrow demand to the title company for the amounts necessary to pay the mortgage creditors and the trustee’s ten- percent fee related to those payments under § 586. After the sale closed in April 2023, the title company issued a check from escrow to the trustee, and the trustee provided checks to the mortgage creditors to cover their pre-petition claims related to Medina’s residential property. The trustee also paid herself the ten-percent fee. In June 2023, the trustee moved to dismiss Medina’s bankruptcy case based on several unresolved objections. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case in September. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Medina moved to disgorge the trustee of allegedly excessive fees she had collected from the disbursement of escrow funds to the mortgage creditors, but the bankruptcy court denied Medina’s motion. This Court affirmed, finding “that there is no basis in the record to find that the trustee breached her fiduciary duty.” Medina v. Derham-Burk, No. 23-cv-4988-PCP, bankruptcy court and this Court noted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Evans—which held that a standing trustee was required to return fees collected from a debtor’s § 1326(a)(1)(A) payments when the debtor’s Chapter 13 case was dismissed without confirmation of a plan—might require the trustee to return the challenged fees upon the eventual dismissal of Medina’s case. But neither court had cause to address that

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

Jose Michael Medina v. Devin Derham-Burk, (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Jose Michael Medina v. Devin Derham-Burk (Jose Michael Medina v. Devin Derham-Burk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related