Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedSeptember 12, 2023
Docket19-20180
StatusUnknown

This text of Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez (Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez, (Tex. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT September 12, 2023 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

IN RE: § § CASE NO: 19-20180 MIGUEL ANGEL VASQUEZ, et al., § § Debtors. § § § CHAPTER 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION Joel Gonzalez, of the Law Office of Joel Gonzalez, PLLC, seeks $1,558.96 in post- confirmation legal fees. Because the fees are authorized by the approved fee1 agreement in this case, the fees will be awarded. BACKGROUND Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition on April 26, 2019. ECF No. 1. They retained Joel Gonzalez of the Law Office of Joel Gonzalez, PLLC, as their counsel. A chapter 13 plan was confirmed on July 17, 2019. ECF No. 41. The first amended modification of the plan was approved on December 15, 2021, and the second amended modification was approved on June 9, 2023. ECF Nos. 89, 127. On April 29, 2019, the Court granted the Debtors’ Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b) Disclosure and Application for Approval of Fixed Fee Agreement. ECF No. 12. In the fixed fee agreement, the Debtors and Gonzalez agreed to a fixed fee of $4,500.00, of which Gonzalez had already

1 Although the fee agreement is named a “Fixed Fee Agreement,” it also provides for hourly fees for certain services.

1 / 9 received $504.00 for his representation of the Debtors, leaving a balance of $3,996.00. ECF No. 7. The plan provides for payment of the $3,996.00 balance as an administrative expense. ECF No. 2. The fixed fee agreement also provides for certain other fixed fee arrangements and hourly fee payments for additional work not mandated by the fixed fee portion of the agreement. ECF No. 7.

Gonzalez filed a Chapter 13 Fee Application on March 9, 2023. ECF No. 108. The fee application seeks $1,283.96 in fees under 11 U.S.C. § 330, representing 3.22 hours of attorney time at $375.00 per hour and 0.60 hours of paraprofessional time at $125.00 per hour. ECF No. 108. The application claims this amount for services performed during the time period between November 14, 2022, and March 9, 2023, due to the Trustee’s request for updated wage information, amended Schedules I and J, and a revised wage order. ECF No. 108. The Trustee filed an objection to the fee application on March 30, 2023. ECF No. 115. The Trustee claims that the fees requested are covered under paragraph 1C of the fixed fee agreement. ECF No. 115. Under paragraph 1C, Gonzalez’s services in assisting the Debtors in

filing documents required by § 521 of the Bankruptcy Code are compensated through the $4,500.00 fixed fee provided in the agreement. ECF Nos. 2, 7, 115. The Debtors rely on paragraph 4H of that same agreement, which authorizes attorneys’ fees at a standard hourly rate not to exceed $375.00 for services not covered by a fixed fee. ECF No. 7. A hearing on the fee application was held on April 12, 2023. ECF No. 118. The Court took the matter under advisement. On April 21, 2023, the Debtors filed a Notice of Additional Attorney Fees for Response to Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 120. The Debtors request $275.00 in attorneys’ fees under the fixed fee agreement for Gonzalez’s review of a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Trustee on

2 / 9 March 8, 2023, and Gonzalez’s filing of a Response to the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss on March 22, 2023. ECF No. 120. JURISDICTION The District Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(b)(2). The dispute has been referred to the bankruptcy court under General Order 2012-6. DISCUSSION The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas authorizes Chapter 13 debtor’s attorneys to request attorneys’ fees on either a fixed fee or lodestar basis. BANKR. S.D. TEX. R. 2016-1(d); see also § 330(a)(4)(B). The March 9, 2023, Chapter 13 Fee Application and the April 21, 2023, Notice of Additional Attorney Fees seek fees through the approved fixed fee agreement. I. THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES REQUESTED IN THE MARCH 9, 2023, CHAPTER 13 FEE APPLICATION ARE PERMITTED BY THE FIXED FEE AGREEMENT

The main contested issue is whether the fees requested under the March 9, 2023, Chapter 13 Fee Application are allowed under the hourly rate portion of the fixed fee agreement. The principal question is whether the Debtors’ requested fees are precluded under paragraph 1C of the agreement. Because paragraph 4H controls, the Court will award the fees. A. Paragraph 1C of the Fixed Fee Agreement Does Not Preclude an Award of Attorneys’ Fees

The Trustee claims that the requested attorneys’ fees may not be awarded because the services provided by Gonzalez are covered by paragraph 1C of the fixed fee agreement. ECF No. 115. Paragraph 1C provides the following: 1. Counsel to Debtor(s) in this case, agrees to provide the following services to the Debtor(s) on a fixed fee basis: . . . . C. Assist the 3 / 9 Debtor(s) in preparing and filing the documents required by § 521 of the Bankruptcy Code and any required amendments.

ECF No. 7. Section 521 provides a list of duties for debtors in a bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 521(a). Among them, as the Trustee cites, are the duties to file a schedule of current income and current expenditures and to cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform her duties. Id. § 521(a)(1)(B)(ii), (a)(3); ECF No. 115. The Trustee asserts that Gonzalez’s assistance to the Debtors in providing updated wage information, updated Schedules I and J, and a revised wage order constitutes assistance to the Debtors in complying with § 521 because “[t]he trustee has an obligation to adjust plan payments and file Notices of Wage Order Adjustments which are mailed to the debtor’s employer,” and, therefore, “it is necessary for the trustee to have updated and current income and employment information.” ECF No. 115. The Trustee claims that these services are subject to the Debtors’ continuing duty under § 521, and since the fixed fee agreement already provides for a total of $4,500.00 in attorneys’ fees to Gonzalez, an award of fees for these services is precluded by paragraph 1C as covered by the fees provided in the plan. ECF No. 115. Section 521(a)(1) governs filings required by a debtor to commence a bankruptcy case. See In re Cortez, 457 F.3d 448, 457 (5th Cir. 2006). Providing current income and expenditure information under § 521 is intended to assist the court in determining a debtor’s post-petition earnings and ability to fund a chapter 13 plan at the time of filing. See Cortez, 457 F.3d at 457.

On the other hand, the updated wage information was requested by the Trustee to adjust plan payments and file Notices of Wage Order Adjustments. ECF No. 115. The services subject to the fee application were performed by Gonzalez post-confirmation upon requests for updated information by the Trustee. Providing updated wage information, 4 / 9 updated Schedules I and J, and a revised wage order after plan confirmation is not equivalent to the § 521 duty of providing a schedule of current income and current expenditures for the purposes of plan confirmation. The Fifth Circuit has held that the Bankruptcy Code imposes a continuing duty of disclosure of certain assets.

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

Related

United States Trustee v. Cortez
457 F.3d 448 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Meza v. Truman (In Re Meza)
467 F.3d 874 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Willie Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
677 F.3d 258 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Flugence v. Axis Surplus Insurance (In Re Flugence)
738 F.3d 126 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Miguel Angel Vasquez and Carley Nicole Vasquez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miguel-angel-vasquez-and-carley-nicole-vasquez-txsb-2023.