Vining v. Comerica Bank

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided December 20, 2022·No. 03-04950·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: M.T.G., INC., d/b/a MATRIX Case No. 95-48268 TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, Chapter 7 Judge Thomas J. Tucker Debtor. GUY C. VINING, etc., Plaintiff, Adv. No. 03-4950 v. COMERICA BANK, et al., Defendants. OPINION REGARDING PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S NOVEMBER 30, 2022 FEE ITEMIZATION This Opinion is a follow-up to the Court’s Order entered on October 7, 2022, entitled “Order Regarding Summary Judgment Motions” (Docket # 770, the “October 7 Order”). In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the October 7 Order, the Court ordered, in pertinent part, the following regarding part of the relief to be awarded to Plaintiff Guy C. Vining, Trustee (“Vining”) (footnotes included):

8. With respect to Count I of Vining’s Complaint, the following relief is granted in favor of Vining: . . . (c) partial summary judgment is granted in favor of Vining and against Defendants Charles J. Taunt, Charles J. Taunt & Associates, P.C., and Plunkett & Cooney, P.C., jointly and severally, in the amount, yet to be quantified by the Court, of the reasonable attorney fees incurred by Vining on behalf of the bankruptcy estate after his election as Chapter 7 Trustee on January 10, 2002, in successfully obtaining, in litigation in this Court and in the United States District Court (the “district court”), the following relief: (i) the opinions and orders by Judge Hughes regarding disgorgement of attorney fees based on the district court’s first appeal decision;1 (ii) this Court’s April 16, 2007 Order vacating the Comerica Settlement Order; the Comerica Claim Allowance Order; and the Comerica Relief from Stay Order, and the affirmance of that Order in the district court;2 and (iii) the undersigned judge’s April 16, 2010 Order, quantifying the attorney fees to be disgorged,3 based on the district court’s first appeal decision and the opinions and orders on that subject by Judge Hughes referred to in item (i) of this paragraph.4 9. The amount of the reasonable attorney fees referred to in paragraph 8(c) of this Order, above, will be quantified by the Court using the following procedure. (a) No later than November 7, 2022, Vining must file an itemization of such attorney fees that complies with the requirements of L.B.R. 7054-1(a)(1) and 7054-1(a)(3) through 7054-1(a)(5) (E.D. Mich.). (b) No later than November 21, 2022, Defendants Charles J. Taunt, Charles J. Taunt & Associates, P.C., and Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. must file any objections or response to Vining’s itemization. 1 These opinions and orders by Judge Hughes are described in footnote 417 of the Court’s Summary Judgment Opinion, filed today. 2 See Docket # 1354 in Case No. 95-48268 (“Amended Order Regarding ‘Fraud on the Court’ Issues and Pending Summary Judgment Motions,” filed April 16, 2007); see also In re M.T.G., Inc., 366 B.R. 730 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2007); aff’d., 400 B.R. 558 (E.D. Mich. 2009). 3 This Order is described in footnote 418 of the Court’s Summary Judgment Opinion, filed today. 4 All of these fees to be awarded based on work done by Halbert after January 10, 2002 will be for work done by Halbert after he was retained as special counsel for Vining, in Vining’s capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee in the MTG case. As discussed in footnote 455 of the Court’s Summary Judgment Opinion, filed today, the Court deems Halbert to have been employed as special counsel for Vining at all times effective from January 10, 2002 through the present. 2 (c) After the November 21, 2022 deadline has passed, the Court may schedule a further hearing, and either with or without holding a further hearing, the Court will enter an order quantifying the amount of such reasonable attorney fees that must be paid, and the Court will enter judgment accordingly.5 (October 7 Order at 2-3, ¶¶ 8-9). After obtaining an extension of time to do so,6 Vining timely filed his fee itemization, on November 30, 2022 (Docket # 815, the “Fee Itemization”). On December 16, 2022, Defendants Plunkett Cooney, P.C. and Charles J. Taunt & Associates, P.C. timely filed their joint objections to the Fee Itemization (Docket # 826, the “Objections”). Later that day, Defendant American Casualty Company of Reading, PA filed a paper concurring and joining in the Objections (Docket # 827, the “Objections Concurrence”). The Court has carefully considered the Fee Itemization, the Objections, and the Objections Concurrence, and all relevant parts of the record. The Court will approve the Fee Itemization in part, and disapprove it in part, as described in this Opinion, below. In doing so, the Court will sustain the Objections in part, and overrule them in part, as explained below. Paragraph 8(c) of the October 7 Order, quoted above, defined the scope of the “reasonable attorney fees” to be awarded in favor of Vining and against “Defendants Charles J. Taunt, Charles J. Taunt & Associates, P.C., and Plunkett & Cooney, P.C., jointly and severally.”7

5 As an alternative to the procedures specified in this Order, if at any point the affected parties agree on the amount of such reasonable attorney fees, then the parties may file a stipulation and submit a proposed order. In such a stipulation and proposed order, the parties may expressly reserve any and all rights of appeal. 6 See Order filed November 1, 2022 (Docket # 784). 7 On December 16, 2022, the Court entered an Order substituting Cheri L. Taunt, personal representative for the probate estate of Charles J. Taunt, as Defendant in place of Defendant Charles J. 3 The Court will refer to this scope in this Opinion as the “Relevant Scope.” The Court finds that some, but not all, of the fees itemized in Vining’s Fee Itemization are within the Relevant Scope, and are reasonable attorney fees, and as such, they will be awarded in favor of Vining (the “Allowed Fees”).8 These Allowed Fees are shown in the copy of the Fee Itemization that is

attached to this Opinion. In the attached itemization, the Court has made handwritten notations. The Court has crossed out the amounts in the “Time” column for the fee entries that the Court finds to be outside the Relevant Scope, and for which fees will not be allowed.9 Many but not all of these disallowed fee entries were objected to in the Objections. To the extent the Court allows the fee entries in the attachment, the objections stated in the Objections to them, if any, are overruled as without merit. The Court also attaches to this Opinion a spreadsheet created by the Court, showing the

Court’s calculation of the total amount of the Allowed Fees, which total is $163,328.00. The Court adds the following points. First, the Court finds, contrary to Vining’s argument, that most of the time entries Vining has marked with a “fn1” reference in the Fee Itemization are outside the Relevant Scope. Vining acknowledges that these “fn1” time entries “may not fit within the ordered criteria,” but argues that the Court should allow these fees because they mostly concern Vining’s successful efforts to

Taunt, deceased. (See Order, Docket # 824). 8 The Court finds that all of the hourly rates used in Vining’s Fee Itemization are reasonable. The Objections and Objection Concurrence to not argue otherwise. And the Court finds that the time spent doing the work described in each of the allowed time entries was reasonable. 9 A relatively small number of the fee entries being disallowed because they are too vague to show that they are within the Relevant Scope. 4 keep Todd Halbert from being disqualified as special counsel for the Trustee, and that Halbert’s services were essential to Vining’s prosecution of this adversary proceeding.10 But even assuming that Todd Halbert’s retention was essential, as Vining argues, these fees are outside the Relevant Scope, so they will not be allowed.

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

Vining v. Comerica Bank, (Mich. 2022).

Vining v. Comerica Bank (Vining v. Comerica Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taunt v. Vining (In Re M.T.G., Inc.)
400 B.R. 558 (E.D. Michigan, 2009)
In Re M.T.G., Inc.
366 B.R. 730 (E.D. Michigan, 2007)