Some Common Errors with the New Plan – Part 2

I just wanted to touch on some common drafting errors/omissions that I have observed with the new plan. My sample has been limited but my hope is that clarification today will make for a smoother process for the bar, the trustees and the judges.  Here they are:

1. Class 7 and Adequate Protection Order Payments for a Leased Vehicle [Page 11 of Plan] – if your client has entered into an APO with a creditor for cure of an arrearage on a leased vehicle and your client’s intention is to make direct payments to Read more…

ATTORNEY FEES

This is the final part of this series. I wanted to cover this section last because we are dealing with substantial form and procedural changes.

As an initial matter, the LBR has only been changed to make clear that if a RARA has been filed, it can be withdrawn with the written consent of your client. The ability to withdraw a RARA, once a RARA was filed in the case, was unclear in the prior language. As there is currently no official form for withdrawal of a RARA, you will have to draft your own pleading. See LBR 3015-1(v)(5).

As most of you are aware, most of the changes have come with the revised RARA and new supplemental fee application forms for post confirmation work and a new fee application for when the case has been dismissed or converted. Both of the new forms are limited to cases where a RARA has been filed.

The links for these forms are as follows: Read more…

Some Common Errors with the New Plan

I just wanted to touch on some common drafting errors/omissions that I have observed with the new plan.  My sample has been limited but my hope is that clarification today will make for a smoother process for the bar, the trustees and the judges.

Here they are:

1. Post Petition Car Payments: if your client is making car payments directly and there is no arrearage on the car loan, please indicate that they are doing so by checking off the box for non-standard provisions [Page 2, section 1.4] and providing the detail in Section IV(D) Other Non Standard Provisions [Page 14]; Read more…

When the Law Offices of M. Jonathan Hayes merged with Simon & Resnik in 2012 (has it really been 5 years!?) I began to work exclusively on petitions filed under my beloved chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, 11.  I recently began to again work on Chp. 13 cases, albeit on a fairly limited basis, and I am continually amazed at the differences between these two most popular reorganizing chapters of the code.

Take a look at the “no-look” fee form we use here in the Central District, the Rights and Responsibilities Agreement between Chapter 13 Debtors and their Attorneys (“RARA”) [court form F3015-1.7.RARA], specifically pages 5-6 (I have added emphasis):

The guidelines in this district for payment of costs incurred in performing the services described in bold face type in this agreement (“Included Costs”) and attorneys’ fees in chapter 13 cases without a detailed fee application provide for the following maximum Included Costs and fees for the services described in this agreement in bold face type (that is, the services described on pages 3 through 5 of this agreement)…

Other than the initial retainer, the attorney may not receive fees directly from the Debtor prior to confirmation. All other fees due through confirmation shall be paid through the plan unless otherwise ordered by the court. Read more…