Robert A Reddish and Latricia L Reddish

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
ROBERT A. REDDISH and
LATRICIA L. REDDISH,
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CHAPTER 13
CASE NO. 08-61730
JUDGE RUSS KENDIG
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
(NOT FOR PUBLICATION)
Before the court is the Application for Supplemental Attorney’s Fees (“Supplemental
Application”) filed by Debtors’ counsel, John Brooks Cameron (“Attorney Cameron”) on
November 17, 2011. Through the Supplemental Application, Attorney Cameron seeks a total of
$4,172.19. The chapter 13 trustee (“Trustee”) filed a response to the Supplemental Application
on November 30, 2011.
The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the general
order of reference entered in this district on July 16, 1984. Venue in this district and division is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. The following constitutes the court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.
This opinion is not intended for publication or citation. The availability of this opinion,
in electronic or printed form, is not the result of a direct submission by the Court.
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and
orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed
electronically at the time and date indicated, which may be materially different from its
Dated: 10:17 AM January 31, 2012
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 1 of 10

FACTS
Debtors filed a joint chapter 13 petition on May 23, 2008. On February 12, 2010,
Attorney Cameron first filed an Application for Compensation (“First Application”) seeking
$2,250.00 in attorney’s fees. The court granted Attorney Cameron’s First Application on
February 17, 2010.
On November 17, 2011, Attorney Cameron filed a Supplemental Application seeking
additional fees totaling $4,140.00 for 27.6 hours expended at $150.00 per hour for services
related to the following:
- January 5, 2010 	Motion to Dismiss
- July 22, 2010 	Modification of Chapter 13 Plan
- August 27, 2010 	Motion to Dismiss
- September 21, 2010 Modification of Chapter 13 Plan1
- June 6, 2011 	Motion to Approve Mortgage Modification
- August 2011 	Modification of Chapter 13 Plan
Additionally, Attorney Cameron seeks $32.19 for expenses associated with his services,
including postage and copies. Thus, Attorney Cameron seeks total compensation of $4,172.19.
On November 30, 2011, the Trustee filed a response to the Supplemental Application
objecting to the fees sought on the basis that the amount exceeds the no-look fee applicable to
this case pursuant to Administrative Order 08-05.2
The court held a hearing on the Supplemental Application on December 21, 2011.
Christopher Jankowski appeared on behalf of Attorney Cameron and the Trustee appeared
personally.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
I. 	Administrative Order on Chapter 13 Fees
At the time that this case was filed, Amended Administrative Order 05-06 governed the
1 The Supplemental Application states that the second modification of chapter 13 plan
was filed on August 21, 2010. Upon review of the docket, no such pleading was filed on August
21, 2010. The court believes that Attorney Cameron intended to refer to the modification of
chapter 13 plan filed on September 21, 2010. The itemized listed attached as Exhibit A confirms
that Attorney Cameron intended to refer to the September 21, 2010 modification of chapter 13
plan.
2 The Trustee mistakenly cites Administrative Order 08-05 which applies to chapter 13
cases filed on and after June 1, 2008. Since this case was filed May 23, 2008, Amended
Administrative Order 05-06 applies to this case.
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 2 of 10

fees in this case. As established by the order, flat fees, referred to as no-look fees, up to
$2,000.00 could be approved if certain conditions were met, including specific minimum
distributions to unsecured, non-priority creditors. Absent those specific minimum distributions,
the flat fee allowed is $1,500.00. Further, an additional fee of $250.00 may be allowed if the
applicable commitment period is a mandatory five years because the debtors’ income exceeds
the applicable median family income. As noted above, in this case, Debtors’ attorney filed an
application for fees totaling $2,250.00 on February 12, 2010 and the court entered an order
granting the application on February 17, 2010.3
The no-look fee encompasses services through confirmation of the plan. In addition to
those services, it also includes other specific potentially post-confirmation services.
Specifically, the order contemplates that the no-look fee includes preparing, filing, and serving
an amended plan or one modification of plan not requiring a hearing, two motions to dismiss,
and other motions not specifically referenced in the order.
After a review of Attorney Cameron’s description of the services provided in the
Supplemental Application, the court determines that one of the services provided was
contemplated as part of the no-look fee in Amended Administrative Order 05-06 or a prior fee
application. Specifically, the court finds that Attorney Cameron is not entitled to any fees for
responding to Trustee’s motion to dismiss filed on January 5, 2010. Attorney Cameron filed the
First Application for fees on February 12, 2010, which was granted on February 17, 2010. Since
the motion to dismiss was filed on January 5, 2010, over a month before Attorney Cameron’s
First Application, the court believes that the work performed by Attorney Cameron was included
in the First Application. Nothing in the First Application indicates that Attorney Cameron did
not include his time for this motion to dismiss in it. Further, the itemized list details that
Attorney Cameron performed all of the 2.6 hours, except for .3 hour, by February 8, 2010, before
the First Application was filed. This also supports that Attorney Cameron intended for the work
performed on the motion to dismiss to be included in the First Application. Thus, Attorney
Cameron is not entitled to any fees for responding to the January 5, 2010 motion to dismiss.
With respect to the remaining services provided, the Supplemental Application seeks fees
for responding to an additional motion to dismiss filed on August 27, 2010. Amended
Administrative Order 05-06 contemplates the inclusion of fees for two motions to dismiss in the
no-look fee. However, in the case to date, there have been five motions to dismiss filed and the
August 27, 2010 motion to dismiss is the fifth motion to dismiss. Thus, the services rendered
with respect to the August 27, 2010 motion to dismiss in the Supplemental Application was not
3 Upon review of this case, it appears that Debtors’ attorney was only entitled to a no-
look fee of $1,500.00 because the Debtors’ income is below the applicable median family
income and because the plan does not provide a distribution of 30% and $5,000.00, or
$10,000.00 without regard to the percentage distribution to unsecured, non-priority creditors. It
is unclear why Debtors’ attorney was awarded fees in excess of the applicable no-look fee.
While Debtors’ attorney has already received $750.00 more than the applicable no-look fee, the
court will consider the Supplemental Application without taking into account the previous
overpayment of attorney’s fees.
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 3 of 10

included as part of the no-look fee.
Further, the Supplemental Application seeks fees for three modifications of the plan.
While Amended Administrative Order 05-06 contemplates the inclusion of one amended plan or
modification of plan not requiring a hearing in the no-look fee, in this case, there were five
amended plans preceding the plan modifications referenced in the Supplemental Application.
Thus, the services rendered with respect to the three modifications of the plan in the
Supplemental Application were not included as part of the no-look fee.
Finally, the Supplemental Application seeks fees for a motion to approve mortgage
modification. Amended Administrative Order 05-06 does not contemplate the inclusion of this
specific motion in the no-look fee. Thus, the services rendered with respect to the motion to
approve mortgage modification in the Supplemental Application were not included as part of the
no-look fee.
Accordingly, the court finds that all of the services provided, except for the January 5,
2010 motion to dismiss, in the Supplemental Application were not included in the no-look fee
previously allowed by the court.
II. 	Reasonableness of Fees
Section 330(a)(4)(B) of Title 11 sets forth the guidelines for compensation awards and
provides:
In a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case in which the debtor is an individual, the court may
allow reasonable compensation to the debtor’s attorney for representing the interests
of the debtor in connection with the bankruptcy case based on a consideration of the
benefit and necessity of such services to the debtor and the other factors set forth in
this section.
The Sixth Circuit employs a lodestar calculation to determine “reasonable
compensation,” which requires a bankruptcy court to “multipl[y] the attorney’s reasonable
hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended.” See In re Boddy, 950 F.2d 334, 337
(6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co., 908 F.2d 874, 879 (11th
Cir. 1990)). The lodestar amount may be adjusted upward or downward based upon the
following factors:
(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question; (3) the
skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or
the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtain; (9) the experience,
reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in
similar cases.
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 4 of 10

Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Johnson v. Georgia Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974)); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424, 430 n.3, 434 n.9 (1983).
The first factor in the lodestar analysis, the attorney’s reasonable hourly rate, is set forth
in the Supplemental Application. Attorney Cameron requests that compensation be awarded at a
rate of $150.00 per hour. Such an hourly fee is not patently unreasonable.
It is the second factor, the evaluation of the “hours reasonably expended,” that requires a
closer review of the case, the work performed according to the Supplemental Application, and
the time expended to perform that work. The court notes the difficulty in determining the
reasonableness of the time expended from a review of the itemization provided by Attorney
Cameron. In contravention to Amended Administrative Order 05-06, paragraph seven, Attorney
Cameron has repeatedly lumped multiple services together under one time entry and many of the
entries are vague, as will be detailed below. Further, he failed to disclose the identity of the
person performing the services. The court will review each service separately.
A. 	July 22, 2010 - Modification of Chapter 13 Plan
Attorney Cameron spent a total of 1.8 hours for which he seeks $270.00 in fees according
to the itemized list attached as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Application with respect to the
Trustee’s modification of chapter 13 plan filed on July 22, 2010. Specifically, Attorney
Cameron expended the following time and seeks the following fees to review the modification:
- Review of file and phone call to the trustee
inquiring into grounds for increase in plan
payments 	.6 hour 	$90.00
- Phone call from the trustee regarding change
in payment, review of file, and call to client to
inform about grounds for change in plan payment 	.6 hour 	$90.00
- Legal research re: HAMP 	.6 hour 	$90.00
After reviewing the Trustee’s modification, Attorney Cameron’s time expended to review
the modification, communicate with the Trustee and the Debtors, and research the Home
Affordable Modification Program is reasonable. The Trustee’s modification increased the
Debtors’ plan payment a total of $276.00 per month from $1,684.00 to $1,960.00 due to an
increase in the Debtors’ mortgage payment. It is reasonable that Attorney Cameron expended
time to review the necessity of the increase with the Trustee, explain the reasoning behind the
increase to the Debtors, and research whether the Debtors could obtain any relief from the
increase in the mortgage payments.
On this basis, the court finds that Attorney Cameron is entitled to fees of $270.00 for
reviewing the Trustee’s modification of chapter 13 plan filed on July 22, 2010.
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 5 of 10

B. 	August 27, 2010 - Motion to Dismiss and September 21, 2010 - Modification of Chapter
13 Plan
Attorney Cameron spent a total of 6.1 hours for which he seeks $915.00 in fees according
to the itemized list attached as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Application with respect to the
Trustee’s motion to dismiss filed on August 27, 2010 and Debtors’ modification of chapter 13
plan filed on September 21, 2010. Specifically, Attorney Cameron expended the following time
and seeks the following fees to review the modification:
- Phone call to the trustee and call to client 	.7 hour 	$105.00
- Legal research and prepared Objection to
Motion to Dismiss Case 	1.7 hours 	$255.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan, phone
call to the trustee, and phone call to client 	1.3 hours 	$195.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan 	1.3 hours 	$195.00
- Review of file, phone call to the trustee, and
preparation of Notice of Hearing 	1.1 hours 	$165.00
The court finds that Attorney Cameron’s time of .7 hours for a fee of $105.00 expended
to communicate with the Trustee and the Debtors was a reasonable amount of time expended
when considering the factors set forth in Geier.
The Trustee’s motion to dismiss, filed on August 27, 2010, was premised upon the
Debtors’ delinquency of plan payments since June 7, 2010 totaling $5,052.00. In response to the
motion, Attorney Cameron filed a two page objection which stated only that the Debtors had
believed that they were current on their plan payments and intended to catch up the delinquency.
The objection contained no case law to support its position. The portion of the document that
was a response was three sentences long. The entire first page was one form sentence. Yet
Attorney Cameron states that he expended 1.7 hours, for a fee of $255.00, to conduct legal
research and prepare the objection. It is unclear exactly how Attorney Cameron expended this
amount of time based upon the objection filed and his description on the itemized list. The court
finds that Attorney Cameron should have expended no more than .5 hour to research and draft
the objection to the Trustee’s motion to dismiss, which would result in a fee of $75.00.
Attorney Cameron also filed a modification of chapter 13 plan on September 21, 2010.
To complete the modification, Attorney Cameron expended a total of 3.7 hours resulting in a fee
of $555.00. According to the itemized list, this time includes communication with both the
Trustee and the Debtors, as well as drafting the modification of plan and the notice of hearing.
The modification of plan is just two pages in length and provides only slightly more information
than the objection to the Trustee’s motion to dismiss. The notice of hearing was also just two
pages long and contains no additional information from the modification of plan itself except for
a hearing date. The itemized list fails to properly quantify how much time Attorney Cameron
expended on communications with the Trustee and the Debtors compared to how much time he
expended drafting the modification of plan and notice of hearing. Given the facts surrounding
the modification, the court finds that the time expended on the modification was not reasonable.
Attorney Cameron should have expended no more than 2.0 hours to communicate with the
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 6 of 10

Trustee and the Debtors and to draft the modification of plan and the notice of hearing, which
would result in a fee of $300.00.
On this basis, the court finds that Attorney Cameron is entitled to fees totaling $480.00
for responding to the Trustee’s motion to dismiss filed on August 27, 2010 and filing the
modification of chapter 13 plan on September 21, 2010.
C. 	June 6, 2011 - Motion to Approve Mortgage Modification
Attorney Cameron spent a total of 11.0 hours for which he seeks $1,650.00 in fees
according to the itemized list attached as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Application with respect
to the Debtors’ motion to approve mortgage modification filed on June 6, 2011. Specifically,
Attorney Cameron expended the following time and seeks the following fees for the motion:
- Preparation of letter to the mortgage
company and phone call to the mortgage
company 	.8 hour 	$120.00
- Phone call with the mortgage company 	.3 hour 	$45.00
- Meeting with client to review loan
modification documents 	.8 hour 	$120.00
- Preparation of loan modification
application packet, preparation of a fax to
the mortgage company, and preparation of
fax to the IRS 	1.0 hour 	$150.00
- Preparation of fax to the mortgage company 	.3 hour 	$45.00
- Phone call to and from client, call to the
trustee, and call with the mortgage company 	.9 hour 	$135.00
- Preparation of supplemental loan
modification application documents 	.5 hour 	$75.00
- Telephone call from client 	.2 hour 	$30.00
- Telephone call with mortgage company 	.3 hour 	$45.00
- Meeting with client 	.3 hour 	$45.00
- Review of loan modification documents and
call to the mortgage company 	1.0 hour 	$150.00
- Telephone call to the mortgage company,
phone call to client, preparation of fax to the
mortgage company, and meeting with client 	.9 hour 	$135.00
- Preparation of Motion to Approve Loan
Modification 	.7 hour 	$105.00
- Preparation of Motion to Approve Loan
Modification and proposed Order 	1.5 hours 	$225.00
- Phone call from client 	.2 hour 	$30.00
- Preparation of Order 	.5 hour 	$75.00
- Phone call to client and preparation of fax
to mortgage company 	.5 hour 	$75.00
- Phone call with the mortgage company 	.3 hour 	$45.00
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 7 of 10

Upon a review of the time expended for the mortgage modification and the factors set
forth in Geier, the court finds that Attorney Cameron reasonably expended 11.0 hours as
reported on the Supplemental Application. First, Attorney Cameron expended this time over a
period of five months. Second, negotiation of a mortgage modification is not necessarily a
routine task in the majority of bankruptcy cases and involves novel questions of law. Third,
given that Attorney Cameron had to prepare the loan modification application for the mortgage
company and, once that was negotiated, draft the motion to approve the modification with the
court, it is reasonable that Attorney Cameron expended a considerable amount of time and labor
on these services.
On this basis, the court finds that Attorney Cameron reasonably expended 11.0 hours for
the mortgage modification for fees totaling $1,650.00.
D. 	August 2011 - Modifications of Chapter 13 Plan
Attorney Cameron spent a total of 6.1 hours for which he seeks $915.00 in fees according
to the itemized list attached as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Application with respect to two
modifications of the chapter 13 plan filed on August 18, 2011 and August 23, 2011.
Specifically, Attorney Cameron expended the following time and seeks the following fees for the
modifications:
- Phone call from client 	.1 hour 	$15.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan 	1.5 hours 	$225.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan and
phone call to client 	.5 hour 	$75.00
- Meeting with client 	.5 hour 	$75.00
- Review of mortgage company information
and prepared of Modification of Plan 	1.0 hour 	$150.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan 	1.0 hour 	$150.00
- Phone call to the trustee and phone call
to client 	.3 hour 	$45.00
- Preparation of Modification of Plan 	1.0 hour 	$150.00
- Phone call to the trustee 	.2 hour 	$30.00
The court finds that the time reported by Attorney Cameron totaling 1.1 hours for a fee of
$165.00 expended to communicate with the Trustee and the Debtors was a reasonable amount of
time expended when considering the factors set forth in Geier.
Attorney Cameron filed two modifications of the chapter 13 plan in short succession, the
first on August 18, 2011 (“first modification”) and the second on August 23, 2011 (“second
modification”). The only difference between the two modifications is two sentences. The first
sentence present in the second modification, and absent in the first modification, states that
payments on the first mortgage are current through September 2011. The second sentence
present in the second modification, and absent in the first modification, states that the Trustee
will cease making the Debtors’ current and arrearage payments on the first mortgage.
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 8 of 10

For these two modifications, Attorney Cameron reports that he expended 5.0 hours and
seeks fees of $750.00. It appears that Attorney Cameron expended 4.0 hours to prepare the first
modification and 1.0 hour to prepare the second modification. The body of both modifications is
no longer than one page each and neither contain any case law to support the modifications. It is
unclear exactly how Attorney Cameron expended 4.0 hours to prepare the first modification.
The itemized list does not contain descriptions that clearly report how his time was allocated.
Preparing the modification, a description lacking detail itself, is lumped together with a phone
call to the Debtors and also with a review of the mortgage company information. Without
further details of how much time Attorney Cameron spent on each item, the court can only
conclude that the time was not reasonably expended. For the preparation of the first
modification, the court will allow Attorney Cameron 2.0 hours for a fee of $300.00.
Further, it appears that Attorney Cameron expended an additional 1.0 hour to prepare the
second modification filed just five days after the first modification and including only two new
sentences as discussed above. The court is perplexed at how the inclusion of two additional
sentences in the second modification could take an hour of Attorney Cameron’s time. Such a
change from the first modification to the second modification should have taken Attorney
Cameron no longer than .3 hour to complete for a fee of $45.00.
On this basis, the court finds that Attorney Cameron is entitled to fees totaling $510.00
for preparing two modifications of the plan, filed on August 18, 2011 and August 23, 2011.
E. 	Expenses of $32.19
Attorney Cameron seeks compensation for expenses totaling $32.19 for postage and
copies. The court finds that these expenses are reasonable and that Attorney Cameron is entitled
to compensation in the amount of $32.19.
CONCLUSION
Following from the above, the court finds that Attorney Cameron is entitled to fees
totaling $2,942.19 for the work performed and expenses incurred as detailed on the
Supplemental Application. An order will entered contemporaneously with this memorandum.
# 	# 	#
Service List:
John Brooks Cameron
247 E Smith Rd
Medina, OH 44256
Robert A Reddish
Latricia L. Reddish
4102 Teak Place
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 9 of 10

West Salem, OH 44287
Toby L Rosen
400 W Tuscarawas St
Charter One Bank Bldg
4th Floor
Canton, OH 44702
08-61730-rk Doc 157 FILED 01/31/12 ENTERED 01/31/12 10:57:46 Page 10 of 10