Timothy Naff and April Naff

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
Timothy Naff
April Naff,
Debtors.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 24-31827
Chapter 13
Judge Crist
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, APPLICATION FOR
COMPENSATION OF TAX WORKOUT GROUP (DOC. 60)
I. 	Introduction
This matter has a somewhat tortured history for what might otherwise have been a routine
application for compensation by debtors’ attorney in a chapter 13 case dismissed prior to
confirmation.1 After a number of filings and a hearing, the Court now turns back to the Application
for Compensation (Doc. 60) (the “TWG Application”), originally filed by Laura M. Nesbitt (“Ms.
Nesbitt”) on behalf of Tax Workout Group (“TWG”), counsel for Debtors Timothy Naff and April
Naff (the “Debtors”) on June 16, 2025, for attorney fees in the amount of $4,345.50 and expenses
in the amount of $392.20. Just one of the complicating issues is that Ms. Nesbitt filed this chapter
13 case on September 23, 2024 on behalf of the Debtors through her our law firm, Nesbitt Law
Firm, but on October 7, 2024 she filed a Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Debtors (Doc. 10)
1 These types of applications are governed by Local Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 2016-1(b)(5), not 2016-1(b)(3), as
asserted in the TWG Application (as defined above).
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2026
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 17

2
(the “Notice of Substitution”) to advise that she had joined TWG; however, after filing the TWG
Application, she represented in a Joint Status Report (Doc. 72) filed with the United States Trustee
that she had left TWG but was still “the attorney of record for the Debtors in this case,” but she
took “no position regarding the pending [TWG] Application.” She did not file a notice of
withdrawal or substitution of counsel. More importantly, neither she nor TWG filed an application
for approval of attorney fees prior to October 7, 2024 for the prepetition and postpetition services
that she provided to the Debtors through her law firm, Nesbitt Law Firm, LLC (“NLF”), up until
this case transitioned to TWG, even though the Court gave her until February 10, 2026 to do so
and warned her that failure to seek approval of those fees would result in having to return the fees.
See Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78) (as defined below).
Accordingly, the prepetition retainer of $1,687.00 was paid by the Debtors prior to
transitioning this case to TWG will now be the subject of a show cause order entered after this
Order. However, because neither Ms. Nesbitt nor NLF timely filed an application for approval of
fees in accordance with the Court’s prior Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78), it is now clear that the
total amount of attorney fees up for approval by this Court in this pre-confirmation dismissed
chapter 13 case is as set forth in the TWG Application; meaning that, not including expenses, total
potential attorney fees of $4,345.50 are at issue, not $6,032.50.
With that issue now sorted, the Court proceeds to rule on the TWG Application. In that
regard, there are just a few entries that the Court finds to be excessive and will reduce in this
chapter 13 case dismissed prior to confirmation, resulting in a total approved fee of $4,287.00 for
the legal services set forth in the TWG Application, and reimbursement of expenses in the
voluntarily reduced amount of $243.10, for a combined total of $4,530.10, which may be paid by
the Chapter 13 Trustee from the funds he has on-hand.
II. 	Background
A. 	Events Leading Up to and Including the Pre-Confirmation Dismissal
Ms. Nesbitt, then with Nesbitt Law Firm, filed the Voluntary Petition (Doc. 1) for the
Debtors on September 23, 2024. In conjunction, she certified, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 2016(b), that prior to filing the
Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor and Application for Allowance of Fees in
Chapter 13 Case (Doc. 1 at 53-54) (the “Disclosure”) she had received $1,687.00 from the
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 17

3
Debtors, she had agreed to accept $4,350.00, and she had “not agreed to share the above-disclosed
compensation with any other persons unless they are members and/or associates of my law firm.”
Disclosure at 1, § I. The Statement of Financial Affairs (Doc. 1 at 46-52) (the “SOFA”) likewise
listed three payments, made by the Debtors in May, June and September, 2024, to the Nesbitt Law
Firm totaling $1,687.00 for “Attorney Fee.” SOFA at 4.
The Initial Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. 11) was filed on October 7, 2024, the same day as Ms.
Nesbitt filed the Notice of Substitution. Although no plan was ever confirmed in this case, it is
notable that the Initial Chapter 13 Plan (Doc. 11) provided in paragraph 5.1.7 (Administrative
Claims), as did all three Amended Chapter 13 Plans – the First Amended (Doc. 19), the Second
Amended (Doc. 32), and the Third Amended (Doc. 49) – that TWG would be paid attorney fees
in the total amount of $4,350.00, with $2,663.00 to be disbursed by the Chapter 13 Trustee. See
Doc. 11 at 5; Doc. 19 at 5; Doc. 32 at 5; Doc. 49 at 5. When Ms. Nesbitt filed the aforementioned
Notice of Substitution, she did not explain whether the Nesbitt Law Firm and TWG had discussed
or agreed on what to do about the prepetition retainer of $1,687.00 paid by the Debtors to the
Nesbitt Law Firm.
On April 21, 2025, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed his Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File
a Confirmable Plan and Notice of Hearing (Doc. 52) (the “Motion to Dismiss”), pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 1307(c)(1), on the basis that, after four tries (during the period from October 7, 2024 to
April 4, 2025), “the Debtors have failed to file a confirmable Plan.” There was no response to the
Motion to Dismiss; however, in the meantime, following the transfer of this case to the current
Bankruptcy 	Judge 	for 	all 	further 	proceedings 	on 	June 	3, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	entered 	a
Pre-Confirmation Dismissal Order (Doc. 46) (Doc. 56) (the “Dismissal Order”) on June 9, 2025,
based on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s report to the Court that “Debtors failed to make full plan
payments during the probationary period” in accordance with the prior Agreed Order Resolving
Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss and Placing Debtors on Payment Probation (Doc. 46), entered on
March 25, 2025. As a result, the confirmation hearing on the Third Amended Plan (Doc. 49) that
had been scheduled for June 12, 2025 was cancelled as moot and the pending Motion to Dismiss
likewise became moot.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 17

4
B. 	TWG Application
Within a week after entry of the Dismissal Order, Ms. Nesbitt, on behalf of TWG, filed an
Application for Compensation (Doc. 58); however, she withdrew that application through a
Withdrawal of Document #58 (Doc. 59), filed the same day, and replaced it with the TWG
Application now before the Court. Both were purportedly filed under LBR 2016-1(b)(3), which
applies to “[a]dditional attorney fees for services performed by the debtor’s attorney beyond those
set forth in (b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(C)[,]” which, respectively, concern the “no-look fee” or the no-look
fee opt out.
Apart from increasing the expenses requested from $94.00 to $392.20, by adding a June
16, 2025 charge of $298.20 for mailing the TWG Application, the two versions of the TWG
Application (Docs. 58 and 59) were identical, both requesting total legal fees of $4,345.50, just
under the no-look fee amount of $4,350.00 (not counting the expenses sought). See General Order
No. 50-1, In re Amending Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016-1 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2021)
(increasing the no-look fee from $3,700 to $4,350). With the increased expenses, the total amount
sought through the TWG Application was $4,737.70.
Attached to the TWG Application is ten-page Invoice # 3988 dated June 16, 2025 (the
“TWG Invoice”), on Tax Workout Group letterhead, which is payable to TWG in Boca Raton,
Florida. TWG Appl. (Doc. 60) at 4-13. The dates of services in the TWG Invoice begin on October
7, 2024, which is the same day, postpetition, that Ms. Nesbitt filed the Notice of Substitution and
the Initial Chapter 13 Plan, and end on June 16, 2025 with preparation of the Invoice. Accordingly,
the TWG Application only covers the postpetition period of time during which Ms. Nesbitt was
charging for her services through TWG. It does not cover the prepetition period, or from the
petition date of September 23, 2024 up through October 6, 2024.2
C. 	Order Requiring Supplementation (Doc. 63), Ms. Nesbitt’s First Supplement
(Doc. 65), and the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Report and Amended Certification
(Docs. 66 and 67)
On August 6, 2025, the Court entered an Order Requiring Supplementation of Debtors’
Counsel’s Application for Compensation (Doc. 60) and a Report from the Chapter 13 Trustee
2 As a side note, neither the Invoice itself nor the TWG Application contain a description or key such that the Court
could decipher the initials of the professionals providing the services or know their full names, education, title, or
experience, except to guess that “LN” stands for Laura Nesbitt.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 17

5
(Doc. 63) (the “Order Requiring Supplementation”), in which the Court recounted the basics of
the TWG Application, noted that it was actually governed by LBR 2016-1(b)(5)(A), and flagged
a discrepancy with the Certification of Final Payment and Case History in a Dismissed by Court
Before Confirmation Case (Doc. 62) (the “Certification of Final Payment”) filed by the Chapter
13 Trustee, and posed a series of questions concerning the TWG Application for Ms. Nesbitt to
address by way of filing a supplement to the TWG Application, for which a deadline of August
21, 2025 was set.
On August 22, 2025, one day after the deadline, Ms. Nesbitt filed the Supplementation of
Debtors’ Counsel to Application for Compensation (Doc. 60) (Doc. 65) (the “First Supplement”).
Therein, she explained, as it concerns the services provided before she filed her Notice of
Substitution on October 7, 2024 (before the first day of services on the Invoice attached to the
TWG Application):
In this case, the substitution of counsel was filed on October 7, 2024 (Doc.
10). Prior to the transition and case transfer, [Nesbitt Law Firm, LLC (“NLF”)] had
performed work for and billed the client through NLF. Therefore, by the time the
case had transitioned from NLF to TWG, substantial work had been performed, and
legal fees had been earned and paid to NLF under the agreement between Debtor
and NLF. An attached itemized invoice ("Exhibit. A") of services is included from
NLF showing services rendered in the amount totaling $1,950.00. These services
are more than the portion of the no-look fee collected by NLF prior to filing, in the
amount of $1,687.00, as disclosed in the original attorney compensation statement
filed with the original petition. NLF did not request additional fees from the
Debtors, nor from the Chapter 13 Estate, and does not intend to collect the amount
of fees earned in excess of those already paid to NLF in this matter.
First Supplement at 2. Invoice # 1082, on The Nesbitt Law Firm, LLC letterhead, dated August
21, 2025 (the “NLF Invoice”) was attached as Exhibit A. (Doc. 65-1.) It has a DRAFT stamp on
the first page, covers the period from August 10, 2023 through September 27, 2024, with the bulk
of the work occurring from April 5, 2024, up to and including a few days after the petition date of
September 23, 2024. See NLF Invoice (Doc. 65-1) at 1-2. The NLF Invoice, on page 3, explains
that “LN” stands for Attorney Laura Nesbitt and “ED” stands for Paralegal Erin Duwel. The NLF
Invoice, however, does not reflect any payments and, confusingly, identifies both a $1,950.00 total
for the NLF Invoice and an “Outstanding Balance Total” of $4,613.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 17

6
Also in the First Supplement, Ms. Nesbitt provided explanations in response to the specific
questions and issues raised by the Court in its Order Requiring Supplementation, which are, in
part, as follows:
3) 	As noted above, the application lists three professionals other than Ms.
Nesbitt, but they are only identified by their initials, ED (at $145/hr.), AH
($125/hr.)3, and AK ($545/hr.). The Application does not list the names of the
professionals, their Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 65 Filed 08/22/25 Entered
08/22/25 00:43:23 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 4 3 experience level, or
attorney 	and 	paralegal 	qualifications 	or 	certifications 	(if 	any). 	The
Application also does not list Ms. Nesbitt’s experience level, such as date of
first bar admission. See LBR 2016-1(b)(5)(A) (requiring identification of
“any attorney, paralegal, or other professional person for whom fees are
sought”). See also 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(E) (listing, as a relevant factor, the
experience level and skill of professionals “in the bankruptcy field” as
relevant for what is “reasonable compensation”).
Response:
A) 	LN: Attorney Laura Nesbitt was admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio
in November 2007. She has focused her law practice on consumer bankruptcy
work since March of 2009. She is admitted in good standing in the State of
Ohio, as well as the Southern District of Ohio and the Northern District of
Ohio.
B) 	AK: Attorney Andrew Kamensky was admitted to practice law in the State of
Florida in October 1997, State of New York in October 2011, State of Georgia
in June 2023, and State of Ohio (practice pending admission 2025 – Bar No.
105467). He has focused his law practice in bankruptcy work for 28 years. He
is admitted in good standing in each of the above-mentioned jurisdictions, and
several district and bankruptcy courts in those and other states.
C) 	ED: Paralegal Erin Duwel is a paralegal who has worked almost exclusively
on consumer bankruptcy matters for over 20 years.
D) 	AH: Paralegal Amber Holmes is a paralegal who began employment at Tax
Workout Group, PA in December 2024. Prior to that she had over 10 years of
consumer bankruptcy paralegal experience. The correct hourly is $125.
First Suppl. at 2-3 (bold type removed).
On September 2, 2025, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed his Report to Court RE: Order
Requiring Supplementation of Debtors’ Counsel’s Application for Compensation and a Report
3 The Court notes that in two instances AH is listed with a rate of $145/hr., such that these entries will be reduced to
the appropriate rate of $125/hr.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 17

7
from the Chapter 13 Trustee (Doc. 63) (Doc. 66) (the “Trustee’s Report”), explaining that the prior
Certification of Final Payment contained an error by double-counting the $1,687.00 prepetition
payment and thereby increasing the overall amount of attorney fees from $4,350 with $2,663
remaining due to $6,037 (an increase of $1,687) with $2,663 remaining due. The Trustee’s Report
explained that the Certification of Final Payment should have stated that “The debtors’ attorney
was allowed $4,350 and was paid $1,687.” Tr.’s Report at 1. The Trustee’s Report also confirmed
that no monies were disbursed “to Ms. Nesbitt through the Chapter 13 Plan.” Id. Further, it clarified
that “the Trustee [wa]s holding $10,246.32 pending determination of this matter.” Id. at 1-2.
On September 3, 2025, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed his Amended Certification of Final
Payment and Case History in a Dismissed by Court Before Confirmation Case (Doc. 62) (Doc.
67) (the “Amended Certification of Final Payment”), in which he made the amended disclosure
that “debtor(s)’ attorney requested fees in the Plan of $2,663 and was paid $0.00 through the Plan”
and that “[r]efunds to the debtor(s) and/or new trustee total $10,246.32.” Am. Cert. at 6. This did
not match up with what the Trustee’s Report had said the Certification of Final Payment should
say, but at least it identified the correct delta between the approximate total amount of fees sought
by TWG based on its TWG Invoice, in comparison to what was paid prepetition to NLF for the
pre- and postpetition services itemized in the NLF Invoice.
D. 	The U.S. Trustee’s Objection (Doc. 68)
As permitted by the Order Requiring Supplementation, on September 4, 2024, the United
States Trustee for Region 9 (the “U.S. Trustee”) filed his Limited Objection to Application for
Compensation (Doc. No. 60) and Supplementation (Doc. No. 65) (Doc. 68) (the “Limited
Objection”), which noted, in part, that:
7. 	The compensation from funds held by the trustee appears to be in addition to
the $1,687 already paid to attorney Nesbitt by Debtors, putting the total
compensation ask at $6,424.70. (Doc. 60, p. 1, ¶1 “This request for fees is . .
. in addition to those services that do not require itemization,” referencing the
“no-look” amount in LBR 2016-1).
* 	* 	*
25. 	The record as it currently exists fails to provide facts sufficient to determine
the reasonableness of the request, and consistent with applicable law, the
request should be denied.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 17

8
WHEREFORE, the United States Trustee requests that this Court sustain his
limited objection, deny or reduce the requested June 16, 2025 expenses, deny
additional compensation, and for such additional relief as this Court determines is
appropriate under the circumstances.
E. 	Ms. Nesbitt’s Second Supplement (Doc. 69)
On September 8, 2025, Ms. Nesbitt filed the Second Supplementation of Debtors’ Counsel
to Application for Compensation (Doc. 60) (Doc. 69) (the “Second Supplement”), which solely
concerned the questioned additional June 16, 2025 expense for mailing the TWG Application
through EDEXIS, which, as the Court had previously calculated, was charged at $4.20 per mailing,
times 71 mailings, for a total charge of $298.20. See Order Requiring Suppl. at 3, ¶ 4; Second
Suppl. at 1. This was much more than double the expense of $94.00 charged for Ms. Nesbitt’s
prior mailing of the Initial Chapter 13 Plan. See TWG Inv. at 9.
F. 	Order Requiring Status Report (Doc. 70), Joint Status Report (Doc. 72) and
Notice of Appearance (Doc. 73)
On October 8, 2025, this Court entered an Order Requiring Status Report(s) with Regard
to Debtor Counsel’s Application for Compensation (Doc. 60) and the United States Trustee’s
Limited Objection to Application for Compensation (Doc. 68) (Doc. 70), setting a deadline of
November 7, 2025 for a joint or individual status reports. In response, the U.S. Trustee and Ms.
Nesbitt filed the Joint Status Report Regarding the Contested Matter (Docket No. 70) (Doc. 72)
(the “Joint Status Report”) on October 28, 2025, in which they disclosed that “Tax Workout Group
terminated Attorney Nesbitt’s employment” and therefore “while Attorney Nesbitt remains the
attorney of record for the Debtors in this case, she no longer represents Tax Workout Group in the
Contested Matter and takes no position regarding the pending Application.” Joint Status Report
at 1. Moreover, at that point “[t]he United States Trustee [wa]s unable to determine who (if anyone)
[wa]s representing Tax Workout Group in the Contested Matter” and the U.S. Trustee further
reported that its Limited Objection was unresolved and suggested that a hearing be scheduled. Id.
Shortly thereafter, Attorney Sean Stone with TWG entered his appearance through the Notice of
Appearance and Request for Notices (Doc. 73), filed on November 4, 2025. Ms. Nesbitt, however,
did not withdraw and no substitution of counsel was filed.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 17

9
G. 	Order Setting Hearing (Doc. 74), Exhibit List (Doc. 76), Proposed Agreed
Order, Hearing, and Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78)
As a result of the Joint Status Report, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the
TWG Application, the First Supplement, the Certification of Final Payment, the Trustee’s Report,
the Amended Certification of Final Payment, the Limited Objection, and the Second Supplement
for December 18, 2025, with a deadline of December 11, 2025 for witness and exhibit lists and
any additional memorandum of law, through the Order Setting Hearing on Debtor Counsel's
Application for Compensation (Doc. 60), the United States Trustee’s Limited Objection to
Application for Compensation (Doc. 68), and the Joint Status Report to Court (Doc. 72). (Doc.
74) (the “Order Setting Hearing”). On December 11, 2025, new counsel for the Debtors, Mr. Stone,
filed the Exhibit List (Doc. 76) with Debtors’ Exhibits 1 through 9 attached thereto, which included
the Debtors’ payment history, an email and various documents concerning the June 16, 2025
mailing expense, and the TWG Application.
Prior to the hearing held on December 18, 2025, Debtors’ Counsel and Counsel for the
United States Trustee submitted a proposed Agreed Order Granting Application for Compensation
(Rel. Doc. No. 60) to the Court, by which the parties had agreed to resolve the Limited Objection
(Doc. 68) by reducing the mailing expenses requested in the TWG Application of $392.20 by
$149.10, such that TWG would be awarded compensation in the amount of $4,345.50 and
reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $243.10, for a total award of $4,588.60.
The Court held the hearing on the TWG Application, and the various related filings
identified in the Order Setting Hearing (Doc. 74), on December 18, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. In
attendance were Sean Stone with TWG, counsel for the Debtors; Erin Renneker, counsel for the
Chapter 13 Trustee; John G. Jansing, the Chapter 13 Trustee; and Nathan A. Wheatley, Counsel
for the United States Trustee all attended the hearing in person. Ultimately, the Court determined
that it could not rule on the TWG Application because, as stated in the Order Fixing Deadlines
(Doc. 78)4 entered after the hearing on January 20, 2026, in addition to other reasons discussed on
the record, the First Supplement filed by Ms. Nesbitt on August 22, 2025 had:
4 The full title is the Order Fixing Deadlines: (1) to File Engagement Letter; (2) for Nesbitt Law Firm and Laura M.
Nesbitt to File Application to Approve Attorney Fees and Retain Prepetition Retainer; and (3) to File an Agreed Order
to Resolve the Pending Application for Compensation (Doc. 60) by Tax Workout Group, and Authorizing, but Not
Requiring, the Chapter 13 Trustee to Refund Plan Payments On-Hand to Debtors, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2),
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 17

10
revealed that the Nesbitt Law Firm (“NLF”) and Ms. Nesbitt had been paid a
prepetition retainer of $1,687 for total attorney fees of $1,950, that appears to be in
addition to the attorney fees for which approval was sought in the TWG
Application, and NLF and Ms. Nesbitt have not moved for approval of those
fees . . . .
Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78) at 2. Accordingly, the Court thereby ordered, amongst other
things, as follows:
1. 	Ms. Nesbitt or Debtor’s Counsel shall file with the Court and serve
on the Debtors, the Chapter 13 Trustee, the United States Trustee, and the TWG
(the “Service Parties”), not later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of
entry of this Order, the engagement letter signed by the Debtors on August 10,
2025, for Nesbitt Law Firm (“NLF”) and Attorney Nesbitt to represent the Debtors,
which is referenced in the [First] Supplement (Doc. 65 at 2);
2. 	To the extent that NLF and/or Ms. Nesbitt intend on retaining the
prepetition attorney fees paid to her by the Debtors in the amount of $1,687, as
previously disclosed (Doc. 1 at 53) and referenced in the [First] Supplement (Doc.
65 at 2), NLF and/or Ms. Nesbitt shall, not later than twenty-one (21) days from
the date of entry of this Order, file an appropriate application for approval of
compensation and reimbursement of expenses, for the attorney fees reflected in
Invoice # 1082, dated August 21, 2025, up to the amount of the prepetition retainer,
pursuant 	to 	Local 	Bankruptcy 	Rule 	2016-1(b)(5) 	and 	(b)(6) 	(the 	“NLF
Application”). In the absence of a timely filed and properly served NLF
Application, the Court may determine, without further notice, to order all
amounts paid by the Debtors directly to Ms. Nesbitt, as a prepetition retainer,
to be refunded to the Debtors.
3. 	To the extent that counsel for the Debtors’, the Chapter 13 Trustee,
and the United States Trustee agree upon the resolution of the TWG Application,
they shall, not later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this
Order, submit a proposed agreed order to the Court with the terms to resolve the
TWG Application, for the Court’s consideration in conjunction with review of any
NLF Application.
4. 	Upon review of all filings and submissions required by this Order,
and any responses to any NLF Application, the Court will determine whether a
further hearing is necessary or whether all issues have been sufficiently addressed
such that the Court can rule on the TWG Application, any NLF Application, and
any remaining related issues.
Order Fixing Deadlines at 3-4, ¶¶ 1-4.
to the Extent the Funds Exceed the Potential Unpaid Claims Under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) (Doc. 78) (the “Order Fixing
Deadlines”).
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 17

11
The BNC Certificate of Mailing (Doc. 79) reflects that the Order Fixing Deadlines was
delivered to Ms. Nesbitt at a variety of email addresses at domains with TWG, BestCase,
ecf.courtdrive, and Gmail.
H. 	Post-Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78)
The twenty-one (21) day deadline from entry of the Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78)
expired on Tuesday, February 10, 2026. Although the “engagement letter signed by the Debtors
on August 10, 2025, for [NLF] and Attorney Nesbitt to represent the Debtors, which is referenced
in the [First] Supplement (Doc. 65 at 2)” was timely filed on February 4, 2026 (Doc. 80), neither
(1) an “appropriate application for approval of compensation and reimbursement of expenses, for
the attorney fees reflected in Invoice # 1082, dated August 21, 2025, up to the amount of the
prepetition retainer, pursuant to [LBR] 2016-1(b)(5)” for the prepetition amount of $1,687 paid to
NLF; or (2) a proposed agreed order between the Debtors, the Chapter 13 Trustee, and the U.S.
Trustee to resolve the TWG Application, were filed with or submitted to the Court.
In fact, the only two items filed with the Court since entry of the Order Fixing Deadlines
have been: (1) the Notice of Filing of Engagement Letter (Doc. 80), filed by Mr. Stone with TWG,
to which an Engagement Letter—Bankruptcy Representation between Debtor April Naff and NLF,
signed on August 10, 2023 (the “NLF Engagement Letter”), is attached; and (2) the Report to
Court (Doc. 81), filed by the Chapter 13 Trustee to advise that refund checks in the amounts of
$3,040.42 and $2,567.30, for a total of $5,607.72, were issued to the Debtors on February 10,
2026, such that the Trustee retained a balance on-hand of $4,638.62.
The NLF Engagement Letter reflects that back in August of 2023, not 2025, Ms. Naff
agreed to pay a base fee of $4,350 for legal services, plus a $313 chapter 13 filing fee – a total of
$4,663 – of which $2,000 would be paid prepetition and the remaining $2,663 would be paid
“through the Chapter 13 plan or immediately upon . . . dismissal (Chapter 13).” NLF Engagement
Ltr. at 1, 3, 6.
III. 	Analysis
A. 	LBR 2016-1(b)(5)
Given that no chapter 13 plan was ever confirmed in this dismissed case, LBR
2016-1(b)(3), as cited in the TWG Application and which governs additional attorney fees beyond
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 17

12
the no-look fee or the no-look fee opt out, does not apply. Instead, the TWG Application is
governed by LBR 2016-1(b)(5), which provides as follows:
(5) Fees in Cases Dismissed Prior to Confirmation.
(A) Attorney Fees. The no-look fee does not apply in cases dismissed prior
to 	confirmation. 	An 	attorney 	seeking 	payment 	of 	fees 	for 	services
performed, or reimbursement of expenses, in a case dismissed prior to
confirmation must file an application that includes an itemization of all legal
services performed, the amount of the total fee requested, the amount and
itemization 	of 	expenses 	for 	which 	reimbursement 	is 	sought, 	the
identification and hourly billing rate of any attorney, paralegal, or other
professional person for whom fees are sought, and the actual time spent by
the attorney, paralegal, or other professional person for whom fees are
sought. The fee application in a dismissed case shall be filed no later than
twenty-one (21) days after the entry of the order of dismissal.
Notwithstanding that the TWG Application cited the wrong provision of LBR 2016-1(b), it was
filed within twenty-one days after entry of the Dismissal Order. Further, the Court previously
entered the Order Requiring Supplementation (Doc. 63) to request information needed to assess
the TWG Application under LBR 2016-1(b)(5) and was provided the helpful First Supplement and
Second Supplement from Ms. Nesbitt. Accordingly, the Court does not believe a further hearing
is needed, at least not on the TWG Application.
B. 	Only the TWG Application Remains for Consideration
The U.S. Trustee, in its Limited Objection, hit on the issue of primary concern to this Court,
which is that the TWG Application does not cover or request approval of attorney fees for the legal
services provided by Ms. Nesbitt prepetition and postpetition prior to October 7, 2024, for which
she was paid the prepetition retainer amount of $1,687, but for which she did not timely file and
serve a fee application, under either the deadline set forth in LBR 2016-1(b)(5)(A), as set forth
above, or within the deadline of February 10, 2026 that this Court subsequently provided through
the Order Fixing Deadlines. Therefore, although it appears the Debtors incurred total attorney fees
of $6,032.50 ($4,345.50 + $1,687.00), not including expenses, for this pre-confirmation dismissed
chapter 13 case, subject to Court approval, which is a significant amount for a chapter 13 case in
which four plans were filed, but none were confirmed, now that the deadline for Ms. Nesbitt to file
an appropriate application for compensation pursuant to LBR 2016-1(b)(5)(A) for the services she
provided to the Debtors through NLF has passed, only the TWG Application remains for approval.
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 17

13
The Court will enter a separate show cause order with respect to the prepetition funds paid
to NLF, for which no timely fee application has been filed; however, the remaining issue in that
regard appears to be the refund of that retainer to the Debtors and not whether any of the remaining
funds held by the Chapter 13 Trustee would need to be paid to NLF. Accordingly, the Court will
now proceed to rule on the TWG Application.
C. 	The TWG Application
As described above, the TWG Application covers services rendered during the postpetition
period from October 7, 2024 to June 16, 2025, and states that it seeks additional attorney fees,
pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 2016-1(b)(3), for the legal services performed “in
addition to those services that do not require itemization under LBR 2016-1(b)(2)(A) and set forth
in LBR-FORM 2016-1(b)(3) [the no look fee;]” however, as discussed above, this is actually an
itemized application for fees in a chapter 13 case dismissed prior to confirmation, which is
governed by LBR 2016-1(b)(5)(A).
In response to this Court’s Order Fixing Deadlines (Doc. 78), the U.S. Trustee filed its
Limited Objection (Doc. 68), in which he stated, in relevant parts to the overall reasonableness of
the fees charged (when the total fees and expenses were potentially $6,424.705), as follows:
4. 	The record of the case is not sufficiently developed such that the U.S. Trustee
can determine whether the Debtors’ failure to make their preconfirmation
plan payments was the result of Debtors’ financial mismanagement or a
failure on the part of counsel of record to adequately advise them concerning
the feasibility of a Chapter 13 case and plan.
5. 	Put another way, it is not clear whether Debtors couldn’t make the payments,
or whether they concluded payments were futile and simply stopped making
payments after three failed attempts to have a plan confirmed.
* 	* 	*
15. 	Regarding attorney fees, the record does not contain sufficient facts to
determine that the fees requested are reasonable.
16. 	Ultimately, the Debtors through attorney Nesbitt failed to promulgate a
confirmable plan. (Docs. 23, 28, 39) The inability to confirm a plan almost
always rests on a multitude of factors, each of which may prove material to a
5 This is the sum of $6,032.50, which was the total potential attorney fees prior to the deadline for NLF to file a fee
application ($4,345.50 + $1,687.00 = $6,032.50), plus the total expenses originally sought by TWG in the TWG
Application, in the amount of $392.20; so, $6,032.50 + $392.20 =
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 13 of 17

14
reasonableness determination for the purposes of a fee award, but the facts as
of the date of this objection do not support a finding that fees are reasonable.
However, as noted, prior to the hearing held on December 18, 2025, counsel for the U.S. Trustee
and Mr. Stone, as counsel for the Debtor, tendered an Agreed Order Granting Application for
Compensation (Rel. Doc. No. 60), which indicated that the U.S. Trustee, based upon the First and
Second Supplements, had agreed to approval of the attorney fees sought in the TWG Application,
with only the $149.10 reduction in the expenses sought.
As this Court has stated before, “[b]ankruptcy courts have an independent duty to monitor
and determine the reasonableness of attorney fees related to bankruptcy cases regardless of
whether any party objects to the fee application.” In re Spear, 636 B.R. 765, 769 (Bankr. S.D.
Ohio 2022) (Humphrey, J.) (citing Cupps & Garrison, LLC v. Rhiel (In re Two Gales, Inc.), 454
B.R. 427, 432-33 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2011); In re Busy Beaver Bldg. Ctrs., 19 F.3d 833, 841 (3d Cir.
1994)). “This responsibility serves to guard the integrity of and public trust in the federal
bankruptcy courts.” Id. at 769. The reasonableness of attorney fees for the debtor’s attorney in a
chapter 13 case, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(b)(4)(B), is assessed “using the lodestar method.” Id.
at 770 (citing In re Boddy, 950 F.2d 334, 337 (6th Cir. 1991)).
While the TWG Application is generally appropriate, based on the number of hours
expended multiplied by the mostly reasonable hourly rates, and the majority of the fees and
expenses sought with respect to these legal services performed postpetition will be awarded as
reasonable and necessary, there are specific time entries of concern to the Court that it will disallow
as previewed to Mr. Stone at the hearing held on December 18, 2025, as detailed below:
1. 	December 31, 2024 entry of Paralegal Amber Holmes (AH) for 0.10 hours:
As stated in the First Supplement, the correct hourly rate for Ms. Holmes,
whose employment with TWG began in December 2024, was $125; thus,
this 0.10 entry, which was billed at the rate of $145, shall be reduced by
$2.00.
2. 	February 13, 2025 entry of Paralegal Amber Holmes (AH) for 0.10 hours:
As stated in the First Supplement, the correct hourly rate for Ms. Holmes,
whose employment with TWG began in December 2024, was $125; thus,
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 14 of 17

15
this 0.10 entry, which was billed at the rate of $145, shall be reduced by
$2.00.
3. 	May 7, 2025 entry of Attorney Andrew Kamensky (AK) for 0.10 hours:
“Bankruptcy: Subject: RE: New Voicemail from John G. Jansing (937) 222-
7600 to Laura Nesbitt (Ext. 153) on Wed May 7, 2025 09:41”, billed at
$545.00 per hour for a total fee of $54.50.
This entry is being denied for several reasons. First, it does not explain what
legal service Mr. Kamensky provided. The Court’s best guess is that a
voicemail from the Chapter 13 Trustee to Ms. Nesbitt was forwarded to Mr.
Kamensky, but for what reason and what he did in response is unknown.
Perhaps it was so that Ms. Nesbitt could seek guidance, perhaps in a
mentoring role. But that is just a guess and the burden is on the applicant to
establish the who, what, when, where and why to justify that this is a
reasonable and necessary charge.6 Second, this is the only entry by Mr.
Kamensky in the entire case, suggesting that he was not really involved;
sometimes referred to as a “transitory professional.”7 Third, the hourly rate
charged is far above the range for what even the most experienced consumer
bankruptcy practitioners charge in the Dayton, Ohio area, which based on
6 See, e.g., In re Edmondson, No. 22-23059, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 350, at *11 & n.67 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2025)
(“When a debtor’s attorney submits a fee application with vague entries, courts often disallow those entries because it
is impossible to determine what services were provided.” (citing In re Pochron, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1041, at *26,
2022 WL 1085459, at *9 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2022) (citing In re Maruko, 160 B.R. 633, 641 (Bankr. S.D. Cal.
1993))).
7 Absent any other time entries, the Court cannot deduce what Mr. Kamensky did with respect to the voicemail from
the Chapter 13 Trustee to Ms. Nesbitt on May 7, 2025; whereas the other voicemail by the Chapter 13 Trustee, also to
Ms. Nesbitt, appears to have resulted in an entry by one of the other professionals who regularly worked on this case.
By analogy to the Appendix B Guidelines for Reviewing Applications for Compensation and Reimbursement of
Expenses Filed Under United States Code by Attorneys in Larger Chapter 11 Cases, particularly B.2.e on “transitory
professionals,” this is a case of a professional billing very minimal time “with insufficient evidence of benefit to the
estate.” 78 Fed. Reg. 116 (June 17, 2013). Moreover, as confirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, “the text of § 330(a)(3) permits courts to consider factors not listed, including [but certainly not limited to]
‘results obtained.’ ” In re Vill. Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 949 (6th Cir. 2022).
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 15 of 17

16
the Court’s recent experience tops out around $400 an hour.8 For all these
reasons, compensation for this time entry is denied.
In addition to the foregoing, based on the previous agreement of the Debtor’s counsel, Mr.
Stone with TWG, and the U.S. Trustee, and as originally questioned in the Order Requiring
Supplementation (Doc. 63), the Court finds it appropriate to reduce the total expenses sought
through the TWG Application by $149.10, from $392.20 to $243.10, consistent with the prior
analysis that the mailing costs for the TWG Application, at $4.20 per mailing, was excessive and
not necessary, as evidenced by the fact of the significantly lower cost to mail the Initial Chapter
13 Plan (Doc. 11) to the same mailing list.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the TWG Application is hereby GRANTED,
in part, and DENIED, in part, and the Court awards attorney fees in this chapter 13 case
dismissed prior to confirmation to TWG, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1)(A), (a)(3) and (a)(4),
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(a), and LBR 2016-1(b)(5), in the amount of $4,287.00 for the legal services
set forth in the TWG Application, and reimbursement of expenses, voluntarily reduced to $243.10,
for a total of $4,530.10, in accordance with the analysis set forth in the governing Sixth Circuit
case law,9 and hereby orders that such amount be paid to TWG from the funds on-hand with the
Chapter 13 Trustee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to: Default List Plus:
Erin Renneker, 409 E. Monument Avenue, Suite 410, Dayton, Ohio 45402
(Counsel for the Chapter 13 Trustee)
Edward H. Cahill, 170 North High Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2417
(Assistant United States Trustee)
8 See, e.g., In re Henson, 637 B.R. 13, 17 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio) (Humphrey, J.) (comparing hourly rates of consumer
bankruptcy attorneys practicing in Dayton and the Southern District of Ohio). Although Mr. West is identified with a
billing rate of $450 an hour in the Henson decision, the Court’s recent experience is that he charges $350 an hour. See,
e.g., Application for Additional Attorney Fees (LBR 2016-1), In re Horton, Case No. 24-30915 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio July
22, 2025) (Doc. 55).
9 See In re Boddy, 950 F.2d 334, 337 (6th Cir. 1991) (adopting the loadstar approach in fee calculations); In re Village
Apothecary, Inc., 45 F.4th 940, 952-53 (6th Cir. 2022) (court can consider “results obtained” in reviewing bankruptcy
fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)); In re Vaughn, 660 B.R. at 849 (holding that Village Apothecary applies to
Chapter 13 proceedings).
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 16 of 17

17
Nathan A. Wheatley, 170 North High Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2417
(Counsel for the United States Trustee)
Case 3:24-bk-31827 Doc 82 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/12/26 07:42:06 Desc Main
Document Page 17 of 17