Thomas Lee Leach and Mary Kay Leach

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: :
:
THOMAS LEE LEACH, JR. : Case No. 04-13480PM
MARY KAY LEACH : Chapter 13
a/k/a MARY KAY NEFF :
:
Debtors :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Timothy P. Branigan, Chapter 13 Trustee, filed a limited objection to the Amended
Disclosure of Compensation by counsel for the Debtors. The Trustee urges that to support the
requested compensation of $2,550.00, counsel should file a fee application that includes a
detailed breakdown of time spent on the services performed and explains the reasonableness and
necessity for the fees charged. The Trustee urges, relying upon the case of Harman v. Levin, 772
F.2d 1150 (CA4 1985), that court approval should be obtained. Counsel filed a response in
support of the compensation claimed, and a hearing was held.
Counsel filed this bankruptcy case under Chapter 13 on behalf of Debtors on February 16,
2004. Following the Trustee’s objection to Debtors’ original Chapter 13 Plan, Debtors’ Third
Amended Chapter 13 Plan, filed in open court on June 8, 2004, was confirmed. The Plan
provides for payment of $28,740.00 to the Trustee for distribution to creditors. Counsel likewise
filed two motions for valuation of motor vehicles for the Debtors that resulted in reductions of
the secured portions of the claims filed by those creditors.
The court agrees in principle with the Trustee’s objection that fee applications should be
filed, but because of the nature of a Chapter 13 case, the court believes that requiring fee
Date signed November 10, 2004
Case 04-13480 Doc 33 Filed 11/12/04 Page 1 of 2

applications on the part of a debtor’s counsel in bankruptcy cases would be counter-productive.
The cost of preparing the fee application and holding a hearing thereon would, in nearly all cases,
be borne by the unsecured creditors. In most case, these creditors are paid a fractional portion of
their claims, and the court dislikes the prospect of having those small percentages cut further.
In these circumstances, the court finds that the more useful procedure is for the Trustee to
file a suggestion or request that the court review the compensation of counsel. Thereupon, the
court can determine, in the circumstances of the case, if the compensation should be examined,
as the court often does in cases that are dismissed prior to confirmation or for failure to complete
filings. This procedure recognizes the court’s knowledge and experience in determining the
reasonableness of attorney’s fees, as described by this court in the case of In re Morgan, 48 B.R.
148 (BC Md. 1985), the cases cited in that opinion and their progeny.
Considering the circumstances presented in this case, the court finds the fees charged
should be allowed. An appropriate order will be entered.
cc:
Scott C. Borison, Esq., 5500 Buckeystown Pike, Frederick, MD 21703
Timothy P. Branigan, Esquire, P.O. Box 1902, Laurel MD 20725-1902
Thomas/Mary Leach, 11529 Harney Road, Emmitsburg, MD 21727
End of Memorandum
Case 04-13480 Doc 33 Filed 11/12/04 Page 2 of 2