Lynnhill Condominium

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
LYNNHILL CONDOMINIUM 	: 	Case No. 05-38059PM
ASSOCIATION 	: 	Chapter 11
:
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM
This case is before the court on the Third Application of P. Michael Nagle, Craig B.
Zaller and Nagle & Zaller, P.C. (sometimes collectively the “Applicant”), Special Counsel to the
Debtor, for compensation for services rendered for the period May 1, 2007, through October 31,
2007. Counsel seeks allowance of fees in the sum of $138,981.00 and reimbursement of
expenses of $16,222.33. The court received a letter from Patsy Stewart, the owner of four units
held as an investment, objecting to the Third Application. Her objection is based upon perceived
collection abuse by agents of Lynnhill Condominium of her accounts, and she urges that the
requested amount of compensation be placed in some sort of escrow account or that a bond be
posted by the firm.
At the hearing, the court heard the testimony of attorneys Scott J. Silverman and Craig B.
Zeller, Monte Greenbaum of Greentree Management LLC, the property manager for the Debtor
whose employment was authorized by this court’s Order entered May 21, 2007, and Patsy
Stewart. Her four units, three of which are titled in the name of Patsy Williams-Stewart, were
acquired by her on January 20, 1997, July 8, 1999, June 9, 2004, and October 24, 2005. As
Date signed January 25, 2008
Entered: January 25, 2008 Case 05-38059 Doc 306 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 3

explained by Ms. Stewart, the units were acquired for the purpose of providing supplemental
income. The court notes that even after the time the Pride Law Office wrote on her behalf on
July 12, 2004, complaining of various collection abuses, Ms. Stewart purchased another unit.
The Debtor’s Status Report dated January 17, 2008, was received in evidence, as well as
four exhibits offered by Ms. Stewart consisting of (1) an Opinion and Order of the District Court
of Maryland for Prince George’s County dated March 13, 2007; (2) letters dated July 12, 2004,
September 24, 2007, and September 14, 2007, from her attorneys, admitted for the purpose of
showing her opposition to the amounts claimed by the Debtor as being due, but not for their
contents, and her Notice of Intention to Defend an action in the District Court of Maryland for
Prince George’s County filed on behalf of the Debtor by the Applicant; (3) payment record of
the Debtor; and (4) a request for information sent by Ms. Stewart to the Debtor’s counsel and the
records supplied by the Debtor in response.
In the course of her testimony, Ms. Stewart requested that this court order an
investigation of the records and practices of the Debtor. The one thing that all parties agree upon
is that before Mr. Greenbaum came on board, the Debtor’s records of receipts and charges to the
residents of Lynnhill Condominium were in considerable disarray. The condition of the records
following Mr. Greenbaum’s employment is in dispute, but, at least as to Ms. Stewart’s accounts,
that issue will be resolved in the District Court action that is the subject of Ms. Stewart’s Notice
of Intention to Defend (Ex. #2). The court will not act on its own to order an investigation
inasmuch as that puts this court in the party of prosecutor and judge in the same proceeding. The
proper moving party for such action in a case under Chapter 11 is the Office of the United States
Trustee acting pursuant to its responsibility found in 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3).
The court has examined the Third Application, and in particular the time records for the
period of the Application from May through October, 2007. The work of counsel falls into two
categories, the first being the collection of outstanding sums due from the unit owners, and the
second being the business of managing Lynnhill Condominium and responding to governmental
inquiries. While the testimony attributed the largest part of the time spent on non-collection
matters, the time records do not seem to bear this out. The court would be helped by compliance
with Paragraph C of the Compensation Guidelines for Professionals that is attached as Appendix
C of the Local Rules of this court. In particular, entries should be organized by tasks. Another
source of confusion for the court is the reference to “Hours” in the bill. For example, in the
Invoice dated August 2, 2007, one individual is said to have spent 30 hours working on this case
Case 05-38059 Doc 306 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 3

on July 23, 2007. In addition, time appears to be missing, i.e., while compensation is requested
for 73.5 hours of Scott Silverman’s time, only slightly more than half of that time is reflected on
the bills.
Therefore, the court will not rule on the Third Application without clarification of the
matters discussed above.
cc:
Patsy Stewart, 1400 Shady Glen Drive, District Heights, MD 20747
John D. Burns, Esq., 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 102, Greenbelt, MD 20770
Nagle & Zaller, P.C., 7226 Lee DeForest Drive, Suite 102, Columbia, MD 21046
Office of the United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt, MD 20770
End of Memorandum
Case 05-38059 Doc 306 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3