361 F.3d 172 (2nd Cir. 2004), 03-5018, In re Fickling

Docket Nº03-5018.
Citation361 F.3d 172
Party NameIn Re: John FICKLING, Debtor. John Fickling, Debtor-Appellee, v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs., Appellant.
Case DateMarch 03, 2004
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Page 172

361 F.3d 172 (2nd Cir. 2004)

In Re: John FICKLING, Debtor.

John Fickling, Debtor-Appellee,

v.

Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs., Appellant.

No. 03-5018.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 3, 2004

Argued Nov. 17, 2003.

Page 173

Jeffrey Herzberg, Zinker, Gelfand & Herzberg, LLP, Smithtown, NY, for Appellant.

Jeffrey K. Cymbler, Angel & Frankel, P.C. (Rick A. Steinberg, on the brief), New York, NY, for Debtor-Appellee.

Before: WALKER, Chief Judge, CALABRESI and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge.

Appellant Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. ("FMM"), a law firm that represented debtor-appellee John Fickling during his bankruptcy proceeding, seeks to recoup the fees it earned and expenses it incurred prior to the conversion of Fickling's case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court concluded that such fees and expenses were properly discharged and therefore not recoverable from the debtor. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On October 23, 1992, Fickling filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. At the time of that filing, Fickling was represented by FMM. He paid FMM a $38,000 retainer fee, but appears not to have entered into any other fee arrangement with the firm. On November 13, 1996, the bankruptcy court converted Fickling's Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 case--despite Fickling's objections to the conversion, which were made on his behalf by FMM.

Thereafter, FMM sought to withdraw as counsel for Fickling because it did "not wish to incur further losses in the legal representation of the Debtor, as there is tremendous uncertainty whether [FMM] will ever be compensated for its time and

Page 174

effort ...." The court granted FMM's application on March 18, 1997.

On April 14, 1997, the bankruptcy court issued an order releasing Fickling from all dischargeable debts and enjoining any "creditors whose debts are discharged" from "engaging in any act to collect such debts as personal liabilities." The order recited that the court had not received any objections to discharge.

On March 16, 2001, FMM filed a motion against Fickling in his personal capacity (not against his estate) for the attorneys' fees it earned and expenses it incurred prior to the conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, over and above the $38,000 retainer fee and certain paid expenses. FMM argued that the unpaid fees and expenses amounting to $120,095 constituted a non-dischargeable debt. Fickling filed an objection to the motion.

The bankruptcy court denied FMM's motion in its entirety on the ground that the debt owed to FMM by Fickling had been properly discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727. On March 31, 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge) affirmed that ruling.

DISCUSSION

This appeal turns on whether the discharge provision of Chapter 7, 11 U.S.C. § 727, applies to fees earned and expenses incurred by a debtor's attorney after the filing of a Chapter 11 petition but before the conversion of the Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 case. Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a Chapter 7 debtor may be discharged from all debts, except for those specified in 11 U.S.C. § 523, "that arose before the date of the order for relief under this chapter ...." 11 U.S.C. § 727(b). While in the usual Chapter 7 case the "order for relief" refers to the filing of the Chapter 7 petition, see 11 U.S.C. § 301, in this case, where there has been a conversion, that language refers to the conversion of the case to a Chapter 7 case. 11 U.S.C. § 348(b). Reading §§ 727(b) and 348(b) together, then, all debts that arose after the filing of the Chapter 11 petition but before the conversion (except those listed in § 523) are treated as pre-petition debts, and are therefore dischargeable.

Appellant does not dispute that its claim against Fickling arose prior to the conversion. Nor does it argue that claims for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred after the filing of the Chapter 11 petition but prior to the conversion to Chapter 7 are exempt from discharge under § 523. 1 Nonetheless, FMM offers two reasons why this court should not apply the plain language of § 727(b) and § 348(b): (1) FMM's debt is an "administrative expense" under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) and therefore exempt from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 348(d); and (2) to treat the debt as dischargeable under Chapter 7 would be to ignore the implications of 11 U.S.C. § 329, which gives the bankruptcy court the power to review claims for attorneys' fees. FMM also argues that even if its claim was properly discharged pursuant to § 727(b), equity requires that the claim be revived. We consider each argument in turn.

I. "Administrative Expense" Exemption

FMM argues that even though its claim does not qualify for exemption from discharge

Page 175

under the terms of § 727(b), the claim constitutes an "administrative expense" under § 503(b), and therefore is exempt from discharge pursuant to § 348(d). Section 348(d) provides:

A claim against the estate or the debtor that arises after the order for relief but before conversion in a case that is converted [to a Chapter 7 case], other than a claim specified in section 503(b) of this title, shall be treated for all purposes as if such claim had arisen immediately before the date of the filing of the petition.

11 U.S.C. § 348(d) (emphasis added). The claims "specified in section 503(b)" are described as "administrative expenses," and include certain claims for attorneys' fees. See 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2). FMM reads § 348(d) as exempting all pre-conversion 2 administrative expenses from pre-petition treatment for all purposes. FMM further reasons that because § 727(b) only applies to those debts that are deemed to have arisen pre-petition, § 727(b) cannot apply to discharge a pre-conversion debt for attorneys' fees.

Assuming for purposes of FMM's argument that its claim...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • In re Waldo, 102709 TNEBC, 08-35658
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • October 27, 2009
    ...Rittenhouse v. Eisen, 404 F.3d 395, 396 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2004); Bethea v. Robert J. Adams & Assocs., 352 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (7th Cir. 2003); Hessinger & Assocs. v. United States ......
  • 417 B.R. 854 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn. 2009), 09-30969, In re Waldo
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • October 27, 2009
    ...Rittenhouse v. Eisen, 404 F.3d 395, 396 (6th Cir.2005); see also Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir.2004); Bethea v. Robert J. Adams & Assocs., 352 F.3d 1125,1128-29 (7th Cir.2003); Hessinger & Assocs. v. United States Trus......
  • In re Waters, 082311 CTBC, 99-31833
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Second Circuit
    • August 23, 2011
    ...immediately before the date of the filing of the petition." See Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) is applied to the postpetition/preconversion claim in the same manner as to any other p......
  • In re Fehrs, 071808 IDBC, 05-21306
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Ninth Circuit
    • July 18, 2008
    ...a court's adjudicatory authority." 540 U.S. at 454-55. [29] Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 177 (2nd Cir. 2004), is a decision issued about 45 days after (but without discussing) Kontrick. It held that a creditor "forfeited" ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • In re Waldo, 102709 TNEBC, 08-35658
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • October 27, 2009
    ...Rittenhouse v. Eisen, 404 F.3d 395, 396 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2004); Bethea v. Robert J. Adams & Assocs., 352 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (7th Cir. 2003); Hessinger & Assocs. v. United States ......
  • 417 B.R. 854 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn. 2009), 09-30969, In re Waldo
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Sixth Circuit
    • October 27, 2009
    ...Rittenhouse v. Eisen, 404 F.3d 395, 396 (6th Cir.2005); see also Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir.2004); Bethea v. Robert J. Adams & Assocs., 352 F.3d 1125,1128-29 (7th Cir.2003); Hessinger & Assocs. v. United States Trus......
  • In re Waters, 082311 CTBC, 99-31833
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Second Circuit
    • August 23, 2011
    ...immediately before the date of the filing of the petition." See Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) is applied to the postpetition/preconversion claim in the same manner as to any other p......
  • In re Fehrs, 071808 IDBC, 05-21306
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Bankruptcy Courts Ninth Circuit
    • July 18, 2008
    ...a court's adjudicatory authority." 540 U.S. at 454-55. [29] Fickling v. Flower, Medalie & Markowitz, Esqs. (In re Fickling), 361 F.3d 172, 177 (2nd Cir. 2004), is a decision issued about 45 days after (but without discussing) Kontrick. It held that a creditor "forfeited" ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles