In re Mandeville
Decision Date | 28 January 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 17-40777-JJR |
Citation | 596 B.R. 750 |
Parties | IN RE: Brandi M. MANDEVILLE, Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama |
Michael D. Brock, Spencer Wade Jones, Christopher L. Stanfield, Brock & Stout, LLC, Enterprise, AL, for Debtor.
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC ("Carrington") holds a mortgage (the "Mortgage") on the Debtor's residence (the "Mortgaged Property").1 The Mortgage secures the Debtor's Note in the original principal amount of $141,112 (the "Note"). Carrington filed a proof of claim in the Debtor's chapter 13 bankruptcy case for the prepetition Mortgage debt, and now seeks to recover the additional fees paid to its attorneys for their postpetition legal work. The Debtor objects and argues that the claim for postpetition attorney's fees should not be allowed.
The Debtor filed two back-to-back cases for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code2 in the spring of 2017. Her first case (case no. 17-01226; the "First Case") was dismissed after a show-cause hearing because of deficient schedules. (First Case Docs. 8, 29.) The Debtor filed the instant case four days later, and in her proposed chapter 13 plan (Doc. 2), which was eventually confirmed, she acknowledged she was thirteen months behind on her Mortgage installments. She proposed to pay the thirteen delinquent installments and her on-going monthly Mortgage payments under the plan, through the trustee. It was obvious that her bankruptcy filings were attempts to save her home from foreclosure.3
Pursuant to Rules 3001 and 3002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,4 Carrington, through its attorney, filed a timely proof of claim (amended claim # 8 and herein, the "POC") in which it listed the amounts due on the petition date under the Note and Mortgage, including principal, interest, prepetition fees and charges, escrow deficiency, and a calculation of the prepetition arrearage. Copies of the Note and the Mortgage were filed with the POC. The Debtor did not object to the POC. Soon after filing its POC, Carrington, also through its attorney, filed a Notice of Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses, and Charges pursuant to Rule 3002.1(c) (the "Postpetition Fee Notice"), claiming an additional $600 for attorney's fees; $300 for the First Case and a like amount for the instant case.5 The Debtor filed a Motion for Determination of Fees, Expenses, or Charges Pursuant to Rule 3002.1(e) ( ) in which she objected to the allowance of the additional fees. Carrington responded to the Motion, and relied almost exclusively on the language of Rule 3002.1 as authorizing the additional fees. (Doc. 62.) The Debtor filed a brief in support of her Motion (Doc. 75), arguing that the Mortgage did not authorize the assessment of attorney's fees for a simple chapter 13 case. Additionally, she argued that employing an attorney for plan review and filing a proof of claim was unnecessary and the amount of the fees was unreasonable. The court conducted an evidentiary hearing, and then took the matter under advisement.
At the evidentiary hearing Carrington's attorneys, through testimony and proffer, described the legal services they and their law firm performed with respect to the Debtor's bankruptcy case. Immediately after being retained by Carrington, they accessed the Debtor's case through PACER6 and created a file. They reviewed the petition, schedules, and other related bankruptcy documents, including the Debtor's proposed chapter 13 plan. The plan was scrutinized for its intended treatment of the Mortgage. Carrington provided them with copies of the Note and Mortgage along with the Debtor's loan history and account balances. They reviewed the Note and Mortgage, the loan history and account information, and then signed and filed the POC along with supporting documents and required attachments.7 Thereafter, the firm monitored the case, reviewing all events, looking for those that might affect Carrington's interest as mortgagee. The firm charged a flat fee of $300, the same amount it charged for all Carrington's chapter 13 cases. The fee was negotiated based on competitive bidding with other firms. The same law firm prepared and filed the Postpetition Fee Notice for Carrington.8
This is a contested matter under Rule 9014 to determine whether attorney's fees incurred postpetition in a chapter 13 case by a creditor holding a claim secured by a mortgage encumbering a debtor's principal residence are allowable under Rule 3002.1(e). Thus, this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) —allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate—and the court may enter a final order herein. Both parties have participated fully in the litigation of this matter without challenging the jurisdiction of this court to enter final orders and have thus consented to the same.
Rule 3002.1 was added to the Rules by the 2011 Amendments and provides a procedure for notice of payment changes in residential mortgage claims during the pendency of a chapter 13 case, and important to the court's decision in this matter, it also prescribes the procedure for a mortgage creditor to augment its claim to include the fees, expenses, and other charges incurred postpetition. As it pertains to the matter now before the court, Rule 3002.1 reads as follows:
Rule 3002.1 (emphasis added).
In re England , 586 B.R. 795, 799 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2018). The Debtor's Mortgage in this case provides in paragraph 14 that it "shall be governed by federal law and the law of the jurisdiction in which the Property is located." The Mortgaged Property is located in St. Clair County, Alabama.
The decisions by the Supreme Court of Alabama are long-standing and unequivocal: Provisions in mortgages that allow a mortgagee to recover attorney's fees incurred in connection with, inter alia , collecting the mortgage debt, foreclosure proceedings, and actions taken to protect the mortgagee's interest in the mortgaged property are valid and binding, and if the mortgage so provides, such fees are additional obligations secured by the mortgage. Johnson v. U.S. Mortg. Co. , 991 F.Supp. 1302, 1307 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (quoting Taylor v. Jones, 290 Ala. 268, 276 So.2d 130 (1973) (citing Hylton v. Cathey, 225 Ala. 605, 144 So. 579 (1932) ) ). If a mortgage allows attorney's fees to be charged, the fees must nonetheless be reasonable; reasonableness should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In re England , 586 B.R. at 800-01 ( ).10
The Note and Mortgage are on preprinted, fill-in-the-blank forms containing terms that apparently are prescribed by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for mortgages intended to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA").11 The provisions in the Mortgage that address expenses and disbursements paid by the mortgagee are found in paragraphs 7 and 8, and to the extent they are pertinent to this matter, read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Snow
...that plan review and the preparation and filing of a proof of claim did not justify an award of attorney's fees. In In re Mandeville , 596 B.R. 750 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2019), the court concluded that the preparation and filing of a long-term mortgage proof of claim is not an "inconsequential ......
-
In re Morris
...that plan review and the preparation and filing of a proof of claim did not justify an award of attorney's fees. In In re Mandeville , 596 B.R. 750 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2019), the court concluded that the preparation and filing of a long-term mortgage proof of claim is not an "inconsequential ......
-
Dees v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC
...of 1629(f)(1)").3 Plaintiffs argue that Johnson does not support this outcome and urge the Court to instead follow In re Mandeville , 596 B.R. 750 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2019), an Alabama bankruptcy court opinion. (D.E. 31, p. 15–18). The Court disagrees. Mandeville involved the question of whet......
-
Caldwell v. Freedom Mortg. Corp.
...does not support this outcome and urge the Court to instead follow In re Mandeville, an Alabama bankruptcy court opinion. 596 B.R. 750 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2019). The Court is unpersuaded. In re Mandeville involved the question whether the phrase "Lender may collect fees and charges authorized......