57 F.4th 1129
10th Cir.2023Background
- Debtor Daniel Doll filed Chapter 13 and made $29,900 in pre-confirmation plan payments to the standing trustee before his proposed plans were repeatedly denied and the case dismissed.
- From those payments the trustee paid attorney fees and taxes and retained $2,596.70 as the trustee’s percentage fee.
- Statutory framework: 28 U.S.C. § 586(e)(2) directs standing trustees to “collect” a percentage fee from plan payments; 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) requires debtors to make pre-confirmation payments and § 1326(a)(2) requires the trustee to retain those payments until confirmation and to return them if a plan is not confirmed.
- Central dispute: whether a Chapter 13 standing trustee may deduct and keep his percentage fee from pre-confirmation payments when no plan is confirmed, or must return the full amount to the debtor.
- Procedural posture: bankruptcy court denied disgorgement; district court reversed, ordering return of the trustee fee; Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Chapter 13 standing trustee may retain his percentage fee from pre-confirmation payments when no plan is confirmed | Doll: §1326(a)(2) requires return of pre-confirmation payments to debtor; trustee may not deduct fee | Trustee: §586(e)(2) says trustee “shall collect” fee from all plan payments, and §1326(b)(2)/Trustee Handbook imply fee is paid on receipt | Court: Held for Doll — §1326(a)(2) read with §586(e)(2) unambiguously requires return of pre-confirmation payments in full when no plan is confirmed (trustee may not keep fee) |
| Whether §1326(b)(2) supports payment of trustee fee on receipt of pre-confirmation payments | Doll: §1326(b) applies only to payments under a confirmed plan | Trustee: §1326(b)(2) requires fee payment “before or at the time of each payment to creditors” so fee is due on receipt | Court: §1326(b) contemplates payments under a confirmed plan; it does not authorize retention of fee if plan is not confirmed |
| Whether deference to the Chapter 13 Trustee Handbook supports trustee retention | Doll: statutory text controls; handbook not persuasive | Trustee: Handbook treats fee collection on receipt as permissible and requests deference | Court: Because statutes are unambiguous, no deference to handbook; even if relevant, the handbook lacks strong persuasive power (Christensen/Skidmore principles) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (statutory language must receive its plain meaning)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (give statute its natural reading)
- Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (statutory meaning informed by context)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (inclusion/exclusion canon: disparate language presumed intentional)
- Liu v. S.E.C., 140 S. Ct. 1936 (courts should give effect to every clause and word of a statute)
- Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (agency manuals and policy statements do not merit Chevron deference)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (agency interpretations entitled to respect to the extent they are persuasive)
- In re BDT Farms, 21 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir.) (addressed ambiguity in §586(e)(2) for fee calculation, distinguished here)