In re: v. Kalliopi Makris
482 F. App'x 695
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Makris’ mortgage with Amboy; Note includes a fee clause enabling Amboy to recover costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in enforcing the Note.
- Makris defaulted in 2000 and 2002; Amboy amended the Note and obtained an additional security interest via Levine’s personal guaranty (Makris not a signatory).
- Levine engaged in numerous frivolous actions against Amboy to resist collection; Amboy accumulated substantial fees in Levine litigation.
- Makris filed Chapter 13 in 2003; Amboy sought $71,212 in fees and costs in 2005, later reflected in a $172,706 lien after allocation adjustments.
- On remand, Amboy sought about $92,614 in fees, including substantial fees-on-fees; the Bankruptcy Court awarded Makris $54,093.75 and the district court affirmed, which Makris challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee award complies with the Note’s limitation, i.e., “in enforcing this Note.” | Makris argues fees-on-fees and Levine-related fees were not incurred in enforcing the Note. | Amboy contends the fee provision is broad and covers any reasonable actions enforcing the Note. | No; fees-on-fees and Levine fees are not within enforcing the Note. |
| Whether Amboy’s miscellaneous post-claim fees were recoverable under the Note. | Makris claims post-claim costs were not required for enforcing the Note. | Amboy asserts some miscellaneous charges arise from enforcement actions. | Remand to determine which miscellaneous services were provided in enforcing the Note. |
| Whether the district court should vacate or adjust the fee amount on remand. | Makris contends the award exceeds contractual limits. | Amboy maintains the award aligns with the Note. | Vacate and remand for a proper fee determination consistent with the Note. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (allowable fees under §506(b) only when contract or statute supports)
- Medtronic AVE, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 247 F.3d 44 (3d Cir. 2001) (contract interpretation reviewed de novo; plain meaning governs)
- Am. Legacy Found., RP v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 623 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2010) (contract interpretation and fee-shifting principles)