Sikes v. Crager (In Re Crager), 691 F.3d 671

Crager is unemployed with monthly Social Security of $1,060 and $16 in food stamps; her main asset is a $55,000 home with a $40,662 mortgage and $327.10 monthly payments.
Crager has about $7,855 in credit-card debt and $197 in minimum monthly payments; she was current on mortgage and credit-card payments pre-petition.
Crager filed Chapter 13 to avoid long Chapter 7 costs and stay on her credit report, with attorney advances of court costs ($274).
After filing, the Trustee objected to confirmation for lack of good faith and reasonableness of attorney’s fees; the bankruptcy court overruled the objection and confirmed the plan and fees.
The district court reversed, ordering remand to find bad faith; Crager appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s confirmation, addressing good-faith standards and the no-look attorney-fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Good faith under §1325(a)(3) and (7)	Trustee contends Crager’s plan is filed in bad faith as a vehicle to pay her attorney largely at creditors’ expense.	Crager argues the plan reflects reasonable, individualized decisionmaking in light of her circumstances.	Plan filed in good faith; not a per se bad-faith result.
Jurisdiction/finality of the district court order	Crager appeals a district-court ruling that was not a final order under §158(d) or §1291.	District ruling resolved a discrete dispute; final order for purposes of appellate review.	Court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s final order.
Reasonableness of no-look attorney fee under §330 and Standing Order	Trustee objects to the no-look $2,800 fee as inconsistent with the case’s purported simplicity.	Bankruptcy court properly applied Standing Order and §330 factors; fee reasonable given case complexity.	No-look fee is reasonable under the circumstances.
Standard of review and the district court’s authority	Standard of review and whether the district court correctly applied law to the facts.	Bankruptcy court’s factual findings deserve deference; mixed question of law reviewed de novo.	We apply the usual standards: clear-error review of factual findings and de novo review of questions of law.

Bartee v. Tara Colony Homeowners Ass’n (In re Bartee), 212 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2000) (final-determination standard for bankruptcy-appeal jurisdiction; §158(d))
In re Dennis, 330 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for determining good faith and fees in bankruptcy matters)
In re Evangeline Ref. Co., 890 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1989) (context of good-faith considerations in Chapter 13)
ProEducation Int'l., Inc. (Kennedy v. Mindprint), 587 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2009) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to Chapter 13 filings)
In re Jacobsen, 609 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2010) (guidance on credibility and factual-finding in bankruptcy cases)