Stephanie Veluz, 14-20101

Debtor filed a barebones Chapter 13 petition electronically on May 19, 2014; many required schedules and documents were not timely filed and were completed only after extensions.
The petition bore a handwritten signature purporting to be the Debtor’s; at the §341 meeting the Debtor testified she never signed it and had never met counsel in person.
Debtor paid counsel John W. King $4,500 (plus a later $2,500 payment for loan-modification work); King electronically filed the petition and schedules but admitted he never obtained the Debtor’s original signatures and that he signed the petition on the Debtor’s behalf.
King asserted authority to sign under a power-of-attorney clause in the retainer; Debtor said she knew of the clause but did not fully understand its scope.
The U.S. Trustee moved to disgorge King’s fees under 11 U.S.C. § 329(b); the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee joined; the court held a hearing and found multiple rule violations.
The court concluded King violated Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1008 and 9011, failed to carry his burden to show fee reasonableness, and ordered disgorgement of $4,500 to the Debtor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S. Trustee)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Whether petition and schedules were properly verified	Petition was unsigned by Debtor; signatures were forged or falsely represented	King claimed Debtor authorized him and retainer contained POA	Court: Debtor must sign; local rule requires original or /s/ form; King violated Rule 1008
Whether attorney may sign petition under power of attorney	Use of POA was improper because debtor did not personally verify; signing misleads court	King relied on verbal authorization and retainer POA clause	Court: POA use without disclosure/extraordinary circumstances is improper; must be indicated and supported; King’s conduct unacceptable
Whether filing unsigned verification violated Rule 9011	Filing lacked debtor verification and independent evidentiary basis	King argued he had authority and reviewed facts with Debtor	Court: Rule 9011 violated—no evidentiary support because King lacked personal knowledge and Debtor did not verify under oath
Whether fees should be disgorged under 11 U.S.C. § 329(b)	Fees were unreasonable given procedural violations, delay, failure to appear, and limited benefit	King argued fees reasonable given case complexity and work on loan-modification	Court: Attorney failed to prove reasonableness; conduct and limited benefit warranted disgorgement of $4,500

In re Hurford, 290 B.R. 299 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2003) (courts reluctant to permit non-debtor filing by POA absent extraordinary circumstances)
In re Rose, 422 B.R. 896 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010) (debtor must sign petition)
In re Stromberg, 487 B.R. 775 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2013) (petition and schedules must be signed by debtor to verify accuracy)
In re Wenk, 296 B.R. 719 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2002) (electronic filing requires practitioner to possess originally executed petition signed by debtor)
In re Phillips, 317 B.R. 518 (BAP 8th Cir. 2004) (unsigned petition lacks verification and evidentiary support under Rule 9011)
In re Harrison, 158 B.R. 246 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993) (POA does not transfer personal knowledge required to verify facts under oath)
In re Raymond, 12 B.R. 906 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1981) (bankruptcy petition is a personal action that generally should be filed by the debtor)
In re Hurt, 234 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) (conditions when attorney-in-fact may sign: indicate representative capacity, file POA, appear at §341, notify principal)
In re Ostas, 158 B.R. 312 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) (attorney bears burden to prove fee reasonableness under § 329)