Robb v. Harder (In re Robb)Robb v. Harder (In re Robb)
The debtor appeals from an order of the bankruptcy court
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2014, Jessica Lynn Robb filed a petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Janice Harder was appointed the trustee. Following the meeting of creditors, Harder discovered a defect in the deed of trust sеcuring the debt associated with the debtor’s home. Once the debtor found out about the defect she quickly made a motion to cоnvert her case to one under chapter 13. The court granted the motion and the case was converted on June 24, 2014.
The modеl chapter 13 plan for the Western District of Missouri provides for six different treatments of non-priority unsecured creditors, including: 100% dividend, 0% dividend, base plan, liquidation analysis pot, 60-month disposable income pot and 36-month disposable income pot. The plan instructs the debtor to choose one type of treatment. On September 10, 2014, the debtor filed a liquidation analysis pot plan
Harder filed a рroof of claim in the amount of $450 in the debtor’s chapter 13 case. She described her claim as an unsecured priority claim for “time spent by trustee in examining documents regarding avoidance of lien, preparing objection to homestead exemption, and filing objection to conversion to chapter 13 case, and tracking debtors’ [sic] conversion to chapter 13.” The debtоr objected to the claim. She argued that trustee compensation is subject to 11 U.S.C. § 326 and because Harder did not disburse any moneys рrior to conversion she was not entitled to payment under the Bankruptcy Code
Following a hearing, the bankruptcy court overruled the objection and allowed the claim holding that § 326(a) is not the only method of compensation for a trustee. According to thе bankruptcy court, allowing the claim despite that fact that no •money was distributed encourages trustees to be diligent in looking for аssets and also discourages debtors from concealing assets. The debtor appeals. JURISDICTION
Though neither party has raised the issuе, we have an independent duty to
Appellate standing in a bankruptcy appeal is narrower than Article III standing or ordinary prudential standing. Sears v. Badami (In re AFY),
“Typically, a debtor has no standing to object to claims or orders relating to them because the debtor doеs not have a pecuniary interest in the distribution of the assets of the estate. This is because an objection to a propоsed distribution only affects how much each creditor will receive and does not affect the debt- or’s rights.” Kieffer v. Riske (In re Kieffer-Mickes),
In this case, the debtor’s May 23, 2014 plan was a liquidation analysis pot plan. It requires her to pay the trustee $590.00 per month for the duration of the plan. The trustee makes prescribed payments for attorney’s fees, other priority creditors, a student loan creditor and a secured creditor. What is left goes to the non-priority unsecured creditors pro rata. Under this particular treatmеnt of non-priority unsecured creditors, the amount of money distributed to creditors may be affected by the payment of other claims. See e.g., In re Donahue,
The debtor has failed to satisfy her burden as she has not pled or shown any facts establishing that the bankruptcy court’s order diminished her property, increased her burdens, or impaired her rights. If the debtor had made an independent showing that all creditors would be paid in full and the length of the plan could have been shortened, then it is possible that she would have been an aggrieved party.
The requirement of standing is an indispensable part of the debtor’s objeсtion. Because the debtor was not aggrieved by the bankruptcy court’s order,
Notes
. The Honorable Dennis R. Dow, United States Bankruptcy Judge fоr the Western District of Missouri.
. The model plan states that the liquidation analysis pot "shall first be used to satisfy pre-confirmation debtor’s attorney's fees being paid from the plan payments and filed and allowed priority claims. Any funds remaining in the LAP after the satisfaction of thosе claims shall be paid to filed and allowed non-priority unsecured claims. If the LAP is less than or equal to the sum of the pre-confirmation debtor’s attorney’s fees being paid from the plan payments and the filed and allowed priority claims, the filed and allowed non-priority unsecured claims shall receive zero percent (0%), unless the plan runs short of the applicable commitment period ...”
.Section 326(a) provides, "[i]n a case under chapter 7 or 11, the court may allow reasonable compensation under section 330 of this title of the trustee for the trustee’s services, payable after the trustee renders such service, not to exceеd 25 percent on the first $5,000 or less, 10 percent on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in, excess of $50,000, 5 percent on any amount in excеss of $50,000 but not in excess of $1,000,000, and reasonable compensation not to exceed 3 percent of such moneys in excess of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned over in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding the debtor, but including holders of secured claims.”