Wehrwein v. Roach (In re Kerr)Wehrwein v. Roach (In re Kerr)
DECISION
This adversary proceeding is round two of a dispute between debtors’ counsel and the chapter 7 trustee in the debtors’ subsequent case, regarding who is entitled to the funds held by the chapter 13 trustee in this case. Matter of Kerr, Case No. 15-12515, Decision and Order dated Sept. 15, 2016. The debtors filed a case under chapter 13 on October 28, 2015, which was dismissed at their request on April 12, 2016. See,
The answer to the parties’ debate is largely a matter of statutory construction, which starts with
Both
When the language of the statute is clear, all that remains to be done is to
The trustee also argues that counsel’s claim is barred by laches. It is one of the arguments he unsuccessfully made in opposition to counsel’s application for fees. See, Matter of Kerr, Case No. 15-12515, Trustee’s Brief, filed Aug. 22, 2016, pp. 2-3. Laches can rarely be invoked where, as here, there was a specific deadline by which something had to be done, Cf., Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, — U.S. -,
Out of the funds deposited with the clerk of the court in this case, $4,527.17 shall be paid to the Plaintiff, Fred Wehr-wein. The remainder shall be paid to the Defendant, Dustin Roach, Trustee in Case No. 16-10830. Plaintiff may recover his costs.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Notes
. If debtors’ counsel is correct, he will be paid in full for his services in the chapter 13 before anything is paid to the chapter 7 trustee. If the chapter 7 trustee is correct, he will receive all of the funds in question and debtors' counsel may file a claim in the chapter 7 case, as a general unsecured creditor, for his unpaid fees, to share whatever might be available with other creditors.
. As the holder of the funds in question, the chapter 13 trustee was originally named as a defendant, but she claimed no interest in them. As a result, at the initial scheduling conference, it was agreed by all that she could deposit the disputed funds with the clerk of the court and, upon doing so, be dismissed as a party, without further notice. See, Order dated March 24, 2017. That has been done.