This matter is before the Court on the fee application of a Bank that is the holder of a first mortgage on the now-deceased Debtor’s real property. The Debtor’s case is being prosecuted by the Debtor’s estate, whose executrix is the Debtor’s daughter.
According to the Debtor’s schedules, the Property has a value of $320,000, which has not been challenged by any party. Also according to the Debtor’s schedules, the Bank was owed $48,396.31 at the time the Debtor filed her petition on November 21, 2015, a debt which obviously did not (and could not) include any fees or expenses owed to the Bank. The Bank filed an amended proof of claim for $63,744.53, which includes the fees and expenses that are the subject of this fee application. Using either amount, there is no dispute that the Bank is an oversecured creditor. As an oversecured creditor, the Bank is permitted to recover interest on its claim, and “any reasonable fees, costs or charges provided for under the agreement or State statute under which such claims arose.” 11 U.S.C. § 506(b).
The Bank’s fee application initially sought recovery of $15,143 in fees and $503.83 in expenses, for a total of $15,646.83. In a subsequent pleading, however, the Bank indicated it was seeking a total of $16,318.33. This breakdown is significant as it at least implicitly acknowledges the applicability and potential effect of FED. R. BANKR. P. 3002.1, which is a primary basis of Debtor’s opposition. Debtor also objects to the reasonableness of the fees sought by the Bank generally as not being allowed under the loan documents and disproportionate to the amount owed and specifically as being excessive, duplicative and/or unnecessary. Those objections and the Bank’s responses are addressed below.
Log In to READ MORE