IN THE MATTER OF GREGORY BYNNER JONES, SR., BANKRUPT

5th Cir. | 1982-01-04
No. 81-3322
665 F.2d 60 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents the question whether an attorney for the bankrupt is entitled to compensation out of the bankrupt estate for services rendered to the bankrupt in defeating the oppositions to discharge filed by several creditors.

The trial court held that attorneys’ fees for such services are not payable out of the estate.

We agree. Because the bankruptcy at issue in this appeal was filed prior to the effective date of the new bankruptcy code, prior law applies. Under the terms of the previous Bankruptcy Act, attorneys’ fees are allowed only to compensate for professional services rendered in connection with the preservation of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 104(a)(1), repealed October 1, 1979. The granting or denial of a discharge is personal to the bankrupt and has nothing to do with the preservation of the estate. This court has stated that “legal services designed to benefit the bankrupt personally may not be compensable out of the estate.” In Re Orbit Liquor Store, 439 F. 2d 1351, 1354 (5th Cir. 1971).

The Second and Tenth Circuits have specifically held that attorneys’ fees related to defending against objections to the discharge are not payable out of the estate. In Re Rothman, 85 F. 2d 51 (2d Cir. 1936), Lewis v. Fitzgerald, 295 F. 2d 877, 879 (10th Cir. 1961).

This view is hereby adopted as the rule of the Fifth Circuit.

AFFIRMED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In re Duque, 48 B.R. 965 (S.D. Fla. 1984)
    …ered in preserving the debtor's discharge were for the purposes of exercising a personal privilege of the debtor rather than performing legal duties. Attorneys' fees in defending such actions are not compensable from the estate. See Matter of Jones, 665 F.2d 60 (5th Cir.1982); Lewis v. Fitzgerald, 295 F.2d 877 (10th Cir.1961); In re Rothman, 85 F.2d 51 (2d Cir.1936); In re Epstein, 39 B.R. 938, 11 B.C.D. 1280 (Bkrtcy.D.N.M.1984); but see Matter of Gray, 7 C.B.C. 571 (1975). It is Shawmut's position that th…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw