Hansler v. Potter ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________________
No. 99-40011
Summary Calendar
_______________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF: Joseph A. Hansler, doing
business as Automated Services, Inc.,
Debtor.
JOSEPH A. HANSLER,
Appellant,
versus
ALLEN L. POTTER,
Appellee.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(96-20848-C-13)
_____________________________________________
November 26, 1999
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This appeal presents one issue: Whether the bankruptcy court
had jurisdiction to approve and disburse attorney’s fees to Allan
Potter (“Potter”) after Chapter 13 debtor Joseph Hansler (“debtor”)
exercised his right to dismiss the proceeding. We hold that it
did.
The debtor invoked his right to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. §
1307(b) on August 13, 1997. Twelve days later, on August 25,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Potter, the debtor’s former attorney who had represented the debtor
in his Chapter 13 proceeding, filed a motion with the bankruptcy
court to reconsider its August 13 order dismissing the case. The
sole purpose of the motion was to get the court to approve and the
trustee to disburse attorney’s fees. Eventually, this disbursement
was funded in part by the trustee’s recovery of funds that had been
erroneously disbursed to another creditor. The Code expressly
provide that the debtor’s attorney can apply to the court, and the
court may approve, compensation for services rendered to the
estate.2
Like other courts that have considered this issue, we hold
that dismissal of a Chapter 13 proceeding “does not result in the
bankruptcy court losing jurisdiction to consider the allowance of
attorney fees to Debtor’s counsel.”1 Moreover, until the estate is
fully administered and the court has discharged the trustee, the
trustee has the power, inter alia, to correct errors made during
the administration process.2 Although the debtor’s § 1307(b)
dismissal may have precluded the bankruptcy court from taking other
actions, the court had jurisdiction to approve and disburse
attorney’s fees to Potter.
2
See 11 U.S.C. §§ 330, 331.
1
In re Harshbarger, 205 B.R. 109 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996)
(quoting In re Fricker, 131 B.R. 932, 938 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991));
see also In re Lawson, 156 B.R. 43, 46-47 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1993),
aff’d 999 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that court had
jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees even after the bankruptcy was
dismissed).
2
11 U.S.C. § 350; cf. Lathorp v. Meyer (In re Helena B.
Lathorp), 49 B.R. 885, 887 (1985).
2
As our holding on this point resolves this appeal, we need not
address other issues raised by the parties. The judgment of the
bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.
3