listen and heard some of the argument over standing in the earlier case and i have serious questions about the debtors standing in this case to object to this administrative expense how does that the allowance or not or bill known as we would experience or just a general unsecured claim the terms of the debtors proposed plan call for payment of one hundred percent of all allowed and file claims so this is a direct economic impact to the debtor in that she will be responsible for paying this claim through her chapter thirteen plan in addition to the amount of the pot or out of the pot believe the confirm plan as i recall called for payment of one hundred percent of all filed and allowed claims that if i am mistaken about that then the treatment of the administrative administrative nature of the claim as a child will be paid one hundred percent for some reason i did not make a paper copy of it but i guess that's certainly my memory but i looked at the plan and it was the one i would call and it was on a pop plan the details are just making monthly payments to the trustee and then he's speaking to pro rata distribution to creditors i have to confess i dissipate this line of questioning but i will nobody expects the position very true there was a an amendment of the plan and possibly even after the filing of this case that calls for i believe in the gauche ations with the chapter thirteen trustee we amended the plan to provide four hundred percent of the lab claims just because there weren't that many unsecured claims that were filed in the case but regardless of the treatment of the unsecured this claim of purports to be an administrative expense claim and therefore under our model plan would be paid one hundred percent but if it was paid one hundred percent then that just would mean that the secured creditors would get a smaller amount it doesn't mean necessarily that your client would have to pay more that was that would be true your honor the ministry of expenses would be paid at the expense of the unsecured so if it turns out to be a pot plant this i your claims and yes i believe there could be an issue i would concede that point if this is just went down and treated just as everyone else or paid before what would otherwise be paid then yes i would agree with that assertion other than the nature of the confirmed chapter thirteen play and i don't believe the facts in this case are very much in dispute between the parties janice i'm sorry my client just a chapter seven bankruptcy case with the u s bankruptcy court for the western district of missouri in march of two thousand and fourteen that case was subsequently converted to a chapter thirteen case the reason for the conversion was that at following the section three forty one meeting of creditors the chapter seven trustee janice harder discovered a defect in the dead horse deed of trust that made it subject to avoidance she notified of the her of her intention to avoid that lien and the debtor filed her motion to convert to chapter thirteen and that motion was granted after the case was converted chapter thirteen the former chapter seven trustee at this point filed her administrative expense claim seeking seek authority to employ herself as counsel for as an attorney for the chapter seven trustee or any other attorney for the chapter seven trustee nor did she collect or disperse any money or property to any parties denying the debtors objection to the client allowing the client the better than timely filed her appeal in this appeal let me let me go back to the reason for the conversion it sounds like all of this happened relatively early in the case and your client converted to the thirteen was that in an effort to preserve the preference transfer that so that the transfer would not be sued by the chapter seven it was motivated by a desire to keep her home home would be subject to liquidation if the lane was avoided the chapter seven trustee would have the right to liquidate the home as it exceeded the missouri homestead exemption of fifteen thousand faced the consequence of losing her home so let's talk about the basis of the objection to the claim three twenty six the mathematical computation the eighteen anything time zero zero right for us yes that statute begins with any case under chapter seven or a lot of it right correct the trustees compensation shall be calculated as seven case while her case was a chapter seven so the the basis of the claim is that she did work as a chapter seven trustee so we believe that section three twenty six while the case was a chapter seven it would apply to create a limit on the amount of her compensation relevant portion of the statute would be the first step in the latter the compensation shall not exceed twenty five are i'm sorry yes twenty five percent of the first five thousand dollars dispersed by the trustee on this case the trustee getting disbursed anything to any body so there is a compensation amount is capped at zero which is really the crux of the case i believe is whether this scheme can three twenty six can create a cap that  is the room and by its plain language that compensation shall not exceed twenty five percent of the first five thousand dollars it does  don't think there's much debate about that amongst bankruptcy practitioners that this sixty dollar fee is an adequate it's it is a harsh result for a trustee to spend three hours of the investigation and work in legal time and not be compensated for that rather than the sixty dollar flat fee but that's the situation that congress has created with these statutes the courts of the opinion cited by ms harder in our brief seek to circumvent that to get to a result well and interesting that you should use the term circumstance because when i read the transcript it appears that the chapter thirteen christie did not take a position to enforce tax code provision and the us trustee specifically said we don't you know think we're not taking a position we don't ever object to these things they put the burden on your client to do so i guess i i i'm i'm certain why they are why they are circumventing their duties  you know that might be a better question for the chapter thirteen kristie but as far as the u s trustees the u s trustees as the court is aware of ministers that the panel trustees in chapter seven i think has an interest in looking out for them to that has added this specific provision that the trustees compensation should be treated as a commission that's correct your honor which i think furthers the point that there are multiple sections in three thirty that specifically incorporate three twenty six and then there's the language that was added that says that this is a commission well and a commission based scheme if you don't so well so if you don't just burst the property if you don't have a pot of money to take a percentage of there's no feet but looks like you're in to your rebuttal time do you wish to reserve the rest absent any further questions from the court i reserve the rest of my time  cases where the debtor has converted however the debtor i do not believe will receive will be affected whatsoever by my receiving my four hundred fifty dollar fee and the amount paid by the debtor into the chapter thirteen trusts chapter thirteen plan will be the same regardless so he says and there are several minutes and there was an amendment i looked at the doctor and i don't and i think that's twenty eight thousand so we're really going outside the record right but regardless i don't think that whether it's a pot plant or hundred percent planned i don't think that that he would hit the debt or is going to pay less if i'm not paid my four hundred fifty dollars i think it's going to come out of whatever and once it's a pot plan if the empty claims aren't enough to you know your claim would be akin to that they'd have to pay an extra four hundred dollars or would have to pay your claim and then pay the general unsecured creditors on a percent of their claims if you're claim was knocked out that's four hundred or four hundred dollars to him ok well my understanding is that the debtor can be ordered to pay a hundred percent if the amount of the pot is large enough that the claims that are filed are less than that speculating ok and the second issue i wanted to address was judge saudi knows question regarding three twenty six a which does say that it applies to a case under chapter too many but that is a good point because if that's the case then three twenty six a does not apply in this case but three thirty still could pull apart because it does say a trustee but you're not to interview well really going to  that but my main point is the two points that i think judge dowd did decide this case on number one which is there is nothing in the statute that prevents the chapter seven trustee from being paid in a said it's very arguable and he does not agree with the cases that say otherwise that that the plain meaning of the statute doesn't get us to the situation where the chapter seven trustee can be paid he says it's not entirely clear if some of the courts have said that section three twenty six a was intended to apply to anything other than fully administer cases and i think you can read that statute first of all you read the part that says the court may allow reasonable compensation for the services provided by the trustee after the services have provided then it goes on and limits it to a certain amount of money that's been paid but it doesn't say that is the only situation but i think that statute says this the trustee can be paid a reasonable amount and if money is paid out it is a commission which is in it's been added to another statute which is pain based on percentage i think they simply are on that one of the problems with that it just says too much supposed to leave aside the conversion was just a chapter seven case and you spent a lot of time and you said you know what i'm not going the three thirty route and the three twenty six i'm just going to apply because it doesn't i'm not limited to that judge dollar says i'm going to file and ask for lots more because judge dahl says that's not the only way for trustees to get paid i'm going to ask for more than the three thirty three twenty six allows me well i  to allow anything that's unreasonable so they can't exceed the percentage you're saying but they can reduce it i mean is anything about the percentage in the statute per se and reasonable since yeah if no funds are distributed in my opinion it's a reasonable amount if there are reasonable amount is more than that i guess a theory small amount but i don't think in most situations there is the moment it's going to be it's usually going to be a quantum merrit me judge dollar says that's not the only way to get compensated so i'm going to ask for more well i think judge dow saying in a bully administered case you do go by the commission that set out the percentages and that would be the and i agree with his argument true and i think that's you know he was then targeting section three twenty six a and i would agree with that interpretation and i think that's an interpolation that other courts have also agreed with but about it was a bankruptcy ok i'm not remembering it either says i but but i would also point out the public policy argument that i also wanted to make that i think judge also made as did the united states trustee in the case because we want to encourage trustees to pursue whatever assets there are this is a valuable asset but for my efforts and realizing that there was a defect in this mortgage and this deed of trust which could be set aside which i don't think anyone is disputing but for that the creditors would receive nothing in this case and i think we want to encourage trustees to pursue assets and take whatever steps they can do to see if there are assets to pay the unsecured creditors in the case which i think is the one of the main jobs o chapter seven trustee so that is my argument that based upon the wording of the statute it does not in any any specific way prohibit a trustee chapter seven trustee from being paid when the case converts to a chapter thirteen and also the public policy argument that encourages trustee to pursue assets  statutory confines of the bankruptcy code unfortunately section three thirty in section three twenty six to apply this case section to the trustees position seems to be that well the statute doesn't say i can't do this why actually does section three twenty six says the compensation for tab seven trustee shall not exceed twenty five percent of the first five thousand dollars for an entity dollars exceeds twenty five percent of zero and that is why  mentioned anywhere by the trustee in her brief or raised to the extent that there is some overarching equitable power in the court it would be found under section one hundred five well the supreme court last  section three thirty and section three twenty six by relying on some common law or extra statutory authority to see this claim  claim they only power the court would have to do that would be under one of five and the us supreme court has made it very clear that that's not to be allowed as a end run around other statutory provisions i'm running low on time one last