UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rochel Miriam Muskal CASE NO.: 19-23429-MAM

Chapter 13

Debtor

OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF POST-PETITION 

MORTGAGE FEES, EXPENSES AND CHARGES 

Debtor, Rochel Miriam Muskal, by and though undersigned counsel, files this Objection to 

Notice of Post-Petition Mortgage Fees Expenses and Charges and in support thereof states as 

follows:

Previous Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses and Charges

1. A Notice of Post-Petition Mortgage Fees, Expenses and Charges was filed on March

16, 2020, by U.S. Bank National Association (“Creditor”). 

2. The Debtor’s First Amended Plan was confirmed on March 19, 2020 [ECF No. 34]. The 

Debtor proposes to cure and maintain the Creditor’s Claim. 

3. A Notice of Post-Petition Fees filed by the Creditor alleges a Proof of Claim fees in the 

amount of $600.00, Plan Review Fee of $350.00 and a 401A fee of $250.00 for a total 

of $1,200.00 in post-petition fees.

4. On May 5, 2020, Debtor filed an Objection to the post-petition fees. The parties 

entered into an agreement and on June 17, 2020, an Agreed Order on post-petition

fees was entered [ECF 50].

 Current Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses and Charges

5. On January 17, 2023, Creditor filed a third Notice of Postpetition fees in the amount 

of $400.00 for a “plan review”. The Notice does not itemize the Creditor’s time in 

reviewing the plan, the Notice does not state who reviewed the plan nor which plan 

was reviewed. 

6. Debtor asserts that the post-petition fees of $400.00, in addition to the post-petition 

fees already incurred, is excessive and should be disallowed and removed from 

Debtor’s mortgage balance. The court in In re Porter, 399 B.R. 113, 119 (Bankr. D.N.H. 

2008) analyzed the nature of post-petition fees concluding that: 

Case 19-23429-MAM Doc 80 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 3
Many bankruptcy courts have held under analogous 

circumstances that simple tasks like reviewing numbers and 

filing in pre-printed, readily available blank forms as part of 

bankruptcy proceedings are costs best borne by creditors 

themselves, and should not be imposed on debtors via 

attorneys’ fees. Cf. In re Madison, 337 B.R. 99, 105 (Bankr. N.D. 

Miss. 2006) (finding that preparing and filing a proof of claim is 

“ministerial in nature” for which no attorneys’ fees should be 

allowed); In re Staggie, 255 B.R. 48, 56 & n.6 (Bankr. D. Idaho 

2000) (noting that preparing a proof of claim is a task better left 

to the creditors’ own staff and that it is “not unreasonable to 

expect the creditor’s own staff to fill in the blanks of the form for

a proof of claim, or to complete a loan payoff statement”).

7. Debtor asserts that charging an additional $400.00 in fees for filing a proof of claim 

and reviewing a plan with one secured creditor, whose claim is being paid in full, is 

an additional and unjust burden, on the Debtor who is curing the pre-petition default. 

As with In re Jaramillo, No. 09-33957 (Bankr. S.D. Fla March 1, 2010), the court found 

no justification for the creditor “incurring any fees in this case to protect its interest 

as the mortgage is admittedly non-modifiable and otherwise unaffected by this 

bankruptcy case”. Debtor maintains there is no justification for the Creditor to charge

an additional $400.00 in post-petition fees and that such fees should be stricken. 

8. The undersigned counsel requests attorney fees and cost as a result of filing this 

Motion, pursuant to the Mortgage’s attorney’s fees provision. 

WHEREFORE, the Debtor, Rochel Miriam Muskal, prays that this Honorable Court 

sustain the instant Objection to the Notice of Post-Petition Mortgage Fees, Expenses and 

Charges filed on January 17, 2023, award attorney’s fees and cost to be paid by the Creditor 

and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District court for 

the Southern District of Florida and am in compliance with the additional qualifications to 

practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A). 

Dated February 9, 2023

Submitted by:

Submitted by:

/s/ Rachamin Cohen

Rachamin “Rocky” Cohen, Esq.

Attorney for Debtor

Case 19-23429-MAM Doc 80 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 3
Florida Bar No. 96305

Cohen Legal Services, PA

1801 NE 123rd Street, Suite 314

North Miami, FL 33181

Telephone: 305-570-2326

Email: rocky@lawcls.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing and the 

accompanied Notice of Hearing has been forwarded by CM/ECF to Robin Weiner, Trustee, 

and all additional parties below, this 9th day of February 2023.

Wanda D Murray ecfflsb@aldridgepite.com, 

Office of the US Trustee USTPRegion21.MM.ECF@usdoj.gov 

Robin R Weiner ecf@ch13weiner.com;ecf2@ch13weiner.com

Melbalynn Fisher mfisher@ghidottiberger.com

I certify that on February 9, 2023, I have mailed via first-class mail, postage prepaid, 

the documents electronically filed with the Court on the additional parties listed below. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida and am in compliance with the additional qualifications 

to practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A).

Submitted by:

/s/ Rachamin Cohen

Rachamin “Rocky” Cohen, Esq.

Attorney for Debtor

Florida Bar No. 96305

Cohen Legal Services, PA

1801 NE 123rd Street, Suite 314

North Miami, FL 33181

Telephone: 305-570-2326

Email: rocky@lawcls.com

VIA USPS:

SN Servicing Corp

323 5

th Street

Eureka, CA 95501

Case 19-23429-MAM Doc 80 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 3