TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Gregory Bynner JONES, Sr., Bankrupt

Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,506 in the Matter of Gregory Bynner Jones, Sr., Bankrupt

In re Gregory Bynner JONES, Sr., Bankrupt, 665 F.2d 60 (5th Cir. 1982)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 4, 1982
Docket
No. 81-3322
Judges
Gee, Garza, Tate
Citations
665 F.2d 601982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22891

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal presents the question wheth- zr an attorney for the bankrupt is entitled :o 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for professional services rendered in connection with the preserva-, tion of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a)(1), repealed October 1, 1979.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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 37 cases

View all citing references →
1982: 11983: 11984: 41985: 21986: 31987: 41988: 71989: 41991: 11992: 51994: 21997: 12019: 12025: 119822026peak 1988 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Office Products of America, Inc.136 B.R. 983 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1992)
  2. In re Kingsbury146 B.R. 581 (Bankr. D. Me. 1992)
  3. In re Chapel Gate Apartments, Ltd.64 B.R. 569 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1986)
  4. In re Taylor66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986)
  5. Wootton v. Ravkind (In re Dixon)143 B.R. 671 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1992)
  6. In re Ryan82 B.R. 929 (N.D. Ill. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Todd Benjamin SchlomerNo. 24-10999 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2025)
  2. Victor P. KearneyNo. 17-12274 (Bankr. D.N.M. Oct. 24, 2019)
  3. In re Rancourt207 B.R. 338 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1997)
  4. In re Dawson180 B.R. 478 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1994)
  5. Mayer, Glassman & Gaines v. Washam (In re Hanson)94 Daily Journal DAR 15260 (9th Cir. BAP 1994)
  6. In re Kingsbury146 B.R. 581 (Bankr. D. Me. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Lewis v. Fitzgerald, 295 F.2d 877 (10th Cir. 1961) 21
In re Rothman, 85 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1936) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list