In Re Richard H. Reimers and Jeanne R. Reimers, Debtors. Claude Pitrat, Trustee W.J. Giles, III v. Richard H. Reimers Jeanne R. Reimers

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 11495·972 F.2d 1127·23 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 591·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19124·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7119
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 19, 199288-15608California716 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Trustee Claude Pitrat and W.J. Giles, special counsel to the trustee, appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order authorizing compensation to Giles. Pitrat and Giles argue that the bankruptcy court erred in refusing to allow compensation in accord with a contingent fee arrangement agreed to by them and approved by the bankruptcy court at the time of the agreement. Instead, when Pi-trat petitioned for authorization to pay the fees, the bankruptcy court awarded substantially reduced compensation.

Because the bankruptcy court did not apply the correct law in determining the fee, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

In September, 1983, Claude Pitrat, trustee for the estate of debtor Richard Reim-ers, requested the bankruptcy court’s permission to employ W.J. Giles as special counsel to prosecute a fraud claim in Iowa. The fee agreement between the trustee and Giles provided that Giles would be awarded compensation of 40% of the amount he recovered for the estate. The bankruptcy court approved the employment and fee agreement in an order dated November 15, 1983.

Giles succeeded in recovering $37,871.30 for the estate on the claim. In August, 1986, the trustee filed an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.