Mantiply v. Horne et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 69 Motion for Attorney Fees; terminating 71 Motion. Signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Butler, Jr on 4/8/2014. (adk)

Download PDF
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT  FOR  THE   SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  ALABAMA   SOUTHERN  DIVISION     In  Re:             )                 )   RICHARD  D.  HORNE  and         )   PATRICIA  NELSON  HORNE,       )               )       Debtors,       )               )   MARY  BETH  MANTIPLY,       )               )   CIVIL  ACTION  NO.  13-­‐00258-­‐CB-­‐B       Plaintiff/Appellant,     )               )   v.             )               )   RICHARD  D.  HORNE  and       )   PATRICIA  NELSON  HORNE,       )               )       Defendants/Appellees.   )     ORDER       Appellees  have  filed  a  motion  for  award  of  additional  attorneys’  fees  in   connection  with  the  second  of  two  appeals.  (Doc.  69.)    Appellant  has  filed  an   objection  to  the  motion.    By  separate  opinion  entered  this  date,  this  Court  has  once   again  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  bankruptcy  court.    However,  Appellees  are  not   entitled  to  recover  attorneys’  fees  incurred  in  the  second  appeal.         In  support  of  their  motion,  Appellees  argue  that  “[a]ppellate  attorneys’  fees   and  costs  are  recoverable  herein  under  this  Court’s  order  of  October  28,  2013  (Doc.   36),  adopting  the  holding  of  Parker  v.  Pioneer  Credit  Co.  of  Ala.  (In  re  Parker),  419   B.R.  474,  476  (M.D.  Ala.  2009),  that  appellate  attorneys’  fees  constitute  continuing   mandatory  damages  in  the  appeal  of  the  Bankruptcy  Court  herein.”    (Appellees’  Mot.   ¶  1.)    To  be  clear,  that  order  held  that  attorneys’  fees  were  mandatory  and   recoverable  on  appeal  under  11  U.S.C.  §  362(k)  and  Parker  for  violation  of  the   automatic  stay.1  The  second  appeal  (for  which  Appellees  now  seek  additional   attorneys’  fees)  involves  violation  of  the  discharge  injunction.2    Neither  Parker  nor   the  Court’s  prior  order  authorizes  recovery  of  attorneys’  fees  incurred  on  appeal  of   sanctions  for  violation  of  the  discharge  injunction.           The  motion  is,  therefore,  DENIED.     DONE  and  ORDERED  this  the  8th  day  of  April,  2014.                               s/Charles  R.  Butler,  Jr.         Senior  United  States  District  Judge                                                                                                                         1  The  first  appeal  involved  violations  of  both  the  automatic  stay  and  the   discharge  injunction.       2  See  Opinion  of  April  8,  2014,  at  13.  

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?