Woodberry

Filing 15

OPINION and ORDER Affirming Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting C&W Financial Consulting's First and Final Fee Application. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3056 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In Re:
LaJEFF WOODBERRY,
Debtor.
_____________________________/
LaJEFF WOODBERRY,
Appellant,

Case No. 21-11800
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
MARK H. SHAPIRO,
CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,
Appellee.
______________________________/

Bankruptcy No. 18-46856

OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING BANKRUPTCY
COURT’S ORDER GRANTING C&W FINANCIAL
CONSULTING’S FIRST AND FINAL FEE APPLICATION
This appeal is brought by LaJeff Woodberry (“Debtor” and
“Appellant”) from the bankruptcy court’s order overruling Debtor’s
objections and granting C&W Financial’s fee application in full. Upon a
careful review of the written submissions, the Court deems it appropriate to
render its decision without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2). For

-1-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3057 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 9

the reasons stated below, the opinion and order of the bankruptcy court is
AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
Debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code on May 9, 2018. Defendant Mark H. Shapiro (“Trustee”)
is the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. The Trustee
filed a complaint seeking to avoid, as fraudulent, various transfers of
property made by the Debtor to his wife. The Trustee alleged, among other
things, that the transfers were avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B)
and M.C.L. § 566.35(1), made applicable by 11 U.S.C. § 544. To prevail,
the Trustee was required to show that the Debtor (1) received less than
reasonably equivalent value for the transfers and (2) was insolvent when
the transfers were made.
The Trustee filed an application to employ C&W Financial Consulting
(“C&W Financial”), a public accounting and financial consulting firm, to
provide financial consulting and valuation services. Specifically, the Trustee
sought to use C&W Financial to value Family First LLC, a hair and nail
salon with at least two locations. The bankruptcy court approved the
application to employ C&W Financial on November 19, 2020.

-2-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3058 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 9

After examining the financial records of Family First LLC that were in
the Trustee’s possession, C&W Financial provided the Trustee with a
comprehensive list of additional documents necessary to its analysis. The
Trustee served Debtor with a subpoena to provide the list of items in
discovery. In response, the Debtor filed a motion for protective order and a
stay of all discovery into Family First LLC’s finances. The bankruptcy court
denied Debtor’s motion. However, the Trustee determined that due to
Debtor’s evasion and frustration of discovery, and the availability of other
assets, the estate would not benefit from further litigation in the adversary
case. Therefore, the Trustee sought to dismiss the remaining counts of the
complaint to obtain a final judgment. On February 16, 2021, the bankruptcy
court entered an order dismissing the remaining counts of the complaint.
On May 25, 2021, C&W Financial filed a first and final fee application
(“C&W Fee Application”) seeking $1,750 in fees. The fee application shows
that 5 hours of professional services were rendered primarily for reviewing
documents related to Family First LLC and compiling a list of additional
information needed to determine the value of that entity. Debtor and his
wife objected to the C&W Fee Application, but the bankruptcy court
overruled the objections and granted the application in full. Debtor’s appeal
of the order granting the C&W Fee Application is now before the Court.
-3-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3059 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 9

ANALYSIS
I.

Standard of Review
“The bankruptcy court is afforded broad discretion in determining

attorney’s fees.” In re McLean Wine Co., 463 B.R. 838, 847 (Bankr. E.D.
Mich. 2011) (quoting In re Robinson, 189 Fed. Appx. 371, 373 (6th Cir.
2006)). See also In re Boddy, 950 F.2d 334, 336 (6th Cir. 1991) (“We will
not reverse a bankruptcy court’s award of fees unless there has been an
abuse of discretion”). “A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it relies
upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the law, or
employed an erroneous legal standard.” In re Two Gales, Inc., 454 B.R.
427, 430 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2011) (citation omitted). “The question is not how
the reviewing court would have ruled, but rather whether a reasonable
person could agree with the bankruptcy court’s decision; if reasonable
persons could differ as to the issue, then there is no abuse of discretion.” In
re Eagle Picher Indus., Inc., 285 F.3d 522, 529 (6th Cir. 2002). The district
court reviews the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and the
bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo. In re Smith, 256 B.R. 730,
734 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013).

-4-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3060 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 9

II.

The bankruptcy court properly applied the law for evaluating fee
applications
Professional persons employed under 11 U.S.C. § 327 are entitled to

reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services, but only to the
extent that such services (a) are not unnecessarily duplicative; and (b)
were either reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate, or necessary to
the administration of the case. In determining whether services were
reasonably likely to benefit the estate, or were necessary to the
administration of the case, the court must view matters at the time when
such services were rendered. In re McLean Wine Co., 463 B.R. at 848; In
re Value City Holdings, Inc., 436 B.R. 300, 305 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Section 330(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I) “requires only that the services in question had a
reasonable likelihood of benefitting the estate at the time they were
provided, not that they actually did provide a benefit”. In re Blue Stone Real
Estate, Constr. & Dev. Corp., 487 B.R. 543, 577 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013).
The bankruptcy court found that C&W Financial was entitled to the
requested fees because they were provided to assist the Trustee in his
effort to avoid and recover transfers made by Debtor to his wife. Although
the Trustee ultimately chose to dismiss the claims for which it hired C&W
Financial, the work performed by C&W Financial in analyzing the
-5-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3061 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 9

documents was necessary to the Trustee making its determination.
Therefore, the services rendered had a reasonable likelihood of benefitting
the estate at the time they were provided.
Debtor does not point to any findings in the record that demonstrate
an error on the part of the bankruptcy court. This Court finds that the
bankruptcy court properly applied the law in exercising its discretion to
grant the C&W Fee Application.
III.

The bankruptcy court properly rejected the objections that were
based on 11 U.S.C. § 326
Debtor relied on 11 U.S.C. § 326 to support several of his objections.

That section applies only to Trustee compensation, and therefore has no
bearing on the fees requested by C&W Financial. The bankruptcy court
properly rejected Debtor’s objections that were based on § 326.
IV.

The bankruptcy court properly rejected the argument that the
Trustee does not have jurisdiction over Family First
The Trustee is permitted to investigate allegedly fraudulent transfers,

and the bankruptcy court found that Debtor’s limited partnership interests in
Family First were transferred for questionable consideration. Therefore, the
Trustee had an obligation to determine whether the transferred interests
were valuable and whether Debtor received, or was entitled to receive,

-6-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3062 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 9

distributions from Family First. The bankruptcy court properly rejected
Debtor’s argument that the Trustee lacked jurisdiction over Family First.
V.

The bankruptcy court properly rejected the argument that C&W
Financial’s fees were not “reasonable compensation for actual,
necessary services” as required under § 330
In his objections made to the bankruptcy court, Debtor argued that

C&W Financial’s fees were not necessary or reasonable because Debtor
previously informed the Trustee that Family First was valueless. As the
bankruptcy court stated, the Trustee is entitled to independently verify
Debtor’s assertions. This is particularly true where the Trustee is already on
notice that the Debtor has not been forthright in disclosing his assets. By
consulting with C&W Financial, the Trustee was able to quickly conclude
that pursuing the Family First claims was not economically worthwhile.
Next, Debtor argued that the Trustee never should have employed
C&W Financial because Debtor offered to pay creditors’ claims in full and in
cash. The bankruptcy court explained that Debtor only offered to pay those
creditor claims he deemed to be legitimate, and that did not include allowed
administrative expenses. Therefore, Debtor’s offer to pay was based on
false assumptions.

-7-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3063 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 9

The bankruptcy court properly overruled both objections as lacking
merit.
VI.

Arguments not raised below are waived
Debtor argues for the first time on appeal that the C&W Fee Order

should not have been approved because “[t]his is a no asset bankruptcy[,]”
and because the expenses incurred in “acquiring and selling the Muirland
Property was not an actual and necessary expense...” These arguments
were not raised in the bankruptcy court and are waived. See In re Hood,
319 F.3d 755, 760 (6th Cir. 2003) (arguments not raised below are
generally waived on appeal).
Furthermore, these arguments fail on the merits. The Trustee’s
Individual Estate Property Record and Report filed with the bankruptcy
court on April 20, 2021, shows that the Trustee recovered $150,000 in
assets for the estate. (ECF No. 3-8, Page ID 782.) Secondly, the C&W Fee
Order was not an expense incurred in acquiring and selling the Muirland
Property.
CONCLUSION
Now, therefore, for the reasons stated in this opinion and order,

-8-

Case 2:21-cv-11800-GCS-DRG ECF No. 15, PageID.3064 Filed 01/18/22 Page 9 of 9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the bankruptcy court’s order granting
the C&W Fee Application is AFFIRMED.
It is so ordered.
Dated: January 18, 2022

s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
January 18, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on LaJeff Lee Percy Woodberry, 18283 Muirland,
Detroit, MI 48221.
s/B Sauve
Deputy Clerk

-9-