8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
1/21
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: . Case No. 01-22574
.
.SHARON DIANE HILL, .
. USX Tower - 54th Floor
. 600 Grant Street
. Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Debtor, .
. December 20, 2007
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:47 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
BEFORE HONORABLE THOMAS P. AGRESTI
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Debtor: Steidl & Steinberg
By: JULIA STEIDL, ESQ.
Suite 2830 Gulf Tower
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
For Countrywide Home Loan, LESLIE E. PUIDA, ESQ.
Inc.: Mellon Independence Center
Suite 5000
701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1532
Audio Operator: Cathy Younker
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript
produced by transcription service.
_______________________________________________________________
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
268 Evergreen Avenue
Hamilton, New Jersey 08619
E-mail: [email protected]
(609) 586-2311 Fax No. (609) 587-3599
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
2/21
2
APPEARANCES (Cont'd.):
For the U.S. Trustee: Office of the U.S. Trustee
By: NORMA HILDENBRAND, ESQ.
1001 Liberty Avenue
960 Liberty CenterPittsburgh, PA 15222
For the Chapter 13 Trustee: Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir
P.C.
By: DAVID W. ROSS, ESQ.
MARK A. LINDSAY, ESQ.
Two Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
3/21
3
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
THE COURT: All right. The next matter before the1
Court is the matter of Sharon Hill, Case Number 01-22574. This2
is a status conference on a motion to enforce discharge. Would3
counsel please come forward and enter your appearances?4
MS. STEIDL: Julie Steidl for the debtor.5
MS. PUIDA: Leslie Puida on behalf of Country --6
THE COURT: All right. Anybody else?7
MS. PUIDA: Leslie Puida on behalf of Countrywide.8
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else?9
MS. HILDENBRAND: Norma Hildenbrand on behalf of the10
United States Trustee, Your Honor.11
MR. ROSS: David Ross and Mark Lindsay on behalf of12
the Chapter 13 Trustee, Your Honor.13
THE COURT: Anybody else?14
(No verbal response)15
THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Puida, you can have a16
seat. Now I know why you're here. All right. That's -- okay.17
Attorney Steidl, do you want to tell me about, first of all,18
your motion and where we are with this?19
MS. STEIDL: Our client, Ms. Hill, went through her20
bankruptcy. She did everything right. She made all of her21
payments. The application for approval of completion was22
filed. Nobody objected. An order was -- default ordered was23
granted. An order discharging the debtor was signed. A filing24
report and accounting was signed, and then when she started to25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
4/21
4
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
make payments on her own, Countrywide sent them back and said1
that they wouldn't take them, because she was in default, and2
that was immediately after she was discharged that that3
started.4
In the process of going back and forth Countrywide5
did supply us with a loan history. They also supplied me with6
some letters that I didn't understand, but I spoke to Attorney7
Puida about it, and she explained to me that there are three8
letters in my file, all with different dates, where they're9
saying Countrywide's mortgage went up during the process of the10
plan.11
The first letter is dated September of '03 that talks12
about the first increase. The problem with that is we weren't13
in our offices in '03. We were at a whole different address,14
and our carbon copy is to Ken Steidl at the new address where15
we are now, which we weren't then. And she explained to me16
that --17
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold it.18
Wait a minute. You're saying that you -- there's a letter19
dated 2003 at a certain address that you weren't in until a20
subsequent time?21
MS. STEIDL: Yes, sir.22
THE COURT: Yet this is a letter that was represented23
to acknowledge or support the first change notice on this24
property?25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
5/21
5
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
MS. STEIDL: Yes, sir. The letter was dated1
September 22nd, 2003, directed toward my client, carbon copied2
to Ronda Winnecour and Ken Steidl at the Gulf Tower address,3
but on September 22nd, 2003, we were at 210 Grant Street. So I4
just asked Ms. Puida to explain the two, because I didn't5
understand the discrepancy, and she told me that these letter6
that they sent -- they sent three -- are recreation letters.7
They're not the first letter that was sent. They're just --8
THE COURT: What is a -- never heard of a recreation9
letter. That's a letter that they don't have, and now they've10
recreated to support the allegation that they actually sent a11
prior letter?12
MS. STEIDL: Well, that would be how it sounds. I13
don't mean to mis-characterize it, but that's how it sounds.14
All of these letters were -- there are three of them, and they15
were all recreated.16
THE COURT: All recreated letters.17
MS. STEIDL: That's one in '03, one in '04, and one18
in '05.19
THE COURT: Okay. That's pretty interesting. Go20
ahead.21
MS. STEIDL: Okay, so --22
THE COURT: Well, what were the letters purportedly23
to represent or offer?24
MS. STEIDL: The change -- apparently, some of the25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
6/21
6
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
problem was, according to Countrywide, that the loan amounts1
changed with escrow changes, because she doesn't have a2
variable rate. It's a fixed rate. So the first letter in3
September 22nd, 2003, and we didn't move to our new office4
until October 27th, so there's like a six-week difference5
there. And it says, "This letter is to advise you that the6
escrow requirement has changed per the escrow analysis. The7
amount of the escrow is now this, 2235.07," and it goes on to8
explain about the escrow. And then it says that they're9
raising her monthly mortgage payment to 603 from approximately10
500. We didn't get that letter.11
THE COURT: All right. Let me -- you said the other12
two are recreation letters, too. It's not the same -- how do13
you know that? Based on a same address issue or for other14
reasons?15
MS. STEIDL: No, Ms. Puida told me.16
THE COURT: All right.17
MS. STEIDL: She said that they put them into18
evidence when it happened, so we could understand that it19
happened. That they were recreated.20
THE COURT: Oh, that's nice. All right, but -- and21
they allege that they actually sent these letters at one time,22
but they don't have the originals? Is that it?23
MS. STEIDL: You would have to ask her. I didn't go24
that far.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
7/21
7
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
THE COURT: So that hasn't been -- that -- all right.1
I will ask her. Yes, that's interesting. Go ahead.2
MS. STEIDL: And then today when we were talking, she3
said that she was kind enough to lower what she want -- what4
Countrywide wanted by some number.5
THE COURT: All right. Let me stop. Let me stop you6
there. You said that there was a final -- after the Trustee7
filed its final account and report and a discharge order was --8
our standard discharge order was entered in the normal course?9
MS. STEIDL: Yes, sir, in March of '07.10
THE COURT: All right. Does that discharge order11
have language in it that says that the loans -- the secured12
loans, mortgages, whatever are current as of the date of the13
last distribution of the Trustee?14
MR. STEIDL: It does.15
THE COURT: So why is Countrywide even making a claim16
for pre-discharged claims in light of that discharge order?17
MS. STEIDL: I don't know how to answer that, Your18
Honor.19
THE COURT: All right. I mean you got Attorney Puida20
agreeing to change the amounts, but it sounds like that Court21
order, which I assume became final and no objection was filed,22
already says that Countrywide's current.23
MS. STEIDL: Yes, sir.24
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
8/21
8
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
MS. STEIDL: And the amount has dropped now to 151
hundred, because they audited it. It didn't start as a2
Countrywide loan. It started as a Mellon Bank loan. It was3
then transferred to Countrywide, and Countrywide apparently4
audited payments made to Mellon Bank, and they knocked it down5
to about half -- a little more than half. But I'm wondering if6
there might be other payments that didn't get knocked down, and7
we don't have anything regarding that. So as far as the status8
conference part of this goes, I would like to have discovery,9
so we could see --10
THE COURT: All right. Let me stop you. It's been11
represented that this case was in a settlement posture. Is12
that an --13
MS. STEIDL: From a -- my client doesn't -- well, it14
was in a settlement posture at 33 hundred dollars. Now it's 1515
hundred dollars, but --16
THE COURT: I'm not sure what -- all right. Tell me.17
It was represented by Countrywide at another hearing, which did18
involve this matter and nine other cases, that this particular19
-- unless I misunderstood, and I might have, but I was under20
the impression -- and I believe Attorney Connick (phonetic)21
represented that this matter was going away, because it was22
settled. Are you now backing off a settlement, or did you ever23
have a settlement to begin with, or -- tell me about that.24
MS. STEIDL: We did not -- our client did not approve25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
9/21
9
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
any kind of settlement, and when we sent it to her for1
approval, she did not want it. She didn't want a settlement.2
She --3
THE COURT: So there was a settlement offer on the4
table, but it had never been approved by your client.5
MS. STEIDL: Correct.6
THE COURT: All right. Well, that explains why I've7
never seen a motion to settle this case then. I was wondering8
what happened. I assumed -- right?9
MS. STEIDL: Correct.10
THE COURT: All right. Okay. I think I understand.11
Attorney Puida, what is going on here? I mean I guess there's12
a couple things on the table I need to know about. What are13
these recreated letters all about?14
MS. PUIDA: Your Honor, the letters --15
THE COURT: How about -- could you -- would you mind16
remaining seated and speak into that microphone? I can't hear17
you. Otherwise, or if you stand -- some lawyers are more18
comfortable standing. Make sure you bend over and talk into19
the microphone. Okay?20
MS. PUIDA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Is this better?21
THE COURT: Yes, that's fine as long as you're22
comfortable.23
MS. PUIDA: Your Honor, regarding the letters, they24
were never held out to be letters that were sent notifying any25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
10/21
10
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
one of the payment changes. They were purely generated -- what1
happens is, is they were generated based on what the payments2
were in 2003, 2004, and 2007.3
THE COURT: When were they generated?4
MS. PUIDA: They were generated when we first were in5
settlement negotiations with Mr. Steidl regarding this case.6
There was a question as to what the payments were at various7
times within the bankruptcy. So we -- they were not offered to8
prove that they had been sent. They were merely showing what9
the breakdown was of the PMI and escrow at those various points10
in time.11
THE COURT: Who created these letters?12
MS. PUIDA: A processor at Countrywide.13
THE COURT: Does it say anything on the letters14
themselves that has a disclaimer that these are not actual15
letters sent or simply used to show if a letter had been sent16
what the payment would've been at the time in question?17
MS. PUIDA: No, it does not.18
THE COURT: Boy, that's a strange one. I don't know.19
Why would you -- when did you disclose that these letters were20
not what they purported to be but, in fact, were just memoranda21
of an event created years after the event in order to document22
the event?23
MS. PUIDA: Throughout my discussions with Mr. Steidl24
when we were trying to resolve this matter.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
11/21
11
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
THE COURT: From the very beginning you sent him1
copies of letters, and you described the fact --2
MS. PUIDA: I had --3
THE COURT: Go ahead.4
MS. PUIDA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. We had been5
providing him with payment histories, escrow analyses,6
breakdowns of all of the escrow that had been advanced7
throughout the case. It was just one of various things that8
were being sent to him just showing what the case status was at9
the time the discharge was entered, what the status is now, and10
what we were showing as being due on the loan.11
THE COURT: All right. Now, you know, you're here12
representing your client. I want to -- you know, it's -- I13
want you to be totally candid with me, because I'm going to ask14
these questions of Mr. Steidl as well at some point.15
Obviously, it looks like we have to, because this concerns me.16
I'm having trouble with these recreated letters that purport to17
be sent to a number of parties at a date -- prior date well18
into the past and created at a subsequent date to show or19
represent, at least at first blush, the state of a record which20
didn't really exist as such. When was Mr. Steidl informed by21
you or anyone at Countrywide, to your knowledge, that these22
letters are not what they would purport to be on a cold reading23
and view if received in a packet of papers?24
MS. PUIDA: Your Honor, I wouldn't be able to give25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
12/21
12
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
you an exact date. I had a conversation with Mr. Steidl where1
he indicated that he had never received the letter. He had2
checked his file, and I had told him, well, you wouldn't have,3
because this was -- these were not sent out. It's just drawing4
-- the system at Countrywide currently has Mr. Steidl as5
counsel. He was not counsel when this case was initially6
filed. It has the Trustee's information in the system, so when7
they were recreated, it pulled that information in. But the8
point of the letters was to show what the payment changes were9
during the course of the bankruptcy.10
THE COURT: Well, why wouldn't you just show that by11
an in-house document generated by Countrywide? Why would you12
go to the steps of creating a letter that never was sent, which13
appears -- which could be used by a loan processor or somebody14
at Countrywide when a debtor calls up on their own to find out15
the background of a loan, and these letters were forwarded on16
without the benefit of counsel or you and Mr. Steidl talking17
about post-discharge injunction violations? Why would that18
type of document ever even be part of this system?19
MS. PUIDA: Your Honor, I can't speak as to that. I20
don't know the answer.21
THE COURT: All right. Anything else? There's no22
settlement. You've been discussing a proposed resolution, but23
the --24
MS. PUIDA: No, we -- Mr. Steidl and I had been25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
13/21
13
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
discussing various things. We have been going back and forth,1
but I was apprised as of Tuesday of a number that was2
acceptable to the debtor, and then I understand today that3
there is no number that's acceptable. So there is no4
settlement at this time.5
THE COURT: All right. Well, Attorney Steidl --6
Julie Steidl said they never had the acceptance of the debtor.7
That it was just passed on to the debtor.8
MS. PUIDA: Correct. We were --9
THE COURT: Was your understanding different than10
that?11
MS. PUIDA: No, all along Mr. Steidl indicated that12
he needed his client to sign off on any settlement, and that he13
had forwarded the documentation to her for review.14
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything else on this15
issue?16
MS. PUIDA: No, Your Honor.17
THE COURT: All right. Attorney Hildenbrand, do you18
have any comments to make in light of where we're at?19
MS. HILDENBRAND: Thank you, Your Honor. I was here20
today in particular to preserve the status quo. As the Court's21
aware, we have a pending discovery request of Countrywide in22
the miscellaneous matter, and the issues that were told to the23
Court today are of grave concern to the United States Trustee.24
We're not certain where these letters -- these recreated25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
14/21
14
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
letters, the purpose of them, and I would just reiterate the1
United States Trustee's argument that this is even more reason2
to grant our discovery request in order to in the other case --3
although I'm not arguing that position today, this is just4
another example of why the United States Trustee feels that5
it's important to understand that Countrywide -- to get the6
information regarding this case as well as the other non-7
context cases and to allow us to investigate how all this comes8
about. I appreciate the Court's letting -- giving me an9
opportunity to speak on that.10
THE COURT: Well, you've entered an appearance by11
your appearance today as well as raising this issue in the non-12
context cases even though we consolidated it under a13
miscellaneous number for purposes of administrative14
convenience. In a sense, you have already filed in this case a15
request for your 2004 exam alleging this particular issue, so I16
couldn't proceed.17
And to be honest with you, based on what I -- my18
understanding prior to today, this case was in settlement19
posture, and I thought I would be getting a copy of a proposed20
consent order here. But I see that we're not even close to21
that, so even more reason not -- I can't do anything today, and22
it's good we had the status conference to further alert the23
Court as to the pending issues. Mr. Ross, did you have any24
comments to the Court?25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
15/21
15
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
MR. ROSS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the1
reason I'm present today is --2
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to stop you right there.3
Now, typically, we'd turn to Mr. Bedford on Chapter 13 matters.4
You represent the Trustee in the miscellaneous Number 203,5
which -- I believe it's 203 with the 293 cases. That was the6
first miscellaneous. Two 0 four is the second miscellaneous.7
So really you represent the Trustee, I thought, for the limited8
purpose of those issues and not necessarily in this case. I9
thought maybe you were here for purposes of information only10
possibly, but if Mr. Bedford is deferring to you to represent11
the Chapter 13 Trustee on this particular matter, then I12
believe your appearance -- I need some clarification here as to13
your role versus Mr. Bedford's traditional role on these types14
of issues.15
MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I'm here today on behalf of16
the Trustee. Mr. Bedford is sitting to my right and has17
deferred to me for purposes of this matter, and I have that18
authority from Ms. Winnecour.19
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Mr. Bedford, that's20
what we're going to do today, and you're out. Okay?21
MR. BEDFORD: Yes, I understand, Your Honor. And22
while I do have the file, I'm certainly able to provide any23
information that Your Honor may wish to have from the file.24
THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that, but I'm going to25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
16/21
16
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
-- you know the rule. There's no tag team lawyering. I just1
let the one lawyer, and Mr. Ross, you're the man. Go ahead.2
MR. ROSS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, as3
Your Honor stated, we are counsel to the Trustee in the action4
that consolidated 293 cases. This particular case is one of5
those actions, and this particular case involves one of the6
checks the Trustee alleges that Countrywide has misplaced.7
THE COURT: That's different. That's totally8
different from this post-injunction -- post-discharge9
injunction violation.10
MR. ROSS: Not necessarily, Your Honor. With all due11
respect, the Trustee's concern in the 293 cases -- one of her12
concerns has always been the timely application payments. We13
have a situation in this particular debtor where the Trustee14
believes that or knows that these three checks have been lost.15
Two -- checks have been lost twice. There's been a third check16
issued to Countrywide. Countrywide is now asserting post-17
confirmation post-discharge that there is an arrearage. The18
question --19
THE COURT: But is -- pardon me. Just to cut to the20
quick here, is it related to a change in escrow amounts --21
these three changes in escrow amounts as these letters pre --22
post-created letters reflect, or does it -- your claim in the23
-- you're wearing the hat for the Chapter 13 Trustee in all24
matters, but the other -- I don't want to confuse the issues.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
17/21
17
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
The other one related to six or seven checks that weren't1
cashed much later in time than -- I don't think it -- in my2
mind -- and I'm not as close to it as you, but the two seem to3
be unrelated.4
MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I cannot tell you as a matter5
of fact that they're not unrelated. They may very well be6
related. There's two issues, Your Honor, and that's exactly7
why we're here today. It may be that as a result of these8
checks being misplaced or mis -- inappropriately applied, that9
that led to the arrearages.10
Also, Your Honor, with respect to the three letters11
that Ms. Steidl has referenced, what I'd like to bring to the12
Court's attention is that the Chapter 13 Trustee is also13
referenced as a CC on those letters as well. I reviewed the14
Trustee's files. I have met with Mr. Bedford. We have not15
received those letters. Your Honor, the 293 cases are about16
receipt of payments and timely application. This, Your Honor,17
is the same issue, and --18
THE COURT: Well, I don't know if I agree with you on19
that. It's a similar issue with different facts. Totally20
different facts from -- I mean they're talking about -- unless21
you tie it in time -- what's the date of the last letter?22
Attorney Steidl, what's the date of the most recently recreated23
letter, 2007?24
MS. STEIDL: Yes, Your Honor.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
18/21
18
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
THE COURT: All right. Well, maybe it is part of it1
then. I'm wrong. I thought it was 2003 and 2005, but maybe2
I'm -- all right.3
MS. STEIDL: It was 2003, 2004, and 2007.4
THE COURT: All right. Two thousand seven gets you5
in the door. All right. Maybe they are related. Go ahead,6
Mr. Ross.7
MR. ROSS: Your Honor, at this point we would join in8
with the debtor's request that we be permitted -- that the9
Trustee be permitted to conduct discovery. Remember, Your10
Honor, in this case, as in all Chapter 13 cases that are11
completed, the Trustee is required to file a final report,12
which the Trustee did. I think based on a large part on that13
Trustee's final report this Court entered an order in this case14
discharging the debtor.15
From the Trustee's standpoint, if, in fact, the16
Trustee's records are incorrect, then we would welcome17
Countrywide to show us why they're incorrect. At this point I18
think it's the Trustee's responsibility to verify that her19
report filed in this case is accurate, and based upon that,20
Your Honor, with respect to the debtor's request to open21
discovery, we would join in that.22
With respect to the U.S. Trustee's request, we do not23
join in with that, because we understand the issues attendant24
thereto. But with respect to the debtor's request, Your Honor,25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
19/21
19
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
we believe that the debtor has the right and it really makes1
sense with what we've -- what the Court has learned today.2
THE COURT: Well, there's definitely a need for3
discovery here. These letters are a smoking gun that something4
is not right in Denmark. I just -- I can't get over what I'm5
being told here about these recreations and what the purpose is6
or was and what was intended by them. It just -- I don't see7
any credible reason for doing that other than to create a8
perception that notices were timely sent. But maybe there is,9
and that's why there's a need for discovery, obviously.10
Attorney Puida, anything -- any response here?11
MS. PUIDA: Yes, Your Honor. Again, the -- we were12
doing nothing more than providing counsel with a history of13
what escrow was received and payments during the course of the14
bankruptcy, what was paid out, what difference between the two15
there may have been. The letters again were never offered as16
being something that was sent out to debtor's counsel or to the17
Trustee. It was just a starting point to show this is the18
breakdown for that particular year's escrow.19
THE COURT: All right. I appreciate that. This is20
your understanding of what you did, but when I asked some21
rather pointed questions to further explain the purpose behind22
these letters, you couldn't respond. You could not answer, and23
I can appreciate that, and that's just more reason why there24
has to be some discovery here to find out what is going on and25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
20/21
20
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
why it was done, because that will determine -- you know, if it1
can't otherwise be settled or resolved, that will be an item of2
concern for this Court in assessing the appropriate damage or3
remedy. So it's highly, extremely relevant, and important for4
a decision in this matter, so I'm going to -- Attorney Steidl,5
how much time do you need?6
MS. STEIDL: Sixty days.7
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to grant -- I'm8
going to schedule an evidentiary hearing on this matter. I'll9
issue a general pretrial order, so that discovery can commence10
for a 60-day period, and I assume there's no problem with that11
from Chapter 13 Trustee?12
MR. ROSS: No, Your Honor. Would the Chapter 1313
Trustee have the ability to be part of the discovery?14
THE COURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, you're a15
party in interest as will the U.S. Trustee. This -- I mean16
you're all involved in this case. The U.S. Trustee's entitled17
to be heard and involved in any matter pending before the18
Court, and in a very broad reading of the statute even raise19
matters. We still haven't determined that, but definitely. We20
have a proceeding in progress here that even Countrywide in the21
related matters admitted that the Trustee had the right to be22
heard and involved -- the U.S. Trustee. Definitely, a Chapter23
13 Trustee. Countrywide's admitted that in related matters.24
Definitely, the debtor.25
8/8/2019 In Re Hill Transcript of 20 Dec 2007 Hearing
21/21
21
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
And the Court's concerned about this. The Court's1
very concerned. Again, I'm totally surprised at what I'm2
hearing. I didn't anticipate this at all today, but it's3
definitely a matter that needs to be vetted further through4
discovery and assuming a resolution cannot otherwise be had.5
All right. I'll issue the order. We'll have an6
evidentiary hearing to be scheduled according to the Court's7
schedule. I'll have to be down there for that I assume, and8
we'll go forward, and I'll issue that order in -- probably by9
tomorrow. Definitely by tomorrow. I doubt if it will be10
today, but we'll issue a standard pretrial order in this11
matter. All right. Anything else? Anything else, counsel?12
MS. STEIDL: That's all.13
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We'll recess.14
THE CLERK: All rise.15
* * * * *16
CERTIFICATION17
I, PATRICIA C. REPKO, court approved transcriber,18
certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the19
official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the20
above-entitled matter to the best of my ability.21
22
/s/ Patricia C. Repko Date: January 3, 200823
PATRICIA C. REPKO24
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.25
Top Related