which he had received pursuant to the vacated Order of May 17, 1995, to allow the Chapter 7 trustee to distribute the professional fees pro rata. Mr. Desselle has not complied with this Court’s Order to turn over any funds received as interim compensation. He now moves this Court to reconsider the reduction in fees following the hearing on July 24,1995, arguing that the services were actual and necessary, and the Court’s reasons for the reduction are not in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). The Court previously found that: (1) the description and itemization of services in the amended application were inadequate and unhelpful in assisting the Court in determining either the necessity of the services rendered or the reasonableness of the charges for those services; (W.D.Mich.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Bank of New England Corp., 142 B.R.
holding that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees for time spent litigating the fees issue on appeal under title viis attorneys fee provision holding district court erred when pursuant to a general contract for attorneys fees it awarded reimbursement for time spent justifying fee application in reasonableness hearing holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees holding that applications for attorneys fees must state in detail time spent and the nature of each discrete task before the court can assess the reasonableness of the fees holding that awarded fees were reasonable and that proof that attorneys fees are necessary apart from testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee is not required