In short
If the attorney fee is written twice on the cover account, what is read is the second line itself. The second line is not a short summary of the objection guide. The same name standing twice does not mean a second fee has arisen on its own. The tariff and the amount are not in this note. Which route is used to look at the fee item is on the objection to the attorney fee page. This page does not copy that petition.
The definition of the cover breakdown is on the cover account page. The definition is not built here. A double line does not debate whether the breakdown exists. It reads the repeat of the same name inside the breakdown. The reading leaves the two lines side by side, without deleting them.
The name of the second line
If the first line is the enforcement attorney fee and the second line is again the enforcement attorney fee, the name is repeated. A repeated name is not read as the fee for two separate pieces of work. The reading looks at the dates of the lines and at the sentence they rely on. If there is no date, the second line is not treated as a new stage. A stage is not completed unless it is written on the file.
If one line carries the adverse attorney fee in the judgment and the other carries the fee of the enforcement proceeding, the names differ. A different name does not produce a second calculation in this note. Which fee came from which source sits in the objection note. This note does not build that distinction at length. It only reads whether the two lines on the cover carry the same name. Two lines that do not carry the same name are not closed as duplicates. Lines that are not closed stay with their own source sentences.
If a line's name is shortened to "attorney fee" alone, the shortening hides the source. The hidden source is asked about: is it the operative part of the judgment, or the enforcement request? If the source is not written, the line is not treated as the pair of the other line. A line that is not treated as a pair is not merged merely because the amounts look alike. This note does not write an amount.
A second writing of the same work
A fee for the same work standing on two lines can show that the item may have been written twice. The debtor compares the two lines with the lawyer record on the file, to see whether they belong to the same work. If the lawyer entered the file once, the second line is not a record of a second lawyer. If there is no record, a second lawyer is not assumed. A lawyer who is not assumed does not tie the second line on the cover to a new piece of work.
If the file has two separate lawyer records, the second line may be the fee of the second record. Whether it is, is read by placing the name on the record next to the name on the line. If the name on the record is not on the line, the line is not completed as belonging to that lawyer. A line that is not completed may also be a copy of the first lawyer's fee. That possibility is not turned into a result without the writing on the file.
If there is a writing that the lawyer withdrew from the file, that writing is kept. Withdrawal does not itself delete the old line on the cover. If a line that is not deleted stands next to the new lawyer's line, standing side by side does not create two collections. Which line remains live is read from the note on the file. If there is no note, both lines remain. Lines that remain are not forced into a single fee.
The judgment fee and the enforcement fee
An adverse attorney fee written in the operative part of the judgment is a different name from the proceeding's own fee. If the operative part is not on the file, a fee from that part is not derived from the cover. If the enforcement request did not ask for a fee, the request does not stand in for the operative part. If both sources are present, each is written under its own name. If they were written twice under the same name, the writing is not read as if two sources existed.
If the adverse attorney fee stands in the judgment as a particular sentence, the proceeding does not add a new judgment fee outside that sentence. A line that appears to have been added is compared with the sentence in the judgment. If the sentence was written once and the cover wrote it twice, the second writing is on the cover. The extra entry on the cover does not mean the judgment made a second ruling.
The enforcement fee is not an item that arose inside the judgment. The lawyer record that entered the file when the proceeding was opened is the source of this line. If the record and the operative part are mixed, the mixed line is sorted out. Sorting does not produce a tariff year or a base. A base that is not produced is the work of the objection note. This page does not rebuild that work.
A request for sale, or a valuation, does not itself give rise to a second fee line. That these steps appear on the file does not show that the copy on the cover is a new stage. If the stage is written separately in the line's supporting sentence, that sentence is read. If there is no sentence, the sale papers do not justify writing the attorney-fee line a second time. Even if the two lines carry different amounts, the difference is not turned into a tariff calculation in this note. Different amounts stand side by side. Which of the standing amounts matches the source is not chosen without the operative part and the lawyer record.
The line on the order, written again on the cover
If a fee written once on the payment order is written again, and separately, on the cover, the double writing is on the cover. The line on the order is not treated as deleted. The second line on the cover is not ignored either. The two stand side by side. Standing side by side does not mean both will be taken at collection. The reading shows, by name, which line is standing a second time.
If the order has no fee line at all, and two lines then appear on the cover, both lines are compared with the request. If the request has no name, the name on the cover is not treated as having widened the request on its own. A line that was not widened is still not assumed deleted. If the line stands, its standing is read with the source sentence. If there is no source, the line is not closed as a second fee that has arisen.
If the cover was printed more than once, each printing is kept. The latest printing is not treated as having erased the line on the earlier printing. Erasure is read from a correction note on the file, if there is one. Without a note, the latest printing has not reduced the first printing to a single line. The debtor asks for the two printings side by side. If a requested printing is not on the file, the missing printing is not filled in.
Which line a receipt closes
If a line has been collected, the receipt is kept. If there is no receipt, collection is not assumed. The receipt should show which of the two lines it was posted to. If it does not, the collection is not treated as having closed both lines. A line that is not closed is not deleted on the assumption that the amount on the receipt also passed to the other line.
A refund is not spoken of before the file shows which line the collection was made from. This note does not tie the refund to an amount. If the refund slip carries the number of only one line, the other line has not been refunded. If there is no number, the slip is not treated as having closed both lines. If the cashier record and the cover line carry different names, the different name is kept. The name that is kept is not replaced by the short description on the cashier's slip.
An interest line is not an attorney fee. The frame of interest is on the interest in an enforcement proceeding page. A fee line is not an attorney fee either. The frame of the fee is on the enforcement fee page. Because the fee was written twice, interest or the fee is not treated as written twice as well. Each name stays on its own line. Feeling that a figure is high, and having a line written twice, are separate. A line written twice is not turned into a sentence about a reduction.
If the explanation next to a cover line is blank, the blank is not filled from the judgment or the lawyer record. A blank explanation does not itself say that the two lines belong to the same work, or to different work. The debtor does not assume a blank line has been deleted. The creditor does not name a blank line as a second lawyer's fee either. The naming is read from the record, if the file has a second lawyer record. If the record is single, the single record is not treated as having given rise to both lines. A second line that is not so treated continues to stand on the cover. Its standing does not mean both will be taken at collection. The result stays limited to the line the receipt shows. The limit is not widened by looking at the date of the sale papers.
An attachment does not confirm a duplicate line
An attachment does not declare the second fee line on the cover correct. The minute shows the property. It does not say whether the attorney-fee line is a duplicate. An amount deducted from wages or from an account does not turn the second line into proof either. If the deduction does not write which line it was taken from, the unwritten line is not treated as collected.
A petition does not merge the two lines by saying "I do not accept the fee". A merged sentence hides which one is the copy. The office where the file was opened does not turn the second line into proof. The frame is on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. The contact page is there for having the two lines read side by side. A second fee is not filled in while the lines are not on the file.
Conclusion
If the attorney fee is written twice on the cover, what is read is the second line itself, not a repeat of the objection guide. A copy of the same name is not treated as having given rise to a new fee. The tariff and the amount are not produced in this note. An attachment does not confirm the second line. The basis is the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.