1:08-bk-11218•Shelly Whitaker
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re SHELLY WHITAKER, No. 08-11218 Debtor(s). ______________________________________/ Memorandum After Confirmation Hearing _________________ Debtor Shelly Whitaker filed her Chapter 13 petition on June 21, 2008, scheduling her real property at 3524 Twin Oaks Way in Napa as being worth $520,500.00. Within a few days, an essentially identical property on the same block sold for $519,000.00, giving the court a sound basis for the value of the property on the day the bankruptcy petition was filed. Whitaker scheduled three deeds of trust encumbering the property: a first held by Wachovia for $439,359.00; a second held by Main Street Trust for $101,000.00; and a third held by Delores Gamba for $12,364.87. Chapter 13 debtors are barred from writing down deeds of trust on personal residences to the value of the property. Nobleman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). However, if the value of the property is low enough that there is no value at all securing the deed of trust, then it may be stripped off. In re Zimmer, 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002). Whitaker first moved to strip off the third deed of trust as being clearly unsupported by any value in the property. However, when her appraisal done to support this motion came back at $440,000.00, she amended her schedules to reflect this value and now seeks to strip off the second held by Main Street Trust as well. Main Street Trust opposes Whitaker’s motion to strip off its lien and confirmation of Whitaker’s plan providing for the same thing. Entered on Docket December 17, 2008 GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case: 08-11218 Doc# 49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1The court is less than convinced by the Alexander appraisal, which appears to be motivated by wishful thinking. The Eschoo and Grega appraisals are more realistic, and are pretty much in harmony even though submitted by opposing parties. 2Amendment of schedules does not erase prior admissions in schedules; it merely makes them evidence which the court may consider rather than binding judicial admissions. White v. Arco/Polymers, Inc., 720 F.2d 1391, 1396n5 (5th Cir. 1983). 2 In determining the value of the property, the court has the benefit of three sound a professional appraisals.1 From these and the debtor’s admissions,2 the court finds that the property was worth $520,000.00 on the date of the bankruptcy filing and has been depreciating at a rate of 1.5% per month since then, making the property worth about $475,000.00 today. This figure is reasonably supported by recent sales. Since the value of the property has at no time dipped below the amount owed on the first, the objections of Main Street Trust must be sustained. The motion to strip its lien will accordingly be denied and confirmation of the plan will also be denied. Since the value of the property has never dipped below the amount owed to the first, there is no need for the court to decide if the appropriate valuation date is the petition date or the confirmation date. However, Whitaker makes a good argument for the latter. Accordingly, denial of confirmation will be without prejudice to consideration of an amended plan if real estate values continue to fall. Counsel for Main Street Trust shall submit appropriate forms of order denying the motion to strip its lien and denying confirmation, both without prejudice. Dated: December 16, 2008 SAlan Jaroslovsky U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Case: 08-11218 Doc# 49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Case: 08-11218 Doc# 49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page 3 of 3
1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
oO A NOD OT FPF WwW DY NO NH NY NY NY NO BB RP BP RP RB Be Be oF WB NHN FF OD OO WAN DHT FPF WwW NY FF OO 26 INFORMATION GPO Entered on Docket December 17, 2008 GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Inte SHELLY WHITAKER, No. 08-11218 Debion(s). Memorandum After Confirmation Hearing Debtor Shelly Whitaker filed her Chapter 13 petition on June 21, 2008, scheduling her real property at 3524 Twin Oaks Way in Napa as being worth $520,500.00. Within a few days, an essentially identical property on the same block sold for $519,000.00, giving the court a sound basis for the value of the jaroperty on the day the bankruptcy petition was filed. Whitaker scheduled three deeds of trust encumbering the property: a first held by Wachovia for $439,359.00; a second held by Main Street Trust for $101,000.00; and a third held by Delores Gamba for $12,364.87. Chapter 13 debtors are barred from writing down deeds of trust on personal residences to the value of the property. Nobleman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993). However, if the value of the property is low enough that there is no value at all securing the deed of trust, then it may be stripped off. In re Zimmer, 313 F.3d 1220 (9" Cir. 2002). Whitaker first moved to strip off the third deed of trust as being clearly unsupported by any value in the property. However, when her appraisal done to support this motion came back at $440,000.00, she amended her schedules to reflect this value and now seeks to strip off the second held by Main Street Trust as well. Main Street Trust opposes Whitaker's motion to stip off its lien and confirmation of Whitaker's plan providing for the same thing. 1 s 08-11218 Doc#49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page1of3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1The court is less than convinced by the Alexander appraisal, which appears to be motivated by wishful thinking. The Eschoo and Grega appraisals are more realistic, and are pretty much in harmony even though submitted by opposing parties. 2Amendment of schedules does not erase prior admissions in schedules; it merely makes them evidence which the court may consider rather than binding judicial admissions. White v. Arco/Polymers, Inc., 720 F.2d 1391, 1396n5 (5th Cir. 1983). 2 In determining the value of the property, the court has the benefit of three sound a professional appraisals.1 From these and the debtor’s admissions,2 the court finds that the property was worth $520,000.00 on the date of the bankruptcy filing and has been depreciating at a rate of 1.5% per month since then, making the property worth about $475,000.00 today. This figure is reasonably supported by recent sales. Since the value of the property has at no time dipped below the amount owed on the first, the objections of Main Street Trust must be sustained. The motion to strip its lien will accordingly be denied and confirmation of the plan will also be denied. Since the value of the property has never dipped below the amount owed to the first, there is no need for the court to decide if the appropriate valuation date is the petition date or the confirmation date. However, Whitaker makes a good argument for the latter. Accordingly, denial of confirmation will be without prejudice to consideration of an amended plan if real estate values continue to fall. Counsel for Main Street Trust shall submit appropriate forms of order denying the motion to strip its lien and denying confirmation, both without prejudice. Dated: December 16, 2008 SAlan Jaroslovsky U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Case: 08-11218 Doc# 49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page 2 of 3 3 Case: 08-11218 Doc# 49 Filed: 12/16/08 Entered: 12/17/08 08:00:43 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.