Harry Fred Koelling and Linda Ann Koelling

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
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	No. 04-46443 TD
Chapter 7
HARRY FRED KOELLING, LINDA
ANN KOELLING,
Debtors.
______________________________/
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The motion of Lois Brady (the “Trustee”), the chapter 7 trustee
in the above-captioned bankruptcy case, for approval of an agreement
with Burlingame Capital Partners II (“Burlingame” and the “Burlingame
Agreement”) 	and 	for 	authorization 	to 	sell 	the 	residence 	(the
“Residence”) of the above-captioned debtors’ (the “Debtors”) free and
clear of certain liens came before the above-captioned court on July
2, 	2008. 	The 	motion 	was 	opposed 	by 	the 	Debtors 	and 	by 	GE 	Capital
Corporation 	(“GE”), 	which 	asserts 	a 	judgment 	lien 	on 	the 	Residence
(the 	“GE 	Judgment 	Lien”). 	At 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	hearing, 	the
Court took the motion under submission. 	Having duly considered the
evidence 	presented 	and 	the 	argument 	made, 	the 	Court 	concludes 	that
the 	Agreement 	may 	not 	be 	approved 	and 	the 	Trustee 	may 	not 	be
Signed: July 25, 2008
________________________________________
LESLIE TCHAIKOVSKY
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
July 28, 2008
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 1 of
14

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
2
authorized 	to 	sell 	the 	Residence 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	the 	GE 	Judgment
Lien. 	The reasons for the Court’s decision are set forth below.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Debtors filed the above-captioned case as a chapter 11 case
on November 16, 2004. 	Earlier the same year, they filed a chapter 11
case for their corporation, Qmect, Inc. (“Qmect”), an electroplating
company. 	Virtually 	all 	of 	Qmect’s 	assets 	were 	encumbered 	by 	two
liens, a junior lien held by Burlingame and a senior lien originally
held by Comerica Bank-California (“Comerica”), which Burlingame had
purchased 	and 	assigned 	to 	an 	affiliate, 	Electrochem 	Funding 	LLC
(“Electrochem”).
In March 2006, Burlingame was granted relief from the automatic
stay in the Qmect case so as to foreclose on most of its collateral:
i.e., the operating assets of Qmect’s business. 	Burlingame purchased
Qmect’s 	assets 	for 	a 	nominal 	amount, 	subject 	to 	the 	senior 	secured
claim of Electrochem, its affiliate. 	The Qmect case was converted to
chapter 7 on October 6, 2006.
The Koellings executed personal guaranties of their secured debt
to 	both 	Comerica 	and 	Burlingame. 	After 	Burlingame 	foreclosed 	on
Qmect’s 	assets, 	the 	Koellings 	continued 	to 	defend 	against 	these
guaranty 	claims, 	primarily, 	by 	asserting 	offsetting 	claims 	of
misconduct against Burlingame. 	Some of these claims were litigated
in 	state 	court 	and 	some 	in 	the 	bankruptcy 	court. 	Ultimately,
virtually all of the Koellings’ claims were unsuccessful. 	On March
5, 2008, the Koellings’ chapter 11 case was converted to chapter 7.
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 2 of
14

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 Burlingame Attachment Lien was recorded on March 26,
2004. 	The GE Judgment Lien was recorded on May 14, 2004. 	Thus,
assuming the Burlingame Attachment Lien is still valid, it has
priority over the GE Judgment Lien.
3
At 	the 	time 	the 	chapter 	11 	case 	was 	filed, 	the 	Residence 	was
encumbered 	by 	a 	first 	deed 	of 	trust 	in 	favor 	of 	Washington 	Mutual
Bank (“WAMU” and the “WAMU Deed of Trust”). 	It was also encumbered
by 	an 	attachment 	lien 	in 	favor 	of 	Burlingame 	(the 	“Burlingame
Attachment Lien”) and by the GE Judgment Lien. 	Both the Burlingame
Attachment Lien and the GE Judgment Lien were recorded pre-petition,
after the recordation of the WAMU Deed of Trust. 1 	Finally, after the
chapter 11 case was filed, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”)
filed two tax liens (the “IRS Liens”). 	The IRS concedes that these
liens 	attach 	only 	to 	the 	Debtors’ 	homestead 	exemption 	in 	the
Residence.
After the Koellings’ bankruptcy case was filed, the state court
action 	in 	which 	the 	GE 	Attachment 	Lien 	was 	obtained 	was 	removed 	to
the 	bankruptcy 	court 	and 	was 	tried 	there. 	At 	the 	conclusion 	of 	a
trial, on or about August 15, 2006, judgment was rendered in favor of
Burlingame. 	The judgment was amended on or about October 1, 2007 to
include post-petition attorneys’ fees. 	On July 1, 2008, Burlingame
obtained 	relief 	from 	the 	automatic 	stay, 	and 	on 	July 	16, 	2008 	an
abstract of judgment was issued by the Court. 	The Court has not been
advised whether the abstract of judgment has yet been recorded.
WAMU 	was 	also 	granted 	relief 	from 	the 	automatic 	stay 	to
foreclose 	the 	WAMU 	Deed 	of 	Trust 	after 	the 	case 	was 	converted 	to
chapter 7. 	WAMU has not submitted a proposed order reflecting this
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 3 of
14

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
4
ruling 	and 	instead 	has 	scheduled 	a 	continued 	hearing 	on 	its 	motion
for 	August 	15, 	2008. 	However, 	Burlingame 	has 	represented 	to 	the
Court that the Debtors are in default in their payments on the WAMU
Deed of Trust.
The 	Debtors 	also 	hold 	a 	100 	percent 	interest 	in 	a 	corporation
that 	operates 	a 	school 	(the 	“Shares”): 	i.e., 	Kids 	Connection, 	Inc.
“Kids 	Connection”) 	and 	that 	owns 	the 	real 	property 	on 	which 	the
school is located. 	Burlingame does not claim a security interest in
the 	Shares. 	On 	October 	2, 	2007, 	Burlingame 	obtained 	a 	judgment
against Kids Connection in state court.
On January 9, 2008, Kids Connection filed a chapter 11 petition
in the San Francisco bankruptcy court. 	Kids Connection is currently
operating 	as 	a 	debtor 	in 	possession. 	Linda 	Koelling 	is 	serving 	as
the 	responsible 	person 	for 	Kids 	Connection, 	presumably 	with 	the
Trustee’s consent. 	Burlingame has filed a proof of claim in the Kids
Connection 	bankruptcy 	case 	(the 	“Kids 	Connection 	Claim”). 	It
contends 	that 	its 	claim 	against 	the 	Kids 	Connection 	estate 	is
secured. 	Presumably, this secured claim was obtained through post-
judgment enforcement proceedings.
DISCUSSION
The Court will address separately the Trustee’s request that the
Court approve the Agreement and her request for authorization to sell
the Residence free and clear of the GE Judgment Lien.
A. 	APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT
The 	Agreement 	contains 	two 	severable 	propositions. 	First, 	it
provides that Burlingame will pay the Trustee $50,000 if the Trustee
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 4 of
14

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
2Burlingame does not consent to payment of the costs of sale
from the sale proceeds. 	The Trustee estimates that the Residence
will sell for approximately $1.3 million. 	Thus, the costs of sale
are likely to exceed the $50,000 Burlingame has agreed to pay the
estate for the sale. 	In the Court’s experience, costs of sale tend
to equal eight percent of the sale price. 	Eight percent of $1.3
million would be close to $100,000. 	Thus, a sale of the Residence
would consume all but half of the consideration offered by
Burlingame pursuant to the Agreement.
3The proposed sale of the Shares is also described as free and
clear of liens. 	However, no liens encumbering the Shares have been
identified. 	The Court will not approve a sale of property of the
estate free and clear of unspecified liens. 	The Agreement also
5
succeeds in selling the Residence to some as yet unidentified third
party free and clear of the GE Judgment Lien. 	The Trustee’s receipt
of 	this 	sum 	is 	conditioned 	on 	its 	being 	available, 	either 	from
Burlingame’s 	share 	of 	the 	sale 	proceeds 	or 	from 	amounts 	Burlingame
may 	become 	entitled 	to 	receive 	from 	the 	Kids 	Connection 	estate.
Burlingame 	consents 	to 	the 	sale 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	the 	Burlingame
Attachment Lien provided it receives all the sale proceeds other than
the amounts necessary to pay any unpaid property tax, the WAMU Deed
of Trust, and the Debtors’ $75,000 homestead exemption. 2
Second, 	the 	Agreement 	provides 	that 	the 	Trustee 	will 	sell 	the
Shares 	to 	Burlingame 	for 	$100,000. 	Again, 	the 	receipt 	of 	this
payment is conditioned on the sum being available from one of the two
sources 	identified 	in 	the 	preceding 	paragraph. 	The 	Agreement
apparently 	envisions 	that 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	Shares 	will 	be 	effected
immediately and will be effective regardless of whether any payment
for 	the 	Shares 	is 	received 	by 	the 	estate. 	Moreover, 	Burlingame
retains 	the 	right 	to 	dispose 	of 	its 	claims 	against 	the 	Kids
Connection estate in any fashion it sees fit. 3
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 5 of
14

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
proposes to release Burlingame and all related parties from all
claims. 	No such claims have been identified. 	Given the extensive
litigation by Qmect and the Debtors prior to conversion of this
case, it is unlikely that there are any remaining claims to be
asserted. 	As a result, the Court does not view this provision of
the Agreement to be significant.
6
The 	Agreement 	has 	been 	characterized 	by 	the 	parties 	as 	a
compromise 	agreement. 	The 	Trustee 	has 	the 	burden 	of 	establishing
that a compromise agreement is fair and equitable. 	To permit it to
make 	that 	determination, 	the 	Trustee 	must 	inform 	the 	Court 	of: 	(1)
the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties,
if 	any, 	to 	be 	encountered 	in 	the 	matter 	of 	collection; 	(c) 	the
complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience
and delay necessarily attending it; (d) the paramount interest of the
creditors 	and 	a 	proper 	deference 	to 	their 	reasonable 	views 	in 	the
premises.” 	In 	re 	A 	& 	C 	Properties, 	784 	F.2d 	1377, 	1381 	(9 th 	Cir.
1986), 	quoting 	from 	In 	re 	Flight 	Transportation 	Corp. 	Securities
Litigation, 730 F.2d 1128, 1135 (8 th Cir. 19874 (citations omitted).
For the most part, the Trustee has failed to address these factors.
However, 	this 	is 	not 	the 	basis 	for 	the 	Court’s 	disapproval 	of 	the
Agreement.
As 	stated 	in 	In 	re 	Mickey 	Thompson 	Entertainment 	Group, 	Inc.,
292 B.R. 415, 421 (Bankr. 9 th Cir. 2003), a compromise that disposes
of 	assets 	of 	the 	estate 	is 	equivalent 	to 	a 	sale. 	In 	fact, 	the
Agreement is more sale than compromise. 	It is unclear what disputes
are being compromised pursuant to the Agreement. 	Thus, it would be
difficult for the Trustee to discuss the factors set forth in A & C
Properties. 	Instead, the Court must consider the factors applicable
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 6 of
14

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 	4As stated above, the Court estimates the costs of sale of the
Residence to be about $100,000. 	Burlingame has agreed to pay up to
7
to 	sales: 	i.e., 	whether 	the 	sale 	price 	is 	adequate 	and 	whether 	the
sale is in the best interests of the estate.
The Agreement proposes to pay the estate $50,000 in return for
the Trustee’s sale of the Residence free and clear of the GE Judgment
Lien 	to 	the 	extent 	this 	amount 	is 	available 	from 	the 	sale 	proceeds
payable 	to 	Burlingame. 	As 	discussed 	above, 	this 	amount 	is
approximately 	$50,000 	less 	than 	the 	probable 	costs 	of 	the 	sale.
Thus, 	the 	only 	potential 	benefit 	to 	the 	estate 	from 	the 	Trustee’s
sale 	of 	the 	Residence 	is 	to 	produce 	a 	source 	of 	payment 	for 	the
consideration that Burlingame proposes to pay for the Shares.
However, it is not clear that the Trustee will be able to sell
the 	Residence 	at 	all, 	let 	alone 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	the 	GE 	Judgment
Lien. 	As noted above, WAMU obtained relief from the automatic stay
and 	may 	conduct 	a 	foreclosure 	sale 	before 	the 	Trustee 	is 	able 	to
locate 	a 	buyer 	and 	close 	a 	sale. 	In 	addition, 	as 	discussed 	below,
there 	may 	be 	some 	obstacles 	preventing 	the 	Trustee’s 	sale 	of 	the
Residence free and clear of the GE Judgment Lien.
As noted above, the Agreement provides that Burlingame will pay
the 	estate 	$100,000 	for 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	Shares. 	However, 	this
agreement is contingent on there being sufficient funds from one of
two sources: i.e., the sale of the Residence or Burlingame’s rights
in the Kids Connection estate. 	As discussed above, if the source of
the 	payment 	is 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	Residence, 	the 	estate 	will 	only
realize a $50,000 benefit. 4 	Moreover, as discussed above, there are
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 7 of
14

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
$150,000 for the sale of the Residence to a third party, the sale
of the Shares to Burlingame, and the releases of claims against
Burlingame and related parties. 	Thus, the estate would net only
about $50,000 if the Agreement were fully performed as
contemplated.
8
serious questions concerning whether such a sale will take place.
The 	Court 	has 	insufficient 	information 	concerning 	the 	Kids
Connection 	estate 	to 	be 	confident 	that 	Burlingame 	will 	receive
$100,000 	from 	its 	rights 	against 	that 	estate. 	Burlingame 	and 	the
Trustee 	contend 	that 	the 	Shares 	are 	worthless: 	i.e., 	thus, 	the
$100,000 	offered 	is 	more 	than 	the 	Shares 	are 	worth. 	From 	the
information 	provided 	concerning 	the 	Kids 	Connection 	assets 	and
liabilities, 	it 	appears 	unlikely 	that 	liquidation 	of 	the 	Kids
Connection 	assets 	would 	provide 	any 	payment 	to 	equity 	holders.
Similarly, it is unlikely that any dividend to shareholders would be
paid through a chapter 11 plan.
Burlingame 	presumably 	contends 	that 	its 	claims 	against 	the
estate provide a more likely source of payment. 	It asserts that it
holds 	a 	secured 	claim 	against 	the 	estate. 	However, 	it 	has 	not
disclosed 	how 	or 	when 	it 	obtained 	that 	secured 	claim. 	If 	the
security 	interest 	was 	obtained 	through 	post-judgment 	enforcement
proceedings, shortly before the chapter 11 case was filed, it may be
avoidable as a preference.
Undoubtedly, 	Burlingame 	would 	nevertheless 	constitute 	the
largest 	unsecured 	creditor 	in 	the 	Kids 	Connection 	case. 	However,
there 	is 	no 	way 	to 	determine 	when 	any 	payments 	will 	be 	made 	to
unsecured creditors. 	In addition, Burlingame reserves the right to
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 8 of
14

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
5Section 363(f) authorizes a bankruptcy trustee to sell
property of the estate free and clear of any interest in the
property if:
(1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property
free and clear of such interest;
(2) such entity consents;
(3) such interest is a lien and the price at which such
property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all
liens on such property;
(4) such interest is in bona fide dispute;
(5) such entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable
proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.
11 U.S.C. § 363(f).
9
dispose 	of 	its 	claims 	in 	any 	fashion 	it 	sees 	fit. 	Under 	these
circumstances, the Court has no confidence that the above-captioned
estate 	will 	receive 	$100,000 	from 	Burlingame’s 	rights 	against 	Kids
Connection.
B. 	AUTHORIZATION 	TO 	SELL 	THE 	RESIDENCE 	FREE 	AND 	CLEAR 	OF 	THE 	GE
JUDGMENT LIEN
As discussed above, the Trustee seeks authorization to sell the
Residence 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien 	pursuant 	to 	11
U.S.C. § 363(f). 5 	She does not at present have a buyer and arguably
is 	seeking 	an 	advisory 	opinion. 	GE 	asserts 	that 	the 	Court 	may 	not
authorize 	a 	sale 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	its 	lien 	in 	the 	absence 	of 	a
pending sale. 	The Trustee contends that § 105 permits the Court to
do 	so. 	The 	Court 	agrees 	with 	the 	Trustee. 	There 	may 	be
circumstances 	under 	which 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to 	grant 	such
authorization in advance of a negotiated sale. 	The question remains
whether this is such a circumstance.
The 	Trustee 	advances 	two 	arguments 	as 	to 	why 	she 	should 	be
permitted 	to 	sell 	the 	Residence 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	the 	GE 	Judgment
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 9 of
14

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
10
Lien. 	First, 	she 	asserts 	that, 	because 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien 	is
junior 	to 	the 	Burlingame 	Attachment 	Lien, 	it 	could 	be 	stripped 	off
the 	Residence 	pursuant 	to 	11 	U.S.C. 	§ 	506(d). 	In 	that 	case, 	she
would not need an order authorizing her to sell free and clear. 	See
In re Canonigo, 276 B.R. 257, 263 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2002).
Second, she contends that, given the value of the Residence and
the amount of the senior liens, there is at least a bona fide dispute
as to whether the GE Judgment Lien ever attached to the Residence in
the first place. 	Both arguments assume that the GE Judgment Lien is
junior to the Burlingame Attachment Lien. 	GE asserts that it is not.
The Trustee contends that, at a minimum, the disagreement concerning
the priority of the respective liens represents a bona fide dispute.
The 	Court 	agrees 	that 	there 	is 	a 	bona 	fide 	dispute 	concerning
the priority of the two liens. 	GE contends that the GE Judgment Lien
is 	senior 	to 	the 	Burlingame 	Attachment 	Lien 	because 	the 	Burlingame
Attachment 	Lien 	was 	never 	perfected. 	It 	cites 	In 	re 	Southern
Plastics, 	Inc., 	165 	F.3d 	1243, 	1248 	(9 th 	Cir. 	1998) 	for 	the
proposition that an attachment lien may not be perfected by allowance
of 	the 	underlying 	claim 	in 	the 	bankruptcy 	court. 	A 	judgment 	in 	a
plenary action is required. 	Burlingame correctly points out that it
did obtain a judgment against the Koellings; it did not simply obtain
allowance of its claim.
However, Burlingame may have lost its priority in another way.
As noted above, the Burlingame Attachment Lien was obtained in March
2004. 	The 	duration 	of 	an 	attachment 	lien 	under 	California 	law 	is
only three years unless an extension of that period is obtained. 	See
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 10 of
14

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
11
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 488.510. 	There is no evidence that Burlingame
ever obtained an extension of that three year period.
Burlingame 	did 	obtain 	a 	judgment 	against 	the 	Koellings 	within
the three year period. 	However, under California law, the attaching
creditor 	must 	obtain 	a 	judgment 	lien, 	not 	simply 	a 	judgment, 	while
the attachment lien is still in existence. 	Otherwise, the judgment
lien 	does 	not 	relate 	back, 	for 	priority 	purposes, 	to 	the 	date 	of
recordation 	of 	the 	attachment 	lien. 	See 	Cal. 	Civ. 	Proc. 	Code 	§
697.020. 	A judgment lien on real property is obtained by recording
a copy of the judgment or abstract in the real property records. 	See
Cal. 	Civ. 	Proc. 	Code 	§ 	697.310. 	As 	recited 	above, 	Burlingame 	has
only recently obtained an abstract of judgment from the Court.
Although bankruptcy law may have extended the time within which
Burlingame 	had 	the 	right 	to 	retain 	its 	priority 	by 	obtaining 	a
judgment lien, this is far from clear. 	See 11 U.S.C. § 108(c); but
see 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(3). 	Until these issues are resolved, it may
not be determined whether Burlingame holds a lien on the Residence at
all. 	On 	the 	other 	hand, 	if 	it 	does 	not, 	the 	proceeds 	of 	a 	sale 	by
the 	Trustee 	would 	presumably 	be 	sufficient 	to 	pay 	the 	GE 	Judgment
Lien claim in full. 	As a result, the Trustee would not need to sell
the Residence free and clear of the GE Judgment Lien.
This unresolved issue would support a sale of the Residence free
and clear of the GE Judgment Lien as long as sufficient sale proceeds
were 	held 	to 	pay 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien 	pending 	resolution 	of 	the
status of the Burlingame Attachment Lien. 	However, for the Trustee
to 	withhold 	these 	funds 	from 	Burlingame 	would 	be 	inconsistent 	with
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 11 of
14

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
12
the 	Agreement. 	Moreover, 	until 	the 	status 	of 	the 	Burlingame
Attachment 	Lien 	is 	established, 	it 	would 	be 	inappropriate 	for
Burlingame to receive any of the sale proceeds. 	Finally, unless the
parties agree to release sufficient sale proceeds to pay the costs of
sale, 	it 	does 	not 	appear 	that 	a 	sale 	of 	the 	Residence 	would 	be
feasible.
In the interests of judicial economy, the Court will address the
Trustee’s two arguments as to why the Residence may be sold free and
clear 	of 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien 	if 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien 	is 	junior 	to
the 	Burlingame 	Attachment 	Lien. 	The 	Court 	finds 	both 	arguments
unpersuasive. 	First, the fact that a trustee could move to avoid a
judgment lien that does not encumber any value in the property to be
sold does not provide a basis for selling free and clear of the lien
under 	§ 	363(f). 	The 	trustee 	must 	actually 	move 	to 	avoid 	the 	lien
under § 506(d). 	In the absence of a negotiated sale, the Court would
be unlikely to grant such a motion.
Second, the statute cited by the parties for the contention that
a 	judgment 	lien 	on 	a 	homestead 	that 	does 	not 	attach 	to 	any 	value--
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.950(c)--pertains to the type of exemption
obtained 	by 	recording 	a 	declaration 	of 	homestead 	exemption. 	The
Debtors did not record a declaration of homestead until after the GE
Judgment Lien was recorded. 	In fact, they recorded the declaration
on 	the 	same 	day 	that 	they 	filed 	for 	bankruptcy. 	In 	Schedule 	C 	of
their 	bankruptcy 	schedules, 	they 	relied 	on 	the 	homestead 	exemption
provided under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.710 et seq., not on their
declaration 	of 	homestead. 	There 	is 	no 	provision 	comparable 	to 	§
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 12 of
14

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
6The Court also notes that the case cited by the parties in
support of their contention that the GE Judgment Lien did not
attach to the Residence--In re Jones, 106 F.3d 923 (9 th Cir. 1997)
–-was overruled by the Ninth Circuit based on intervening
California case authority rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s ruling
predicting how a California court would rule on an issue of
California law. 	See In re Watts, 298 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9 th Cir.
2002).
13
704.950(c) 	applicable 	to 	the 	exemption 	provided 	under 	§ 	704.710 	et
seq. 6
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	stated 	above, 	both 	the 	Trustee’s 	request 	for
approval of the Agreement is denied and her request for authorization
to sell the Residence free and clear are denied. 	The proposed sale
of 	the 	Residence 	would 	cost 	the 	estate 	more 	than 	the 	consideration
being offered for the sale. 	The proposed source of the consideration
for 	the 	Shares 	is 	too 	uncertain, 	particularly 	given 	the 	Court’s
questions concerning whether the Burlingame Attachment Lien is still
valid. 	A 	prompt 	sale 	of 	the 	Residence 	free 	and 	clear 	of 	both 	the
Burlingame 	Attachment 	Lien 	and 	the 	GE 	Judgment 	Lien, 	the 	liens 	to
attach to the sale proceeds, would appear to be in the best interests
of the estate. 	Otherwise, WAMU may foreclose its senior consensual
lien. 	However, such a sale would require the consent of parties that
the sale proceeds could be used to pay the costs of sale. 	Counsel
for the GE is directed to submit a proposed order in accordance with
this decision.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 13 of
14

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
14
COURT SERVICE LIST
Harry Fred Koelling
Linda Ann Koelling
602 Cornwallis Ln
Foster City, CA 94404
Mark Bostick
Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
1111 Broadway 24th Fl.
P.O. Box 2047
Oakland, CA 94604-2047
Robert R. Moore
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 12 th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
Case: 04-46443 Doc# 329 Filed: 07/25/08 Entered: 07/28/08 15:49:18 Page 14 of
14