Randy Guerrero Balaoing and Angelina Quenangan Balaoing

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

No

Rw

oOo Oo SN HD NM

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

For The Northern District Of California

19

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

AUTHENTICATE

Entered on Docket
November 23, 2011

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILED

\\
on 2? 0
‘\ Po hae STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
soos ogg eateRsen DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re Case No. 11-52030-ASW

RANDY GUERRERO BALAOING and

]
]
]) Chapter 13
ANGELINA QUENANGAN BALAOING, ]
, ]
]
]

Debtors.

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING
DEBTORS’ MOTION TO AVOID LIEN OF BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Before the Court is the motion (“Motion”) by debtors Randy
Guerrero Balaoing and Angelina Quenangan Balaoing (“Debtors”) to
determine the value and status of the second priority deed of trust
held by creditor Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) against
Debtors’ primary residence located at 13 Greentree Circle,
Milpitas, California 95035 (“Property”). Debtors seek a
determination that-Bank of America’s second deed of trust is not
secured in any amount and thus may be treated as unsecured in
Debtors’ chapter 13 plan. Bank of America opposes the Motion.
Debtors are represented by David A. Boone, Esq. and Leela Menon,
Esq. of The Law Offices of David A. Boone. Bank of America is
represented by Nicolas A. Daluiso, Esq. of Robinson Tait, P.S.

An evidentiary hearing on the Motion was held on September 6,

2011 and October 5, 2011, and the matter has been submitted for

Seen e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 1 of

GPO

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

BR WwW WN

oO CO SN DH AN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C

—==

decision. At the September 6, 2011 hearing, Debtors called Michael
Frangadakis (“Frangadakis”), an appraiser, as a witness. Bank of
America called Edward Davis (“Davis”), an appraiser, as a witness.
At the October 5, 2011 hearing, Debtors called Debtor Randy
Guerrero Balaoing (“Mr. Balaoing”) as a witness.

This Memorandum Decision constitutes the Court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

I.
FACTS

Debtors commenced this case by filing a petition under
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on March 3, 2011. Debtors’ main
asset is the Property. Two deeds of trust have been recorded
against the Property. The senior obligation and first deed of
trust on the Property is held by US Bank Home Mortgage (“US Bank”).
Bank of America is the beneficiary of a pre-petition loan made to
Debtors pursuant to an Equity Maximizer Agreement and Disclosure
Statement. Bank of America’s loan is secured by the second
priority trust deed (“Bank of America’s Lien”) against the
Property.

On the bankruptcy petition date, the amount owing to US Bank
was no more than $467,162.73. On April 29, 2011, Debtors filed the
Motion. On June 2, 2011, Bank of America filed an objection to the
Motion. The initial hearing on the Motion held on June 20, 2011
was continued to September 6, 2011 for an evidentiary hearing. The
evidentiary hearing was continued to October 5, 2011 to allow Mr.

Balaoing to testify as to Mr. Balaoing’s valuation of the Property.

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 2 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

For The Northern District Of California

kR Ww WN

\o oo a oD wa

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

At the September 6, 2011 hearing, each party offered an expert
witness to opine as to the value of the Property at the time of
Debtors’ bankruptcy petition. Both experts prepared written
reports and those reports were entered into evidence. Debtors’
expert witness Michael Frangadakis is a certified appraiser of real
property specializing in properties located in Santa Cruz and Santa
Clara counties. Bank of America’s expert witness Edward Davis isa
certified appraiser of real property. Both appraisers were
qualified to testify as experts concerning the value of the
Property.

Frangadakis holds a license from the State of California to
conduct real estate appraisals. Frangadakis has owned and operated
a full service real estate company which includes real estate
appraisal services since 1980. Frangadakis has appraised real
property in Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County for thirty years and
appraises roughly twenty properties per month. Debtors asked
Frangadakis to determine the market value of the Property as of
February 16, 2011 -- just prior to the bankruptcy petition date of
March 3, 2011.

Frangadakis testified that Frangadakis believed the fair
market value of the Property was $440,000 as of February 16, 2011.
Frangadakis based that conclusion upon a sales comparison analysis
of six comparable properties. Frangadakis explained that a sales
comparison approach to value is based upon an analysis of
comparable properties within the same neighborhood in light of
factors such as the real estate market of the particular
neighborhood, the school systems, and the dwelling’s

characteristics including square footage, age, and condition.

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 3 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18 :
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

ao nN BN TN FS

Ks)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

At the hearing, Frangadakis explained the adjustments
Frangadakis made to each of Frangadakis’ comparable properties.
Adjustments were made for characteristics of each comparable
property which would make the comparable property more or less
valuable than the Property, including variations in total square
footage and living space, the total number of bedrooms/bathrooms/
fireplaces, superior or inferior condition of the roof, style of
heating and air conditioning, additions to the comparable property
such as a pool, and whether the comparable property or portions of
the property -- such as the kitchen -- had been recently remodeled.

| Frangadakis’ report contained six comparable properties.
The sales price of the Frangadakis comparables ranged from $430,000
to $467,000 and were sold between December 6, 2010 and January 13,
2011. The comparables were located from 0.38 miles to 2.28 miles
away from the Property. Excluding Frangadakis’ comparable number
four, the comparables were all located between 2.02 miles and 2.28
miles away from the Property. Frangadakis. explained that,
excluding comparable number four, Frangadakis was unable to find
any comparable sales within two miles of the Property that had sold
within an acceptable time period before the date of Debtors’
bankruptcy petition on March 3, 2011. Therefore, Frangadakis used
comparables that were of similar age and within the same school
district as the Property, but that were located a little further
from the Property.

Bank of America’s expert witness Davis is a California
Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser. Davis has been an
appraiser for eight years and estimates that Davis has performed

roughly 1,500 appraisals during that time. Davis testified that

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 4 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 4

For The Northern District Of California

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

bh Ww HN

oOo fo SN DN MN

10
11

© 12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

Davis believed the fair market value of the Property was $515,000
as of May 5, 2011 -- roughly two months after the date of Debtors’
bankruptcy petition. Davis based that conclusion upon a sales
comparison analysis of five comparable properties.

The sales prices of the Davis comparables ranged from $435,000
to $560,000 and were sold between January 14, 2010 and April 4,
2011. The comparables were located between .1 and .93 miles from
the Property. Davis explained that Davis used comparables that
were located closer to the Property than Frangadakis -- the
tradeoff being that the comparables did not all sell as close in
time to the date of Debtors’ bankruptcy petition as Frangadakis’
comparables. Therefore, three of Davis’ comparables sold more than
six months prior to March 3, 2011 and one of Davis’ comparables
sold more than one month after March 3, 2011. The remaining
comparable, comparable number four, was the only comparable used by
both Frangadakis and Davis and was located .38 miles away from the
Property and sold roughly two months before March 3, 2011.

Davis testified that, excluding comparable number four, Davis
chose to use comparables located closer to the Property, but: that
had sold either after March 3, 2011 or more than six months prior
to March 3, 2011, because housing prices were stable at the time
and because differences between neighborhoods were lost by using
comparables located more than two miles away from the Property.
Davis explained that while it is not inappropriate to use
comparables more than two miles from the Property, an appraiser
should use closer comparables if possible. In addition to choice
of comparables, Frangadakis and Davis also differed in making

adjustments to Frangadakis’ and Davis’ respective comparables.

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 5 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

N

Oo wo nN Don Se W

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

26
27
28

On October 5, 2011, Mr. Balaoing testified as to Mr.
Balaoing’s valuation of the Property. Mr. Balaoing was a licensed
real estate agent from March 2007 to March 2011, but only used Mr.
Balaoing’s real estate license on three occasions when purchasing
investment properties. Mr. Balaoing testified that the value of
the Property is no more than $440,000 based on Mr. Balaoing’s
capacity as the owner of the property who is familiar with property
values in the area in which the Property is located. Mr. Balaoing
testified in Mr. Balaoing’s declaration that Mr. Balaoing’s opinion
was also based on inspection and opinion of the value of comparable
homes on or about the date of the filing of Debtors’ bankruptcy

petition.

II.

ANALYSIS

Debtors’ Motion requests this Court to determine the value and
status of Bank of America’s Lien as wholly unsecured and void.
Debtors contend that because the fair market value of the Property
on the bankruptcy petition date was less than the debt secured by
US Bank’s first priority trust deed, Bank of America’s Lien was
wholly unsecured at the time of the bankruptcy. Bank of America
opposes the Motion arguing the fair market value of the Property
exceeded US Bank’s first priority lien -~ thus Bank of America’s
second priority trust deed was at least partially secured and
entitled to the “antimodification” provision of Bankruptcy Code
section 1322 (b) (2).

Debtors seek to value Bank of America’s Lien on the Property

based on Bankruptcy Code section 506(a) (1), which states:

Cate: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 6 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 6

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

For The Northern District Of California

kh WwW WN

oo Aa SI NH MN

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on
property in which the estate has an interest... isa
secured claim to the extent of the value of such
creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such
property . . . and is an unsecured claim to the extent
that the value of such creditor’s interest ... is less
than the amount of such allowed claim.

the “holder of a secured claim” whose rights are subject to the

Zimmer v. PSB Lending Coporation (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th

as a general unsecured claim, rather than a secured claim. Zimmer,
313 F.3d at 1227. Conversely, if the Court finds Bank of America’s
Lien to be secured by even $1.00, the “antimodification” protection
of Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b) (2) applies and the claim must be
paid as a secured claim and cannot be modified by Debtors’

chapter 13 plan.

Bankruptcy Code section 506(a) (1) instructs that when a court
requested to determine the value of collateral, “such value shall b
determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the
proposed disposition or use of such property...” 11 U.S.C.

§ 506(a) (1). When the debtors intend to stay in their house, the
proper valuation of the house under Bankruptcy Code section 506(a)

the fair market value. Taffiv. United States of America (In re

Taffi), 96 F.3d, 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). The fair market value
is not the “replacement” value because the house is not being
replaced. Neither is it the “foreclosure” value because no
foreclosure is intended in the chapter 13 plan. Taffi, 96 F.3d at

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 7 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 7

11 U.S.C. § 506 (a) (1). If the Court finds Bank of America’s Lien to

be wholly unsecured, as Debtors contend, then Bank of America is not

“antimodification” protection of Bankruptcy Code section 1322 (b) (2).

Cir. 2002). The consequence of such a finding is that Debtors could

provide for Bank of America’s claim through Debtors’ chapter 13 plan

is

e

is

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

For The Northern District Of California

bb WwW WN

oO Aa NN WD NM

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

1192. The fair market value is “the price which a willing seller
under no compulsion to sell and a willing buyer under no compulsion
to buy would agree upon after the property has been exposed to the
market for a reasonable time.” Taffi, 96 F.3d at 1192. Debtors
intend to stay in the Property, cure the loan owed to US Bank, and
treat Bank of America as a general unsecured creditor.

For purposes of granting or denying the Motion, this Court does

not need to determine the exact value of the Property. In re Serda,

395 B.R. 450 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2008). The Court only needs to
determine whether or not the value of the Property at the time of
Debtors’ bankruptcy petition was greater than, equal to, or less than
the amount of the senior secured debt owed to US Bank. Serda, 395
B.R. at 453. Here, the amount owing to the first deed of trust
holder was no more than $467,162.73 on the petition date.

Debtors bear the initial burden of proof of overcoming any
presumption established by the stated value in the secured creditor’s
proof of claim. Serda, 395 B.R. at 454. The secured creditor has
the ultimate burden of persuasion to demonstrate, by a preponderance
of the evidence, the value of the collateral which secures its claim.

In re Southmark Storage Associates Ltd. Partnership, 130 B.R. 9, 10

(Bankr. D. Conn. 1991).

Both parties’ expert witnesses used the sales comparable method
to estimate the fair market value of the Property at the time of
Debtors’ bankruptcy petition. The first hearing on the matter lasted
roughly four hours wherein both experts testified. The hearing at
which Mr. Balaoing testified lasted approximately twenty-five
Minutes. The Court considered all the evidence admitted at trial as

well as the parties’ written briefs and oral arguments.

se: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 8 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 8

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

For The Northern District Of California

\O oo ~ loo) wa sy (eS) N —

N No No N N NO N N N = — = — —_ — — — —
co TD TN AN KR BO NY KF oO Oo OND DH F&F WH NY FF O&O

Ca

Debtors’ expert, Frangadakis, analyzed six comparable properties
that were located between .38 and 2.28 miles from the Property. The
properties Frangadakis included in Frangadakis’ report were all sold
between December 9, 2010 and January 13, 2011. Each of Frangadakis’
comparables had closed escrow by the time of Debtors’ bankruptcy
petition. Based on these comparables, Frangadakis concluded that the
Property had a fair market value of $440,000 on the petition date.
Debtors have presented sufficient evidence to overcome the
presumption of value set forth in Bank of America’s claim.

Bank of America’s expert, Davis, analyzed five comparable
properties that were located between .1 and .93 miles from the
Property. The properties Davis included in Davis’ report were all
sold between January 14, 2010 and April 11, 2011. The properties
included in Davis’ report all closed escrow between June 10, 2010 and
April 28, 2011.

After weighing the evidence and testimony before the Court, the
Court sees two underlying principal issues as responsible for the
difference between Frangadakis’ and Davis’ opinions: (1) whether a
more accurate appraisal is obtained by using comparables located
closer to the Property, but that were sold outside the six month
period prior to the date of Debtors’ bankruptcy petition, or by using
comparables located more than two miles from the Property, but that
were in the same school district as the Property and that were sold
within the four months prior to the date of Debtors’ bankruptcy
petition; and (2) whether Frangadakis or Davis made correct
adjustments to Frangadakis’ and Davis’ respective comparable

properties. Each issue will be addressed in turn.

e: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 9 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 9

For The Northern District Of California

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

bk YS bd

Oo CO SN HD NAN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A. Proximity versus Date of Sale

One of the key issues dividing Frangadakis’ and Davis’ appraisal
figures is the use of different comparable properties. Other than
comparable number four, Frangadakis and Davis share no common
comparables. As explained by both Frangadakis and Davis, appraisers
using the sales comparison approach attempt to find properties
physically similar to the subject property, that were sold as close
to the effective date of the appraisal without being sold after the
effective date of appraisal, and that are located as close to the
subject property as possible. Ideally, the perfect comparable would
be the exact same model of home with the same amenities, sold the
same day as the effective date, and located just next door. The
problem faced by Frangadakis and Davis was that, other than
comparable 4, there were no comparable properties sold within the
six month period prior to the effective date that were also located
within two miles of the Property. Therefore, Frangadakis and Davis
had to choose whether to use properties that were not ideal because
those properties were sold more than seven months prior to the
effective date, or to use properties that were not ideal because
those properties were located more than two miles from the Property.

At trial, Frangadakis testified that Frangadakis chose to use
the comparables that were located more than two miles from the
Property, but that were sold within the time period four months prior
to Debtors’ bankruptcy petition date. Frangadakis explained that
Frangadakis concluded that the Milpitas housing market was declining
in value prior to the effective date, and that Davis’ comparables
could therefore not appropriately be used to establish an accurate

appraisal value. Frangadakis also testified that lender standards

Cage: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 10 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 10

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

&_ Ww bv

oOo A ~s HN MN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

require comparable properties to have sold within the six month
period prior to the effective date.

Davis testified that Davis chose to use comparables that were
located closer to the Property, but that had sold seven to fourteen
months prior to the effective date of March 3, 2011, because Davis
believed that the housing market in that area was stable. The Court
does not agree. Bank of America’s exhibit number five shows that
single family residential homes in Milpitas, California sold in
April 2010 for an average sales price of $566,420 and a median sales
price of $550,000. Bank of America’s exhibit number six shows that
single family residential homes in Milpitas, California sold in
March 2011 for an average sales price of $507,479 and a median sales
price of $436,000. These figures show that for the year before the
date of Debtors’ bankruptcy petition, the average sales price fora
single family residential home in Milpitas, California fell roughly
10.4% while the median sales price fell roughly 20.73%. These
dramatic drops in average and median sales prices for single family
residential homes in Milpitas, California indicate a declining
market, rather than a stable market.

Debtors introduced evidence showing that use of comparables
sold between seven and fourteen months prior to the date of Debtors’
bankruptcy petition without making an adjustment for a declining
market would produce an inaccurate appraisal value. However, Bank of
America did not produce evidence showing that Frangadakis’ choice of
comparables might lead to an inaccurate appraisal. During cross-
examination of Frangadakis, Bank of America’s counsel asked
Frangadakis whether using comparable properties located more than two

miles from the Property was inappropriate. Frangadakis responded

Cage: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 11 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 11

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

For The Northern District Of California

Oo © ND DB WH Ff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

that each of the comparables Frangadakis used were homes of similar
age to the Property and were in the same school district as the
Property. Frangadakis testified that Frangadakis considered the
school district to constitute the applicable neighborhood. Though
Bank of America’s counsel suggested that there might conceivably be
differences within the school district that Frangadakis used to
define the neighborhood that could affect home values, Bank of
America did not introduce any evidence to support this theory.

B. Frangadakis’ and Davis’ Adjustments

The Court finds that Davis’ adjustments for Davis’ comparable
properties were not well supported. First, Frangadakis testified
credibly that Frangadakis believed that Davis did not make proper
adjustments for Davis’ properties. Second, Davis should have made
adjustments to properties that were recently remodeled or
substantially improved, but did not.

During Frangadakis’ direct examination, Frangadakis testified
that Frangadakis did not agree with Davis’ adjustments. For example,
Frangadakis testified that, based on the information available in the
MLS listings, Davis’ comparable five should have been adjusted to
reflect the comparable property’s superior kitchen and recent
remodel. Frangadakis also testified that Davis’ comparable four,
which was also Frangadakis’ comparable four, should have been
adjusted to reflect the comparable property’s superior location,
smaller lot size, remodeled condition, smaller square footage (Davis
did make this adjustment, but Frangadakis made a smaller adjustment),
lack of fireplace, and remodeled kitchen. During Davis’ direct
examination, Davis attempted to explain Davis’ choice not to make

certain adjustments. Regarding comparable four, Davis explained that

of

le: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 12 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 12

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

o Om NN DBO vA FP WO NO

NBO NO NO NH NH HN NY NY NO KR PR FP BF Fe PF OEE ELL
oN NAN uA BP WYO NY KF Oo Oo OH ND DBD eH PW NY KF O&O

OQ
A)

—_——

Davis did not adjust for location because Davis felt traffic noise
was not significant, that Davis did not adjust for lot size because
most other lots in comparable number four's area were within that
range, that Davis did not adjust for the remodel because Davis
thought any adjustment would be “arbitrary,” that Davis’ adjustment
for square footage was larger because Davis used $80 per square foot
as opposed to Frangadakis’ $60 per square foot, and that Davis did
not adjust for the lack of a fireplace because Davis did not feel
that absence of a fireplace was significant.

Without evidence before the Court detailing whether standard
appraisal practice accounts for differences in the number of
fireplaces, the Court cannot determine whether Frangadakis is right
to adjust for comparable four lacking a fireplace. However, both
appraisers testified that it is appropriate to make adjustments for
lot size and condition of the comparable properties.! The Court
therefore finds that Frangadakis was correct in making these
adjustments to Frangadakis’ comparable properties, and that by
including these adjustments, Frangadakis’ appraisal report produced a
more credible appraisal value.

The Court is also especially concerned that Davis chose not to
adjust for any remodel of the comparable properties or of the
properties’ kitchens. Regarding comparable four, Davis admitted that
comparable four had a remodeled kitchen that was much nicer than the

Property’s kitchen. Davis said Davis did not make any adjustment for

' The appraisal form used by both Frangadakis and Davis
contains spaces to make adjustments for lot size and condition of
the comparable property. That both appraisers’ forms contain
spaces to make adjustments for lot size and condition suggests that
standard appraisal practice is to make adjustments for these
categories.

E 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 13 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 13

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

&

Oo CO ~ HD MN

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the remodeled kitchen because any adjustment would be. “arbitrary.”
The Court recognizes that any adjustment made to the comparable
properties involves an opinion. However, the purpose of making the
adjustment is to account for differences between the comparable
property and the Property, which in turn assists the Court in
determining the value of the Property. A reasonable home buyer is
likely to pay a premium for a newly remodeled and superior kitchen.
Therefore, the Court agrees with Frangadakis that some adjustment
should have been made.

The Court finds that there was substantial evidence that Davis’
comparable properties number two, three, four, and five were
remodeled just prior to the sale of each of those properties, which
accounted for the properties’ higher sales prices. Davis’ comparable
number two, which had a sale date of July 28, 2010 and sold for
$560,000, was previously sold on April 5, 2010 for $432,100 -- a 29%
increase in sale price in three months. Davis’ comparable number
three, which had a sale date of May 11, 2010 and sold for $550,000,
was previously sold on February 8, 2010 for $405,000 -+ a 35%
increase in price in three months. Davis’ comparable number four,
which had a sale date of January 10, 2011 and sold for $465,000, and
for which Frangadakis made a $25,000 adjustment for a general remodel
and $20,000 adjustment for a remodeled kitchen, was previously sold
on September 9, 2010 for $366,750 -- a 26% increase in four months.
Davis’ comparable five, which had a sale date of April 11, 2011 and
sold for $435,000, was previously sold on November 16, 2010 for
$355,000 -- a 22% increase in six months.

Davis testified that the explanation for the price difference

was that the prior sales were bank sales, and that presumably the

Cage: 11-52030, Doc# 46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 14 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 14

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

oOo wo ny Dn Nn FF

10
11
12
13

14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ca

|

bank was concerned with selling the property as quickly as possible
rather than receiving the highest price possible. The Court
recognizes that some bank-owned properties sell for less than market
value. However, other than the testimony of Davis, no evidence was
submitted showing that a bank would have motivations that supersede
receiving the highest possible price for the property, or that the
banks in question received especially low prices for their sales.

Debtors did, however, submit evidence showing that the
substantial increase in price for each property was due to an
extensive remodel of the properties. During Davis’ cross-
examination, Davis admitted that comparable four was a remodeled
property, but believed no adjustment could be made because Davis
could not determine the value of the remodel. Debtors also submitted
the MLS listing for Davis’ comparable numbers two and five. The MLS
listing for comparable number two, which Davis used in determining
what adjustments to make, described the property as: “Beautiful two
stories detached single family with many upgrades. Hardwoods floor
thru out first floor. New granite counter top, tile in kitchen and
bathroom, new appliance, new carpet, new interior paint, new roof.”
The MLS listing for comparable number five described the property as:
“Professionally remodeled throughout ... new interior ... new
bathroom cabinets, new recessed lighting, new granite counter top and
kitchen island, new stainless steel appliances, newly refurbished
hardwood floor, new tile floor in kitchen and bathrooms...”

Given the drastic increase in sales prices in a relatively short
time frame, and considering the description of the upgrades and
remodel to the properties, the Court finds that these properties were

substantially remodeled and that the remodels account for the large

P: 11-52030 Doc#46 Filed: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 15 of

MEMORANDUM DECISION FOLLOWING 18

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 15

For The Northern District Of California

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

0 oN DH HW Bw NY BH

NO wo bb WN NY NY NY WN NO —& RR PR BF FP FS KF PEP le
oOo ND DH OA FP WO NYO K& OD OO HB AND BD AH FE WH NY FF O&O

Ca

sales price differentials. All other differences accounted for, the
Property cannot be valued at the same price as these remodeled
properties because a reasonable buyer will pay more for a remodeled
property with new amenities than the buyer will pay for a non-
remodeled property without new amenities. Appropriate adjustments
should therefore be made to the remodeled comparable properties.

The Court finds that Davis should have made adjustments for the
remodeled kitchens and other important rooms and that Davis’ failure
to do so renders Davis’ report less reliable and credible than
Frangadakis’ report and conclusions.

C. Mr. Balaoing’s Testimony

On October 5, 2011, Mr. Balaoing testified as to Mr. Balaoing’s
valuation of the Property. Mr. Balaoing valued the Property at
$440,000 based on Mr. Balaoing’s capacity as the owner of the
Property who is familiar with properties in the area, Mr. Balaoing’s
training as a real estate agent, and based on Mr. Balaoing’s
inspection and opinion of the value of comparable homes.

Two issues were brought up during Mr. Balaoing’s testimony on
October 5, 2011. Debtors asked to introduce evidence at the hearing
that was not previously shared with Bank of America. Bank of America
objected to the use of Debtors’ evidence on hearsay grounds. The
Court has decided not to rely on Debtors’ evidence. For the reasons
previously stated, the Court finds that Frangadakis’ appraisal is
more accurate than Davis’ appraisal. The Court does not rely on Mr.
Balaoing’s testimony, so Mr. Balaoing’s testimony does not affect the

outcome of this matter.

eae Oe Duct AGHA Sourkdled: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 16 of

=O

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 18 16

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

kt WY WY

Oo Oo SN DN MN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24

25
26
27
28

III.
CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence admitted at hearing and the arguments of
counsel, the Court finds Frangadakis’ appraisal to be generally
accurate and reliable. Davis’ appraisal was not as reliable or
accurate for the reasons explained above. While Debtors submitted
evidence showing that Davis’ choice of comparable properties might
yield inaccurate adjusted values, Bank of America submitted no |
evidence to suggest that Frangadakis’ choice of comparable properties
would produce inaccurate adjusted values. Davis did not make proper
adjustments to Davis’ comparable properties, especially adjustments
to properties that were recently remodeled and that included
substantial new amenities. The Court finds that Frangadakis’
appraisal of the Property, which values the Property at $440,000 --
less than US Bank’s first priority deed of trust in the amount of
$467,162.73, is more accurate and significantly more reliable.

For the foregoing reasons, Debtors’ Motion to determine the
value and status of Bank of America’s Lien as wholly unsecured and
void is granted. The Court finds that the value of the Property was
less than the amount secured by the first deed of trust.
Accordingly, Bank of America’s secured claim is wholly unsecured and
is not entitled to the protection of Bankruptcy Code section
1322 (b) (2). Counsel for Debtors shall prepare a proposed form of
order, serve it on counsel for Bank of America, and then submit it to

the Court.

Dated: uv] gale

ARTH S. TSSBROBS_)
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

CaP iekde ROH DacxPiBldtPowakel 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 17 of

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 18 17

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
For The Northern District Of California

ao NN NO TO

Ke)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Court Service List

Randy Guerrero Balaoing
13 Greentree Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035-0000

Angelina Quenangan Balaoing
13 Greentree Circle
Milpitas, CA 95035-0000

Bank of America, N.A.
P.O. Box 30750
Los Angeles, CA 90030-0750

Bank of America, N.A.
P.O. Box 26012, NC4-105-02-99
Greensboro, NC 27420-6012

David A. Boone

Law Offices of David A. Boone
1611 The Alameda

San Jose, CA 95126

Nicolas A. Daluiso

Robinson Tait, P.S.

710 Second Avenue, Suite 710
Seattle, Washington 98104

Devin Derham-Burk
P.O. Box 50013
San Jose, CA 95150-0013

Office of the U.S. Trustee / SJ
U.S. Federal Bldg.

280 S lst St. #268

San Jose, CA 95113-3004

CAP icbaRCOe once "adtonskel °C: 11/22/11 Entered: 11/23/11 14:55:12 Page 18 of

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, ETC. 18