Christina Lee Lanier-Fravel

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN RE:
CHRISTINA LEE LANIER-FRAVEL,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-10221-T
Chapter 7
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AND MOTION FOR ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to Bancfirst’s Motion for Relief from
Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d), for Abandonment of Property Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 554 (“the Motion”), filed by BancFirst (“Bank”); 1 and Debtor’s Response to the Motion,
filed by Christina Lee Lanier-Fravel (the “Debtor”). 2 The Court held an evidentiary hearing on
the Motion on February 2, 2026 (the “February 2nd Hearing”). After receiving evidence and
hearing argument, the Court took the Motion under advisement. On February 9, 2026, the Court
held an additional telephonic hearing in order to clarify certain matters (the “Telephonic Hearing”).
Beyond soliciting answers to specific questions, the Court did not accept additional evidence or
argument at the Telephonic Hearing. The following “Findings of Fact” and “Conclusions of Law”
are being made pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, which is made applicable
to this contested matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014.
Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). 3
1 ECF No. 95.
2 ECF No. 99.
3 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to sections of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11
U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
-T
Filed/Docketed
Feb 26, 2026
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 1 of 10

2
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of the bankruptcy case is
proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This is a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (G).
Findings of Fact
Bank holds a judgment (the “2020 Judgment”) against Debtor related to a foreclosure
action 	on 	Debtor’s 	primary 	residence 	located 	at 	4110 	S. 	Florence 	Place 	in 	Tulsa 	(the
“Residence”). 4 The 2020 Judgment is in the principal amount of $414,872.35, plus interest, fees,
and a yet to be liquidated amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 5 In 2021, Debtor filed a
voluntary bankruptcy case under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. 6 After that case was
dismissed in 2023, the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee made a distribution to Bank of $81,529.34
towards the 2020 Judgment. 7
Debtor commenced the present case under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on February
25, 2025. On March 12, 2025, Debtor filed schedules stating that the Residence had a current value
of $590,000 and that Bank held a claim of $601,977. 8 Attached to her schedules was a declaration
stating, under penalty of perjury, that Debtor had read the schedules and they were true and
correct. 9 While this case was pending under Chapter 13, Bank sought relief from the automatic
stay on the basis that it claimed the Residence had been sold at a sheriff’s sale and was no longer
property of Debtor’s estate. The Court denied Bank’s motion on the basis that it had not met its
4 Bank’s Ex. No. 3.
5 Id.
6 Case No. 21-10145.
7 Bank’s Ex. No. 6-1.
8 See Schedule D, ECF No. 13, at 12.
9 ECF No. 13, at 26.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 2 of 10

3
burden of proof.
On November 25, 2025, Debtor voluntarily converted this case to one under Chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code. Bank filed the present Motion on December 10, 2025. Debtor filed the
Response on December 22, 2025. On that same date, Debtor filed an Amended Schedule D, in
which she stated that the current value of the Residence was unchanged at $590,000. 10 She also
declared the value of Bank’s claim as unknown. 11 Attached to the Amended Schedule D was a
declaration stating, under penalty of perjury, that Debtor had read the schedules and they were true
and correct. 12
At the February 2nd Hearing, Glen Musgrove (“Musgrove”), a Special Asset Officer for
Bank, testified regarding Debtor’s account. Musgrove testified that Debtor has not made a direct
payment to Bank in almost seven years. The only funds received by Bank during that time came
from the distribution from Debtor’s 2021 Chapter 13 case. Musgrove testified the total amount
owed to Bank as of the February 2nd Hearing was approximately $617,000, which included
accrued interest of $168,000, expenses for insurance and taxes for years 2023, 2024, and 2025,
and other collection fees. His estimate did not include the award of attorney’s fees under the 2020
Judgment, which have been granted but not yet liquidated by the state court. Musgrove estimated
those fees could be as high as $200,000, although he provided no evidence to support that estimate.
He also testified that the 2020 Judgment continues to accrue interest at approximately $84 per day.
Regarding the value of the Residence, Musgrove testified that he believed it has a value of
$510,000, but offered no appraisal or other support for his valuation.
10 ECF No. 97, at 1.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 2.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 3 of 10

4
Debtor has lived in the Residence since 2014. She testified that the Residence is in good
repair, has been fully remodeled under her ownership, and is generally well cared for. 	Debtor
testified that she is familiar with home values in the neighborhood and has consulted friends with
experience as realtors and home appraisers. Based on those conversations, she estimates the current
value of the Residence to be approximately $812,000. Debtor testified that the scheduled value of
$590,000 was based on a Zillow estimate and an appraisal conducted by Bank. She now believes
that estimate is too low. Debtor testified that she has had the Residence appraised for more than
$590,000, but provided no evidence of that. 13
Debtor also testified that she objects to the amount remaining due on Bank’s claim. She
alleges that Bank did not properly apply the funds it received from her 2021 Chapter 13 case. She
indicated that she has filed a complaint with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and the
“Attorney General,” but no evidence of such a complaint was offered. 	While not raised at the
February 2nd Hearing, the Court notes that the Motion alleges the Tulsa County Court Clerk holds
approximately $80,000 in its registry as proceeds of a Cash Bond, which Bank also requests relief
from the stay to pursue and abandonment from the estate.
To the extent that “Conclusions of Law” contain items that should more appropriately be
considered “Findings of Fact,” they are incorporated herein by this reference.
Conclusions of Law
Under § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, relief shall be granted with respect to property
13 At the Telephonic Hearing, counsel for Debtor indicated that since the February 2nd Hearing, Debtor had
received a new appraisal report on the Residence. Debtor did not ask the Court to reopen the evidence to consider the
appraisal report, and the Court did not do so. The Court will not treat counsel’s statements regarding the value of the
Residence as evidence, and gives her statements made at the Telephonic Hearing regarding valuation no weight.
Likewise, to the extent Debtor has attached a copy of the newly acquired appraisal report to subsequent court filings
unrelated to this Motion, it has not been considered by the Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 122.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 4 of 10

5
of the estate if (A) the debtor has no equity in the property at issue; and (B) the property is not
necessary to an effective reorganization. 14 	In other words, § 362(d)(2) is written in the
conjunctive; both (A) and (B) must be satisfied before a court may grant relief from the automatic
stay under this subsection. Under § 362(g), Bank has the burden of proof as to the issue of whether
Debtor has any equity in the Residence. Debtor has the burden of proof on all other issues. Also,
while the terms of § 362(d)(1) may allow for a “balancing of equities” in defining “cause” for
relief from the automatic stay, the terms of § 362(d)(2) do not allow for such latitude. 15
The facts of this case present the Court with a simple math problem: 	Has Bank met its
burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount due under the 2020 Judgment
exceeds the current value of the Residence? 16 Before answering that question, the Court makes
several observations:
First, normally, “in making its determination with respect to valuation, a court would sift
through competing appraisals and testimony and make a judgment as to the ‘accuracy and
credibility’ of the appraisers.” 17 The Court points out that neither party offered a recent appraisal
of the Residence, or testimony from a realtor or other expert with experience in evaluating the
values of homes in the Tulsa area near the Residence. 18 That leaves the Court with opinion
testimony of two parties that are each heavily invested in a particular outcome in this matter.
Second, “statements contained in bankruptcy schedules are executed under penalty of
14 § 362(d)(2).
15 In re Fazio, 59 B.R. 312 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986).
16 See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991) (regarding preponderance standard).
17 In re YL W. 87th Holdings I LLC, 423 B.R. 421, 428 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
18 As noted, Debtor has not asked the Court to reopen the evidence to consider an additional appraisal report
acquired after the February 2nd Hearing. See supra note 13.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 5 of 10

6
perjury and when offered against the debtor are eligible for treatment as judicial admissions.” 19
The Court will treat Debtor’s statements in her original Schedule D and Amended Schedule D,
made under penalty of perjury, that the Residence has a value of $590,000, as a judicial admission
of the value of the Residence at the time those statements were made.
Third, “[i]t is the general rule that an owner, because of [their] ownership, is presumed to
have special knowledge of the property and may testify as to its value.” 20 This rule was formalized
in Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702 and its Advisory Committed Notes, which specifically refer
to landowners testifying to land values as being among the group of qualified experts. 21 A qualified
and knowledgeable witness may give their opinion or estimate of the value of property, but to have
probative value, that opinion or estimate must be founded upon substantial data, not mere
conjecture, speculation or unwarranted assumption. 22 In other words, even an estimate of value
made by a landowner must have a rational foundation. And while an owner may testify as to their
opinion of the value of property, that opinion is not conclusive; just like any fact issue, the value
is subject to determination by the Court. 23
1. 	The Residence
At the February 2nd Hearing, the parties offered three separate estimates of the current
value of the Residence:
a. 	Musgrove testified he believed the Residence is currently valued at $510,000.
19 In re Miller, No. 10-25453, 2012 WL 6041639, at *14 (Bankr. D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2012), aff’d No. 12-CV-
03279, 2013 WL 4776054 (D. Colo. Sept. 4, 2013), aff’d 577 F. App’x 849 (10th Cir. 2014).
20 United States v. Sowards, 370 F.2d 87, 92 (10th Cir. 1966).
21 Fed. R. Evid. 702 (1972 Advisory Committee Notes).
22 Sowards, 370 F.2d at 92.
23 Id.; Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Smith, 435 F.2d 1029, 1031 (10th Cir. 1971).
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 6 of 10

7
Counsel for Bank indicated that Bank relied on Debtor’s scheduled value of
$590,000 as the current value of the Residence, and is willing to accept her
valuation for purposes of the Motion.
b. 	Debtor scheduled the Residence on both March 12, 2025, and December 22,
2025, under penalty of perjury, as having a current value of $590,000.
c. 	In her testimony, Debtor discounted the value of $590,000 contained in the
schedules, and gave her opinion that the Residence has a current value of
$812,000, based on her awareness of recent sales in the neighborhood and
discussions with realtor and appraiser friends.
Regarding the value of the Residence, Bank has chosen to rely on Debtor’s admission in her
schedules that it is worth $590,000. 24 The Court recognizes Debtor’s authority to testify regarding
the value of the Residence. While the Court found her testimony to be heartfelt, Debtor’s valuation
of the Residence at $812,000 is based on speculation and conjecture. At the February 2nd Hearing,
she provided no appraisals, comparable sales, or other evidence beyond her opinion. The Court
finds Debtor’s testimony regarding value was not sufficient to overcome the admission in her
schedules, made just six weeks before the February 2nd Hearing, that the Residence has a current
value of $590,000. Based on the admittedly sparse evidence before it, the Court concludes that the
current valuation of the Residence is $590,000.
Regarding the amount owed to Bank under the 2020 Judgment, Musgrove testified, based
on records of Bank, that Debtor’s obligation is currently approximately $617,000. Bank’s claim
24 Although Musgrove offered his opinion that the Residence was valued at $510,000, that testimony was not
supported by additional evidence. For the same reasons the Court rejects Debtor’s unsupported valuation of the
Residence, the Court also rejects the unsupported valuation offered by Musgrove.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 7 of 10

8
also includes an amount of awarded but unliquidated attorney’s fees. The Court finds it is Bank’s
burden to provide factual support for a determination of those fees in an amount above zero.
Beyond a rough guess by Musgrove that Bank’s attorney’s fees could be as high as $200,000,
Bank did not offer any evidence of the amount of attorney’s fees likely to be awarded under the
2020 Judgment. While the Court can accept that the attorney’s fees will not be zero and are likely
to be substantial, it has no evidentiary basis to estimate those fees with any degree of confidence.
Given it is Bank’s burden to provide the Court with an evidentiary basis to support a finding of
equity in the Residence, the Court will not guess or speculate at the value of attorney’s fees for the
purpose of the equity math problem. 25
Debtor made general objections to the amount of Bank’s claim under the 2020 Judgment,
but she presented no supporting evidence that Bank has misapplied funds. Debtor also stated that
she had made various payments for insurance and taxes on the Residence in recent years,
suggesting that those items were inappropriately included in Bank’s claim. Again, in the absence
of any receipts or statements showing such payments were made, the Court cannot give credence
to Debtor’s statements. Based on the evidence before the Court, it finds the Bank’s claim under
the 2020 Judgment is currently $617,000.
The Court initiated the Telephonic Hearing to inquire how the application of proceeds due
under the Cash Bond would affect the issue of equity in the Residence. The parties acknowledged
that if relief is granted with regard to the Cash Bond, its proceeds of roughly $80,000 will be
immediately applied to Bank’s claim. This will reduce the amount owed to Bank from $617,000
to approximately $537,000. 	Finding no evidence to the contrary, the Court concludes that,
25 § 362(g)(1).
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 8 of 10

9
including the application of the Cash Bond, the Bank’s claim is currently $537,000, plus an
unliquidated amount for attorney’s fees under the 2020 Judgment. Having previously found the
Residence has a value of $590,000, the Court must conclude Debtor has equity in the Residence.
The Bank has not met its burden under § 362(d)(2)(A).
Because Bank has not met its burden under § 362(d)(2)(A), the Court need not address the
second prong of § 362(d)(2). The Court will simply note that § 362(d)(2)(B), which requires that
the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization, is always satisfied when the Debtor
is proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 26 Finding the Debtor has equity in the
Residence, the Court concludes Bank’s Motion with regard to the Residence should be denied.
2. 	The Cash Bond
In the Motion, Bank also seeks relief from § 362(a) to recover proceeds of the Cash Bond
discussed earlier. Although Bank presented no evidence at the February 2nd Hearing regarding the
Cash Bond, Debtor did not raise any objections to the relief requested. Therefore, the Motion for
relief from stay with regard to the Cash Bond will be granted.
3. 	Abandonment
Section 554(b) provides:
(b) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court may
order the trustee to abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome to the
estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate.
The Motion seeks abandonment of the Cash Bond proceeds so that Bank may collect and apply
those 	funds 	to 	its 	debt 	immediately. 	Debtor provided 	no 	argument 	or 	evidence 	against
abandonment of the Cash Bond. Therefore, the Motion for abandonment with regard to the Cash
26 See, e.g., In re Fazio, 59 B.R. at 313.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 9 of 10

10
Bond will be granted.
Conclusion
The Court finds BancFirst's Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 362(d), and for Abandonment of Property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 554 (the
“Motion”) should be granted in part and denied in part.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion with respect to real property located at 4110
S. Florence Place, Tulsa Oklahoma, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the automatic stay in this case with respect to real
property located at 4110 S. Florence Place, Tulsa Oklahoma, shall remain in place.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion with respect to the funds known as the “Cash
Bond” held by the Tulsa County Court Clerk is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the automatic stay will be modified as to the “Cash
Bond” held by the Tulsa County Court Clerk to allow Creditor BancFirst to exercise any and all
available remedies under Oklahoma law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chapter 7 trustee assigned to this case should
abandon its interest in the funds known as the “Cash Bond” held by the Tulsa County Court Clerk,
pursuant to § 554(b).
Dated this 26th day of February, 2026.
Case 25-10221-T Document 123 Filed in USBC ND/OK on 02/26/26 Page 10 of 10