Reinard Adolph Pollmann

Page 1 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
This case came before the court on the trustee’s request to compensate his master broker
West Coast Commercial Realty (“West Coast”) and his local broker Pacific Coast Real Estate &
Development (“Pacific Coast”) for their work as real estate brokers in connection with the sales
of a hotel in Newport and a business center in Florence.1 Debtor Reinard Adolph Pollmann and
creditor Joconda Lorell Nielson opposed payment of compensation to the brokers.2
1 Trustee’s Brief in Support of Authorization of Compensation to Brokers for Sales of Florence
Business Center and Newport Motel, ECF No. 435, filed May 5, 2026; Trustee’s Reply in
Support of Authorization of Compensation to Brokers for Sales of Florence Business Center
and Newport Motel, ECF No. 484, filed May 26, 2026; see also Order Amending Prior Order
Authorizing Employment of Master Broker and Setting Briefing Schedule on Compensation of
Local Brokers, ECF No. 397, entered Apr. 20, 2026, p. 3.
2 Debtor’s Objection to Compensation of Real Estate Brokers, ECF No. 474, filed May 19,
2026; Opposition and Request or Denial of Compensation for Cause to Trustee’s Real Estate
In re
Reinard Adolph Pollmann,
Debtor.
Case No. 25-60008-thp7
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE
COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR
SALE OF HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL
AND BUSINESS CENTER IN
FLORENCE
Below is an opinion of the court.
_______________________________________
TERESA H. PEARSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
DISTRICT OF OREGON
F I L E D
July 01, 2026
Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
The court held a hearing on June 5, 2026, at which the trustee was represented by
Andrew J. Geppert, and the Internal Revenue Service was represented by Nate Lichvarcik.
Creditor Ms. Nielson did not appear. The court has reviewed the record and files of this case and
considered the arguments made by the parties.
Relevant Facts
The court incorporates the following facts from its April 20, 2026, order.3
1. 	West Coast was previously employed as a master broker in this case while the
case was pending in chapter 11.4
2. 	When this court previously authorized the employment of West Coast as a master
broker, the trustee made the following representation in paragraph 5 of his amended motion:
5. 	Trustee will review and sign all listing agreements for Local
Brokers for each individual property (the “LB Agreements”). The LB
Agreements will contain the provisions set forth in the Addendum to
Listing Agreement (the “Addendum”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The
Addendum is standard in all listing agreements entered into in this district.
The Addendum includes an acknowledgement by the Local Broker that all
commissions charged by the Local Broker for a particular property will be
commercially reasonable for that area and the nature of the property
involved, and subject to Court approval.5
3. 	Paragraph 7 of the addendum attached as exhibit 1 provided:
7. 	The Seller represents that he has authority to sell the subject
Property but does not provide any warranties regarding the condition of
Professionals, Including Master and Local Brokers, in the Sales of the Florence Business
Center and the Newport Bay Motel (ECF No. 397), ECF No. 447, filed May 8, 2026.
3 Order Amending Prior Order Authorizing Employment of Master Broker and Setting Briefing
Schedule on Compensation of Local Brokers, ECF No. 397, entered Apr. 20, 2026, pp. 2-5.
4 Trustee’s Motion for Order to Employ West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as Master Real
Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 83, filed Apr. 21, 2025; Trustee’s Amended Motion for
Order to Employ West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as Master Real Estate Broker for
Trustee, ECF No. 90, filed Apr. 11, 2025; Order Authorizing Employment of West Coast
Commercial Realty, LLC as Master Real Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 99, entered
May 12, 2025.
5 Trustee’s Amended Motion for Order to Employ West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as
Master Real Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 90, filed Apr. 21, 2025, p. 2.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
the Property or the disclosures, written or otherwise, provided as part of
the sale process. No indemnity is provided. Dual agency is not permitted.6
4. 	The court’s order authorizing the employment of West Coast as a master broker
included the following provision in paragraph 4:
4. 	The requirement that each Local Broker be employed by the Court
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327, Fed. R. of Bankr. P. 2014, and
LBR 2014-1(b) is waived, as long as Trustee reviews and signs all listing
agreements for Local Brokers.7
5. 	Based on this, the court expected the trustee to ensure that all the local broker
agreements included a prohibition on dual agency. This was necessary to ensure that the local
brokers would not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate as required by 11 U.S.C.
§ 327(a).
6. 	While still in chapter 11, the trustee then moved to sell two parcels of real
property, a hotel in Newport, Oregon,8 and a business center in Florence, Oregon.9 The court
held an evidentiary hearing on those motions.10 Although the court found that the sales
themselves were appropriate, evidence presented at the hearing raised the court’s concerns about
whether the employment of the local brokers complied with the requirements of 11 U.S.C.
§ 327(a). The court approved the sales but required that the trustee (i) hold back any
compensation to the local brokers pending further court order, and (ii) file copies of the listing
agreements with the local brokers.11
6 Id., at p. 4.
7 Order Authorizing Employment of West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as Master Real
Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 99, entered May 12, 2025, p. 2.
8 Notice of Intent to Sell Real or Personal Property, Compensate Real Estate Broker, and/or
Pay Any Secured Creditor’s Fees and Costs; Motion for Authority to Sell Property Free and
Clear of Liens; and Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 202, filed Dec. 18, 2025.
9 Notice of Intent to Sell Real or Personal Property, Compensate Real Estate Broker, and/or
Pay Any Secured Creditor’s Fees and Costs; Motion for Authority to Sell Property Free and
Clear of Liens; and Notice of Hearing, ECF No. 208, filed Dec. 24, 2025.
10 Record of Proceeding, ECF No. 280, filed Feb. 11, 2026; Record of Proceeding,
ECF No. 289, filed Feb. 13, 2026.
11 Record of Proceeding, ECF No. 289, filed Feb. 13, 2026; Order Approving Sale
(754 SW Coast Hwy, Newport, OR), ECF No. 293, entered Feb. 17, 2026, p. 2; Order
Approving Sale
(1525 12th St. Florence, OR), ECF No. 294, entered Feb. 17, 2026, p. 2.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
7. 	The trustee filed a copy of the Local Broker Consulting Agreement between West
Coast as master broker and Pacific Coast as the local broker, as well as the listing agreements for
the hotel in Newport and the business center in Florence.12 The Local Broker Consulting
Agreement provided in relevant part as follows:
1.3 Upon direction by the Master Broker, the Local Broker will use
reasonably diligent efforts to provide the following services (herein
individually and collectively (as the context shall require) referred to as,
the “Services”) defined as: a) knowledge for the territory in which Local
Broker is working, b) develop a Brokers Opinion of Value (BOV) for the
Real Property with a marketing approach, c) execute a Real Property
Exclusive Sale Listing Agreement(s) with Client which shall include the
Addendum to Listing Agreement (“Addendum”) attached as Exhibit B,
d) create marketing materials and signage (where applicable), e) engage in
regular follow up calls and meetings with the Firm and/or Client for
progress reports, recent interest and strategy brainstorming execution of
sales agreement(s) as directed and approved by the Client (“Transaction”)
of which shall be subject to approval by the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Oregon and as per the real estate license laws in
the State of OREGON.
***
1.5 Local Broker agrees that under no circumstances shall Local Broker
represent any interests that may be in conflict with the interests of Client
including, but not limited to, any buyer (i.e., dual representation) of any
Real Property offered by Client, without first disclosing the conflict to
Firm and Client, and obtaining Firm and Client’s written waiver of such
conflict.13
The addendum attached as Exhibit B, which was required to be attached to all local broker listing
agreements, provided in relevant part:
7. 	The Seller represents that he has authority to sell the subject
Property but does not provide any warranties regarding the condition of
the Property or the disclosures, written or otherwise, provided as part of
the sale process. No indemnity is provided. Dual agency is not permitted.14
12 Trustee’s Notice of Filing Listing Agreements, ECF No. 296, filed Feb. 17, 2026.
13 Id., Exh. 1, p. 1. There is no evidence in the record of any such written waiver.
14 Id., Exh. 1, p. 6.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
8. 	Neither the listing agreement for the hotel in Newport nor the listing agreement
for the business center in Florence initially filed by the trustee contained an addendum with a
prohibition on dual agency.15 Each of the listing agreements the trustee filed contains a final
agency acknowledgement listing the agents and firms representing the buyer and seller. For the
hotel in Newport, those parties are listed as:
 Buyer’s Agent: Levi Rider, Oregon license no. 201225928, Name of Real
Estate Firm: Pacific Coast Real Estate, Oregon license no. 201258321
 Seller’s Agent: Joseph Aguirre, Oregon license no. 201012096, Name of Real
Estate Firm: Pacific Coast Real Estate & Development, LLC, Oregon license
no. 201258321.
For the business center in Florence, those parties are listed as:
 Buyer’s Agent: Levi Rider, Oregon license no. 201225928, Name of Real
Estate Firm: Pacific Coast Real Estate, Oregon license no. 201258321
 Seller’s Agent: Joseph Aguirre, Oregon license no. 201012096, Name of Real
Estate Firm: Pacific Coast Real Estate & Development, Oregon license no.
20125832
In addition to those facts, the following additional facts are relevant:
A. 	After this court entered its April 20, 2026, order, the trustee provided evidence
that he and the local broker signed a May 8, 2025, Addendum to Listing Agreement16 and a
June 12, 2025, Disclosed Limited Agency Agreement for Sellers.17 The trustee stated in his
declaration that these documents applied to all listing agreements he entered into with Pacific
Coast during this case. The trustee did not explain why he did not previously include these
documents when the court ordered him to file copies of his listing agreements with the local
brokers.
15 Trustee’s Notice of Filing Listing Agreements, ECF No. 296, filed Feb. 17, 2026.
16 Declaration of Kenneth S. Eiler in Support of Trustee’s Brief in Support of Authorization of
Compensation to Brokers for Sales of Florence Business Center and Newport Motel,
ECF No. 435, filed May 5, 2026, Exh. 1.
17 Id., Exh. 2.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
B. 	The parties to the Addendum to Listing Agreement are the trustee, Joe Aguirre,
and Pacific Coast. Mr. Aguirre and Pacific Coast are collectively defined as the “Broker.” The
Addendum to Listing Agreement provides that “[t]he remaining terms of the Listing Agreement
remain in full force and effect provided they do not conflict with the terms below, and this
Addendum applies to any modifications, renewals or extensions of this Listing Agreement.”
Among the terms described, the addendum clearly states that “[d]ual agency is not permitted.”
C. 	The parties to the Disclosed Limited Agency Agreement are the trustee and Joe
Aguirre, both on his own behalf and on behalf of principal broker Christopher Gederos. The
Disclosed Limited Agency Agreement for Sellers provides:
Seller(s), having discussed with the Seller’s Agent the duties and
responsibilities of an agent who represents more than one party to a transaction,
consent and agree as follows:
(a) 	The Seller’s Agent, in addition to representing Seller
(select one),  may  may not represent one or more
buyers in a transaction involving the listed property.
(b) 	In a transaction involving the listed property where the
buyer is represented by an agent who works in the same
Real Estate Firm [Pacific Coast] as the Seller’s Agent and
who is supervised by the Seller’s Agent’s Principal Broker,
the Seller’s Agent’s Principal Broker may represent both
Seller and buyer. In such a situation, the Seller’s Agent
will continue to represent only the Seller, and the other
agent will represent only the buyer, consistent with the
applicable duties and responsibilities as set out in the Initial
Agency Disclosure Pamphlet; and
(c) 	In all other cases, the Seller’s Agent and the Seller’s
Agent’s Principal Broker will represent Seller exclusively.
D. 	The listing agreement for the sale of the Newport Hotel property provides that the
brokerage fee is “owed and payable to BROKER’S FIRM . . . .”18 The Broker’s Firm is defined
as Pacific Coast.19
18 Trustee’s Notice of Filing Listing Agreements, ECF No. 296, filed Feb. 17, 2026, Exh. 2,
p. 1, ¶ 5.
19 Id., Exh. 2, p. 6.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
E. 	The listing agreement for the sale of the Florence Business Center property also
provides that the brokerage fee is “owed and payable to BROKER’S FIRM . . . .”20 The
Broker’s Firm is defined as Pacific Coast.21
F. 	The trustee’s sale of the Florence business center closed on April 7, 2026, and the
trustee is holding $36,000 for compensation of real estate brokers from the sale.22
G. 	The trustee’s sale of the Newport hotel closed on May 27, 2026, and the trustee is
holding $88,000 for compensation of real estate brokers from the sale.23
Legal Analysis
Under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a trustee may employ professional persons
“that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons,
to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties . . . .”24
Under section 328(c), with exceptions not relevant here, “the court may deny allowance
of compensation for services and reimbursement of expenses of a professional person employed
under section 327 . . . if, at any time during such professional person’s employment under
section 327 . . . such professional person is not a disinterested person, or represents or holds an
interest adverse to the interest of the estate with respect to the matter on which such professional
person is employed.”25
The court’s decision whether to deny allowance of compensation for a professional’s
failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Code is discretionary.26 Although this court can deny all
20 Id., Exh. 3, p. 1, ¶ 5.
21 Id., Exh. 3, p. 6.
22 Trustee’s Report of Sale, ECF No. 395, filed Apr. 16, 2026, p. 2; Order Approving Sale
(1525 12th St. Florence, OR), ECF No. 294, entered Feb. 17, 2026, p. 2, ¶ 5.
23 Trustee’s Report of Sale, ECF No. 501, filed June 10, 2026, p. 2; Order Approving Sale
(754 SW Coast Hwy, Newport, OR), ECF No. 293, entered Feb. 17, 2026, p. 2, ¶ 5.
24 11 U.S.C. § 327(a).
25 11 U.S.C. § 328(c).
26 Film Ventures Int’l, Inc. v. Asher (In re Film Ventures Int’l, Inc.), 75 B.R. 250, 253 (9th Cir.
BAP 1987).
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
compensation,27 it is not required to do so.28 In exercising its discretion, the court should
determine whether the professional’s failure impaired the estate.29 Denial of compensation
“serves to deter future wrongdoing by those punished and also to warn others who might
consider similar defalcations.”30
I. 	Compensation of the Local Broker
The trustee has asked to compensate the local broker. Under the listing agreements,
Pacific Coast is the local broker entitled to receive compensation. Therefore, the court must
evaluate whether Pacific Coast is disinterested or has represented an interest adverse to the
estate.31
It is undisputed that Pacific Coast represented both the seller and the buyer in the sale of
the hotel in Newport and the business center in Florence. Joe Aguirre, as agent for Pacific Coast,
represented the sellers in both transactions. Joe Aguirre reported to principal broker Christopher
Gederos. Levi Rider, as agent for Pacific Coast, represented the buyers in both transactions. The
principal broker that Levi Rider reported to was Joe Aguirre’s wife. Mr. Aguirre and his wife
each own 25% of Pacific Coast.
Because Pacific Coast represented interests adverse to the estate when it represented the
buyers, this court must decide whether to deny allowance of its compensation in whole or in part.
This court finds itself in the same position as the bankruptcy court in Acosta,32 where dual
27 Electro-Wire Prods., Inc. v. Sirote & Permutt, P.C. (In re Prince), 40 F.3d 356, 359-61
(11th Cir. 1994).
28 Gray v. English, 30 F.3d 1319, 1323-25 (10th Cir. 1994); First Interstate Bank of Nev.,
N.A., v. CIC Inv. Corp. (In re CIC Inv. Corp.), 192 B.R. 549, 553 (9th Cir. BAP 1996).
29 Prince, 40 F.3d at 360; CIC, 192 B.R. at 554.
30 Gray, 30 F.3d at 1323.
31 Many of the trustee’s arguments appear to be premised on the theory that the court need only
evaluate whether the individual agent who handles the transaction complies with section 327.
However, the trustee has not proposed that the estate compensate only the individual agent and
to do so would violate the terms of the listing agreements.
32 In re Acosta, Case Nos. 09-32339DM and 09-32340DM, 2011 WL 2066725, at *2 (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. May 25, 2011).
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
agency was prohibited, but “that prohibition was neglected by all who should have known better,
leaving the court itself forced to insist on compliance . . . .”33
On one hand, Pacific Coast benefitted the estate, performing the services necessary to sell
the hotel in Newport and the business center in Florence. The court approved the sales, which
have now closed. No evidence of fraud or bad conduct was presented at the evidentiary hearing
on the sale motions. After this issue came to light, the trustee and Pacific Coast acted promptly
to correct the problem to ensure that dual agency did not occur with later transactions.34
On the other hand, prior to the court raising this issue, the record does not show that
Pacific Coast made any effort to understand its obligations under the Bankruptcy Code when
working on behalf of the trustee. It is impossible to know whether the estate could have received
a better deal absent Pacific Coast Real Estate’s work for both the buyer and the seller.35
After weighing the facts and circumstances of this case, the court will allow some, but
not all, of the requested compensation to Pacific Coast. This court will impose a significant
discount on the fees approved. The court will allow the trustee to compensate Pacific Coast
$7,500 from the sale of the hotel in Newport and $5,000 from the sale of the business center in
Florence. Further compensation to Pacific Coast for the sales of the hotel in Newport and the
business center in Florence is denied.
The trustee’s reliance on the Disclosed Limited Agency Agreement is misplaced. The
entity to be compensated from the sales, Pacific Coast, is not a party to the Disclosed Limited
Agency Agreement. Even if it were, the Addendum to Listing Agreement prohibiting dual
33 Id.
34 The trustee continues to employ Pacific Coast for sales of other properties of the estate.
Because the trustee and Pacific Coast have corrected the dual agency problem going forward,
and because the evidence in this case has shown that Pacific Coast is the leading commercial
brokerage on the Oregon coast where many of the estate’s properties are located, the court will
not disqualify Pacific Coast from further employment by the estate, provided that Pacific Coast
does not represent buyers or any other interests adverse to the estate in any future sales.
35 See Prince, 40 F.3d 356 (citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Woods v. City
Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 312 U.S. 262, 268, 61 S. Ct. 493, 497 (1940) for the common law
proposition that denial of compensation is appropriate because the damage “can seldom be
measured with any degree of certainty.”).
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
agency expressly applies to all subsequent agreements between the trustee and Pacific Coast.
More importantly, however, a trustee and his professionals cannot contract around the
requirement of section 327(a) that the professional not represent an interest adverse to the estate.
The trustee’s reliance on the court’s treatment of the employment of the broker in the
previous sale of property in Orinda, California is also misplaced. The previous judge assigned to
this case made clear that “dual representation provisions will not be approved, certainly not
without clear notice and a basis for such a provision.”36 There is no evidence in the record that
the trustee provided any prior notice to any party about dual representation by Pacific Coast.
The trustee did not provide any advance explanation to the court as to why he thought it would
be appropriate for agents from Pacific Coast to represent both the estate as seller and the buyers
in the sales of the hotel in Newport and the business center in Florence.
The sales of the hotel in Newport and the business center in Florence are also factually
very different than the sale of the property in Orinda. The broker employed for the sale of the
Orinda property was a national firm with over 400 offices and 33,000 real estate agents,37 and
evidence in the record showed that each agent operated independently.38 Evidence in the record
also showed that the agent for the estate as seller and the agent for the buyer in the sale of the
Orinda property were not affiliated, other than sharing the same parent company.39 This is far
different from the situation here, where the agent for the estate as seller, Mr. Aguirre, was
negotiating with the buyer’s agent supervised by Mr. Aguirre’s wife, all of whom worked for the
same company, of which Mr. Aguirre and his wife each own 25%.
II. 	Compensation of the Master Broker
The court’s prior concern about the master broker was that the evidence before the court
indicated that the master broker did not comply with its obligation to ensure that the listing
36 Correspondence, ECF No. 111, filed May 30, 2025.
37 Declaration of Karen Richmond in Support of Trustee’s Supplement to Motion for Order to
Employ Compass as Real Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 114, filed June 4, 2025, p. 2, ¶ 4.
38 Id., at p. 2, ¶ 9.
39 Id., at p. 2, ¶ 8.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
agreements with the local broker contained an addendum prohibiting dual agency. Now that the
trustee has provided additional evidence that the listing agreements with the local broker did, in
fact, contain an addendum prohibiting dual agency, the court’s concerns about the master broker
are resolved.
No other party has asserted that the master broker itself represented an interest adverse to
the estate or was not disinterested. Although debtor, Mr. Pollmann, questions whether
employment of the master broker was necessary,40 the time to raise that issue was back when the
estate moved to employ the master broker41 in April 2025, and not a year later, after the master
broker did its work.
Under the agreement between the trustee and the master broker, the master broker is
entitled to receive a fee “equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of any commission due, payable to,
and received by Local Broker upon the completed Transaction upon terms authorized or
accepted by the principal(s) in the Transaction. No referral fee shall be payable except upon a
completed Transaction, and payment is conditioned upon the receipt of any commission by Local
Broker, and subject to any payment terms thereof.”42 Therefore, the court will authorize the
trustee to compensate West Coast twenty-five (25%) of the amount allowed for Pacific Coast,
meaning that it will allow the trustee to compensate West Coast $1,875 from the sale of the
Newport hotel property and $1,250 from the sale of the Florence business center.
40 Debtor’s Objection to Compensation of Real Estate Brokers, ECF No. 474, filed May 19,
2026.
41 Trustee’s Amended Motion for Forder to Employ West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as
Master Real Estate Broker for Trustee, ECF No. 90, filed Apr. 21, 2025; Order Authorizing
Employment of West Coast Commercial Realty, LLC as Master Real Estate Broker for
Trustee, ECF No. 99, entered May 12, 2025.
42 Trustee’s Notice of Filing Listing Agreements, ECF No. 296, filed Feb. 17, 2026, Exh. 1,
p. 2, ¶ 3.
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12 – MEMORANDUM DECISION RE COMPENSATION OF BROKERS FOR SALE OF
HOTEL IN NEWPORT HOTEL BUSINESS CENTER IN FLORENCE
Conclusion
The court will enter orders allowing and denying compensation to Pacific Coast and West
Coast for their work as real estate brokers in connection with the sales of the hotel in Newport
and the business center in Florence consistent with the opinion set forth above.
# # #
Case 25-60008-thp7 Doc 520 Filed 07/01/26 Page 12 of 12