.jpg)
Timing of Home Valution in 11s
Judge can only find value as of date of appraisal, unless live testimony and testimony is value hasn't changed. As a result, have to try to get appraiser to say value isn't changing. I usually ask the appraiser to check comps and sign a new dec for confo if contested.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:58 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> sorry Dennis...didn't mean to put a space in the word postpetition.
>
> On 9/11/2012 12:42 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>> So when doing a 506 motion prior to confirmation, and you have a post petition (but preconfirmation) appraisal, what date do you ask the court to use the valuation? (e.g. do you say "we request the court establish the value of the property to be $X as of the anticipated confirmation date", or, "we request the court establish the value to be $X as of the date of the hearing of this motion", or...petition date....or ?)
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>> On 9/11/2012 10:52 AM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>>> Judge Z wants an adversary, so did adversaries first and asked court to set values for all purposes in the case. (was not opposed, so got the ruling)
>>> Judge Robles let me strip 4 properties with a simple debtor's dec (no appraisals) at confo, when no objections received, he even waived appearances.
>>> Judge Donovan let me do motions prior to confo, again asked for valuations for all purposes, which "all purposes" request was denied, but plan confo was not contested so he let me use those values.
>>> Judge Tighe let me do motions prior to confo. Confo was contested, so in the end had to stip to split the difference in values to get by an expensive contested hearing, and get affirmative vote.
>>> None of the above judges enforced apr.
>>>
>>> The real rule is the valuation is to be set at confo. In fact there are cases that say there are three, maybe four valuations of property in an 11 and none are binding on the other, at status conf to show can reorg, at mtn for relief from stay, at ds hearing and at plan confo.
>>>
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:40 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Home Valution in 11s
>>>
>>> Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
>>> On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot" wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing of home valuations in 11s as opposed to 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge Roblese as of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.
>>>
>>> Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel presentation??
>>>
Of Dennis McGoldrick
>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PM
>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Exemptions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments. The homestead will not increase.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>> AB 929 (Wieckowski): Debtor exemptions: bankruptcy.
>>>
>>> Yesterday's Actions
>>>
>>> Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (End location: Assembly Desk) Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (End location: Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling)
>>> Yesterday's Votes
>>>
>>> Assembly Floor:
>>> Motion: AB 929 WIECKOWSKI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
>>> 53-23 (PASS)
>>> --- .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judge can only find value as of date of appraisal, unless live testimony and testimony is value hasn't changed. As a result, have to try to get appraiser to say value isn't changing. I usually ask the appraiser to check comps and sign a new dec for confo if contested. Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 11, 2012, at 12:58 PM, "Mark J. Markus" <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Robles case was confo #58
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:54 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot" wrote:
> This is too thorough to not say thank you and your awesomeness.
>
>
>
Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 10:52 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Home Valution in 11s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Judge Z wants an adversary, so did adversaries first and asked court to set values for all purposes in the case. (was not opposed, so got the ruling)
>
> Judge Robles let me strip 4 properties with a simple debtor's dec (no appraisals) at confo, when no objections received, he even waived appearances.
>
> Judge Donovan let me do motions prior to confo, again asked for valuations for all purposes, which "all purposes" request was denied, but plan confo was not contested so he let me use those values.
>
> Judge Tighe let me do motions prior to confo. Confo was contested, so in the end had to stip to split the difference in values to get by an expensive contested hearing, and get affirmative vote.
>
> None of the above judges enforced apr.
>
>
>
> The real rule is the valuation is to be set at confo. In fact there are cases that say there are three, maybe four valuations of property in an 11 and none are binding on the other, at status conf to show can reorg, at mtn for relief from stay, at ds hearing and at plan confo.
>
>
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Home Valution in 11s
>
>
>
>
>
> Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
>
> On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot" wrote:
>
>
>
> Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing of home valuations in 11s as opposed to 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge Roblesrly because values are as of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.
>
>
>
> Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel presentation??
>
>
>
Dennis McGoldrick
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Exemptions
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments. The homestead will not increase.
>
>
>
> d
>
>
>
> AB 929 (Wieckowski): Debtor exemptions: bankruptcy.
>
> Yesterday's Actions
>
> Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (End location: Assembly Desk) Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (End location: Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling)
>
> Yesterday's Votes
>
> Assembly Floor:
> Motion: AB 929 WIECKOWSKI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
> 53-23 (PASS)
>
> --- .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> \t-$ DCcLM
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
>
>
>
With most judges and banks, you just get an appraisal as close to the
confirmation as possible, file your motion for valuation for plan
confirmation and you're set. However, when you have a knowledgeable
bankruptcy attorney on the other side, they will raise the issue that
valuation should be as of the date of confirmation. So, to preempt that
objection, I'm asking my appraisers to give me a value for the property, a
prospective value as of the estimated date of confirmation and a discussion
as to whether the property's value is changing.
Usually "knowledgeable" creditors' attorneys are attorneys who also are or
have been debtor-side Chapter 11 attorneys - like me, for example - and
they tend to be brought in when you have multi-million dollar or sometimes
just over $1 million properties. In some of my cases, the usual mill
creditors' firms have been fired when they couldn't stop the progress of
the Chapter 11 and the full-service bankruptcy attorneys have been brought
in. I usually know them and I have to admit it's a bit scary when they come
in because you know they know what buttons to push to make the case more
difficult to resolve. The foregoing is why you want to confirm cases
as quickly as possible after filing the case if confirmation is possible at
that point, of course. While it makes the case more fun for me, it makes
the clients unhappy because the case gets more expensive.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
sorry Dennis...didn't mean to put a space in the word postpetition.
On 9/11/2012 12:42 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> So when doing a 506 motion prior to confirmation, and you have a
> post petition (but preconfirmation) appraisal, what date do you
> ask the court to use the valuation? (e.g. do you say "we request
> the court establish the value of the property to be $X as of the
> anticipated confirmation date", or, "we request the court
> establish the value to be $X as of the date of the hearing of this
> motion", or...petition date....or ?)
>
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
>
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
> means at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
> On 9/11/2012 10:52 AM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
>> Judge Z wants an adversary, so did adversaries first and asked
>> court to set values for all purposes in the case. (was not
>> opposed, so got the ruling)
>> Judge Robles let me strip 4 properties with a simple debtor's dec
>> (no appraisals) at confo, when no objections received, he even
>> waived appearances.
>> Judge Donovan let me do motions prior to confo, again asked for
>> valuations for all purposes, which "all purposes" request was
>> denied, but plan confo was not contested so he let me use those
>> values.
>> Judge Tighe let me do motions prior to confo. Confo was
>> contested, so in the end had to stip to split the difference in
>> values to get by an expensive contested hearing, and get
>> affirmative vote.
>> None of the above judges enforced apr.
>> The real rule is the valuation is to be set at confo. In fact
>> there are cases that say there are three, maybe four valuations
>> of property in an 11 and none are binding on the other, at status
>> conf to show can reorg, at mtn for relief from stay, at ds
>> hearing and at plan confo.
>> d
>>
>> *From:* Kirk Brennan
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:40 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Home Valution in 11s
>>
>> Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
>> On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot"
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on
>> Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a
>> quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing
>> of home valuations _in 11s_ as opposed to 13s. I am in a
>> case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual
>> chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have
>> seen Judge Robles's orders saying that it can't be done to
>> early because values are as of the effective date of the
>> chapter 11 plan.
>> Do any of you have specific experience with how our local
>> judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday
>> at my panel presentation??
>> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> ] *On Behalf Of *Dennis McGoldrick
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Exemptions
>>
>>
>>
>> Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate
>> amendments. The homestead will not increase.
>> d
>>
>>
>>
>> AB 929 (Wieckowski): Debtor exemptions: bankruptcy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday's Actions
>>
>> Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (End location: Assembly Desk)
>> Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.
>> (End location: Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling)
>>
>>
>> Yesterday's Votes
>>
>> Assembly Floor:
>> Motion: AB 929 WIECKOWSKI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
>> 53-23 (PASS)
>>
>> *---*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
So when doing a 506 motion prior to confirmation, and you have a
post petition (but preconfirmation) appraisal, what date do you ask
the court to use the valuation? (e.g. do you say "we request the
court establish the value of the property to be $X as of the
anticipated confirmation date", or, "we request the court establish
the value to be $X as of the date of the hearing of this motion",
or...petition date....or ?)
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Judge Z allows Ch11 debtors to file a motion to value property for plan
confirmation under 506 even before an adversary proceeding is prosecuted.
Indeed, he asked me to justify why I had pursued the AP already in a couple
of my recent cases. In two of the cases, the valuation wasn't contested,
but in another one, the bank is saying the value set by the motion is
incorrect as the operative value is the value at confirmation, which may
have changed from the value on the date of the motion to value. Judge Z
agreed, but suggested that in the future counsel get a prospective value
from the appraiser as of the estimated date of confirmation and explicitly
state that the valuation sought is as of confirmation. He also indicated
that if the motion explicitly says that valuation is for purposes of plan
confirmation (as it did in my case) and no objection is filed, it should be
binding (regardless of whether the appraisal specifies a prospective as of
confirmation value). In the end, however, we will likely due out valuation
at confirmation unless we reach agreement before.
Dennis and others have already talked about other judges. I can add that
Judge Peter Carroll likes valuation by motion ahead of time, but will, of
course, listen to arguments that the appraisal submitted is not as of the
anticipated date of confirmation. The same goes for Judge Ahart.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
Judge Z allows Ch11debtors to file a motion to value property for plan confirmation under 506 even before an adversary proceeding is prosecuted. Indeed, he asked me to justify why I had pursued the AP already in a couple of my recent cases. In two of the cases, the valuation wasn't contested, but in another one, the bank is saying the value set by the motion is incorrect as the operative value is the value at confirmation, which may have changed from the value on the date of the motion to value. Judge Z agreed, but suggested that in the futurecounsel get a prospective value from the appraiser as of the estimated date of confirmation and explicitly state that the valuation sought is as of confirmation. He also indicated that if the motion explicitly says that valuation is for purposes of plan confirmation (as it did in my case)and no objection is filed, it should be binding (regardless of whether the appraisal specifies a prospective as of confirmation value). In the end, however, we will likely due out valuation at confirmation unless we reach agreement before.
Dennis and others have already talked about other judges. I can add that Judge Peter Carroll likes valuation by motion ahead of time, but will, of course, listen to arguments that the appraisal submitted is not as of the anticipated date of confirmation. The same goes for Judge Ahart.
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Judge Z wants an adversary, so did adversaries first and asked court to set values for all purposes in the case. (was not opposed, so got the ruling)
Judge Robles let me strip 4 properties with a simple debtor's dec (no appraisals) at confo, when no objections received, he even waived appearances.
Judge Donovan let me do motions prior to confo, again asked for valuations for all purposes, which "all purposes" request was denied, but plan confo was not contested so he let me use those values.
Judge Tighe let me do motions prior to confo. Confo was contested, so in the end had to stip to split the difference in values to get by an expensive contested hearing, and get affirmative vote.
None of the above judges enforced apr.
The real rule is the valuation is to be set at confo. In fact there are cases that say there are three, maybe four valuations of property in an 11 and none are binding on the other, at status conf to show can reorg, at mtn for relief from stay, at ds hearing and at plan confo.
d
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Timing of Home Valution in 11s
Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot" wrote:
>Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing of home valuations in 11s as opposed to 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge Roblese as of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.
>
>Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel presentation??
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis McGoldrick
>Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Exemptions
>
>
>
>
>
>Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments.>
>d
>AB 929 (Wieckowski): Debtor exemptions: bankruptcy.
>Yesterday's Actions
>Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (End location: Assembly Desk) Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (End location: Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling)
>Yesterday's Votes
>Assembly Floor:
>Motion: AB 929 WIECKOWSKI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
>53-23 (PASS)
>--- .
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot"
wrote:
> **
>
>
> Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas
> (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different
> judges are handling the timing of home valuations *in 11s* as opposed to
> 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual
> chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge
> Robless orders saying that it cant be done to early because values are as
> of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are
> timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel
> presentation??****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Dennis McGoldrick
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Exemptions****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments. The
> homestead will not increase.****
>
> ****
>
> d****
>
> ****
> AB 929 (Wieckowski): Debtor exemptions: bankruptcy.
> ****Yesterday's Actions****
>
> Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (End location: Assembly Desk) Senate
> amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (End location:
> Assembly Engrossing and Enrolling)****
> Yesterday's Votes****
>
> Assembly Floor:
> Motion: AB 929 WIECKOWSKI Concurrence in Senate Amendments
> 53-23 (PASS)
> ****
>
> *---* .****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
Judge Riblet said time of plan confirmation.
On Sep 11, 2012 9:37 AM, "Jeffrey S. Shinbrot" <jeffrey@shinbrotfirm.com> wrote:
Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing of home valuations in 11s as opposed to 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge Robless orders saying that it cant be done to early because values are as of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.
Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel presentation??
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis McGoldrick
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:28 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Exemptions
Read and weep. The Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments. The homestead will not increase.
d
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Folks, I am talking about the Absolute Priority Rule on Friday in Vegas (the ABI Conference) and wanted to get a quick feel for how different judges are handling the timing of home valuations in 11s as opposed to 13s. I am in a case where Judge Bluebond did it early in the individual chapter 11 case and is sticking with that value, but I have seen Judge Robles's orders saying that it can't be done to early because values are as of the effective date of the chapter 11 plan.
Do any of you have specific experience with how our local judges are timing these valuations that I may share on Friday at my panel presentation??
The post was migrated from Yahoo.