Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Sam:
I agree with Pat. I generally recommend 3 bpo's. I tell clients they can lose their home, and I am not qualified to value their home, so they'd better get the valuations correct.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:38 AM, 'Patrick Green' pat@fitzgreenlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Sam:
>
>
>
> I dont disagree from a strict evidence law point of view. However, for objectivity and reliability, if I am looking at KBB or NADA and I correctly enter the data as to mileage, condition, etc., I will get a value based on their market research. 100 people can own a 2008 Honda Element in southern CA and they can correctly enter the data and if the mileage, condition, etc. is the same, they all get the same answer because mass produced cars are relatively fungible.
>
>
>
> Houses are not fungible. When a client says they looked up their house on Zillow and it is worth X, I give zero credence to that value. Could be right or it could be widely wrong. I would not bet my clients house nor my reputation on that value. If they talked to their broker friend, who told them the value, I will feel a little more comfortable, but still would not bet the clients house nor my reputation (nor my E&O deductible) on that value. When I get three BPOs, all in response to an averment to the brokers that the client is thinking about selling their house and the values are all in the same range, I feel comfortable that I have a reasonable range. If that range is too close for comfort vis a vis the exemption amount, I will then look for more comfort in an appraisal or tell the client in writing that filing a chapter 7 is a crap shoot and they proceed at their own risk.
>
>
>
> In your original scenario, I think the judge wants some objective benchmark to work with.
>
>
>
> Another way to couch my idea is to say: If you are buying a car and you have looked at KBB or NADA to get their valuation, would you make your decision as to how much to pay on those benchmarks? And on the other hand, if you were buying a house, would you feel comfortable deciding what to pay based on Zillow?
>
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
>
> 1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: (626) 449-8433
>
> Fax: (626) 449-0565
>
> pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Valuation of Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
> If KBB and NADA come in without foundation as a commercial publication or business record, then it seems that Zillow might likewise be used as evidence of real property values.
>
>
>
Sam:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"
All I really want is for my house to be worth what Zillow says it is. Because it is not.
Desiree Causey, Esq.
Law Office of Desiree Causey
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
causeylaw@gmail.com
714-375-6663
714-908-7646 (fax)
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

QWxsIHZlcnkgZ29vZCBwb2ludHMuIFRoYW5rcyE
QWxsIHZlcnkgZ29vZCBwb2ludHMuIFRoYW5rcyE

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"
Sam:
I dont disagree from a strict evidence law point of view. However, for objectivity and reliability, if I am looking at KBB or NADA and I correctly enter the data as to mileage, condition, etc., I will get a value based on their market research. 100 people can own a 2008 Honda Element in southern CA and they can correctly enter the data and if the mileage, condition, etc. is the same, they all get the same answer because mass produced cars are relatively fungible.
Houses are not fungible. When a client says they looked up their house on Zillow and it is worth X, I give zero credence to that value. Could be right or it could be widely wrong. I would not bet my clients house nor my reputation on that value. If they talked to their broker friend, who told them the value, I will feel a little more comfortable, but still would not bet the clients house nor my reputation (nor my E&O deductible) on that value. When I get three BPOs, all in response to an averment to the brokers that the client is thinking about selling their house and the values are all in the same range, I feel comfortable that I have a reasonable range. If that range is too close for comfort vis a vis the exemption amount, I will then look for more comfort in an appraisal or tell the client in writing that filing a chapter 7 is a crap shoot and they proceed at their own risk.
In your original scenario, I think the judge wants some objective benchmark to work with.
Another way to couch my idea is to say: If you are buying a car and you have looked at KBB or NADA to get their valuation, would you make your decision as to how much to pay on those benchmarks? And on the other hand, if you were buying a house, would you feel comfortable deciding what to pay based on Zillow?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: (626) 449-8433
Fax: (626) 449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

In re Morales 387B.R. 36 (Bkptcy. C.D. Cal 2008) gives avery detailed analysis of how value should be calculated. This caseholds that the appropriate value in a motion to value is the retail value which is calculated by adjjusting the KBB or NADA guide retail value for the vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of evidence presented regarding the condition of the case and any other relevant factors and the burdenin proving reasonableness of deviation from the guide retail value rests with the debtorle's condition. Patricia SaidAttorney at Law13443 McCormick StreetSherman Oaks, CA 91401(818)789-0781 fax (818)789-5820patriciahsaid@yahoo.com
This electronic message contains information from the Law Office ofPatricia Said whichmay beprivileged and confidential.
The information is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this email is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender.
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 10:04 AM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
Maybe one day. I am not convinced that people buy or sell based on Zillow while I have seen people (my relatives) bargain with dealers and/or private sellers and be bargained against based on KBB. There is authority validating KBB/NADA as falling within 803(17) exception. I have not seen or looked for Zillow.
I do think that as time goes on and more people rely on Zillow (and not just use it to get a rough idea of value), that it may fall within this exception. KBB is already a stretch.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:43 AM, sam@southbaybk.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
If KBB and NADA come in without foundation as a commercial publication or business record, then it seems that Zillowmight likewise be usedas evidence of real property values.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Maybe one day. I am not convinced that people buy or sell based on Zillow
while I have seen people (my relatives) bargain with dealers and/or private
sellers and be bargained against based on KBB. There is authority
validating KBB/NADA as falling within 803(17) exception. I have not seen
or looked for Zillow.
I do think that as time goes on and more people rely on Zillow (and not
just use it to get a rough idea of value), that it may fall within this
exception. KBB is already a stretch.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:43 AM, sam@southbaybk.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> If KBB and NADA come in without foundation as a commercial publication or
> business record, then it seems that Zillow might likewise be used as
> evidence of real property values.
>
>
Maybe one day. I am not convinced that people buy or sell based on Zillow while I have seen people (my relatives) bargain with dealers and/or private sellers and be bargained against based on KBB. There is authority validating KBB/NADA as falling within 803(17) exception. I have not seen or looked for Zillow.I do think that as time goes on and more people rely on Zillow (and not just use it to get a rough idea of value), that it may fall within this exception. KBB is already a stretch. Michael AvanesianOn Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:43 AM, sam@southbaybk.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
If KBB and NADA come in without foundation as a commercial publication or business record, then it seems that Zillowmight likewise be usedas evidence of real property values.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Chase and US Bank have both refused in the last month. Wells, whom I do not otherwise like at all, said yes.
This seems to be corporate policy and not a branch decision.
Sent from my iPad
From sam@southbaybk.com Thu Dec 04 08:43:57 2014
Return-Path:
X-Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Apparently-To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Received: (qmail 26395 invoked by uid 102); 4 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO mtaq1.grp.bf1.yahoo.com) (10.193.84.32)
by m4.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
X-Received: (qmail 16412 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO n9-vm4.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.245.164)
by mtaq1.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
X-Received: from [66.196.81.179] by n9.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
X-Received: from [10.193.75.125] by t9.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2014 16:43:57 -0000
Date: 04 Dec 2014 08:43:57 -0800
X-Received: from [127.0.0.1] by gapi4.grp.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Dec 2014 16:37:14 -0000
To:
Message-ID:
X-Original-Return-Path: sam@southbaybk.com
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:

In-Reply-To:
X-Originating-IP: 24.43.41.174
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 24.43.41.174
Reply-To: sam@southbaybk.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Valuation of Vehicle
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u7535861; yZV9TKB4X6Wb_FYstYTBbe6rf30aCKmwvyDnehJg_UlRIcyN63S

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I believe this is the case Robles was deciding when Ana Nicole was in
Bufford's court.
I am no expert at redemptions or know much about the evidence code -- just
got a good memory. I would say use retail value and argue high/low etc.
based on condition of car.
As for hearsay, this is probably a commercial publication FRE 803(17). If
not, it's probably close enough to apply the catch all 807.
Why would someone want to redeem if they can buy comparable for same price?
Unless lender is willing to negotiate a discounted payoff, there is no
point, correct?
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> And which valuation do you choose? Private Party Trade In>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 1:56 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Valuation of Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
> Business record? This is what they do in the normal course of their
> business and the value is not especially prepared for litigation.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
>
> 1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: (626) 449-8433
>
> Fax: (626) 449-0565
>
> pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> [
> mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 10:30 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Valuation of Vehicle
>
>
>
>
>
> I found this interesting. I filed a Motion to Value a vehicle. I used the
> Debtor's declaration to establish value. It was rejected because I did not
> attach a KBB or NADA Guide appraisal. I was referred to the case of *in
> re Morales* 387 BR 36. And here I thought I was being smart, since the
> KBB and NADA guides should be considered hearsay! How is this considered
> different from attaching an BPO or appraisal without a foundational
> declaration, I wonder?
>
>
>
Sent from Gmail Mobile
I believe this is the case Robles was deciding when Ana Nicole was in Bufford's court. I am no expert at redemptions or know much about the evidence code -- just got a good memory. I would say use retail value and argue high/low etc. based on condition of car.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"
Business record? This is what they do in the normal course of their business and the value is not especially prepared for litigation.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: (626) 449-8433
Fax: (626) 449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.