Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

"Valuation" = "Redemption"???

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Valuation" = "Redemption"???

    I was just reading a blog by JustBroke in which he discusses "Valuation". This sounded an awful lot like a section 722 Redemption. But he also indicated that he did this in his Ch13 case.

    Is this the same thing?

    http://www.bkforum.com/entry.php?107...-of-Collateral

    Thx!
    Don
    Filed Pro Se on 8/4/11 (No Asset, Chapter 7)
    Redeemed Automobile ProSe (722 Redemption),Discharged on 11/3/11

  • #2
    Valuation is the process of valuing something, using some sort of methodology. In the Chapter 13 context, valuation is used to set the value of certain secured property so that the Plan will continue to pay that amount (also known as the cramdown value) during the Plan. The residual is known as the unsecured amount.

    This bifurcation of the secured portion and unsecured portion is not just limited to a Chapter 13. You can do this in a Chapter 7 as well, but you would need to "Redeem" the property in order to enjoy the cramdown. Also, the "methodology" used for valuation in a Chapter 13 is different than that of a Chapter 7. In a Chapter 7, valuation is based on the "liquidation" or "wholesale" value at the time of the hearing to Determine Secured Status, and it's the "current market value" in a Chapter 13. These are two different "valuations".

    For example, in my Chapter 13, the valuation of my SUV was $13K. However, I converted to a Chapter 7 and the valuation of the same SUV was then $8K. The balance on the loan was $22K at the time of filing. Notice the difference in the numbers? This is because the valuation method (methodology) is different in the Chapters.

    So, yes... in a Chapter 7, to receive the liquidation value, the debtor would need to redeem the collateral under 11 USC 722 (a/k/a the 722 Redemption).
    Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
    Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
    Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


    I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

    Comment


    • #3
      JB,

      Thx for the explanation.
      Don
      Filed Pro Se on 8/4/11 (No Asset, Chapter 7)
      Redeemed Automobile ProSe (722 Redemption),Discharged on 11/3/11

      Comment


      • #4
        In response to:

        "In a Chapter 7, valuation is based on the "liquidation" or "wholesale" value at the time of the hearing to Determine Secured Status, and it's the "current market value."

        Not accurate. . .

        Section 506(a)(2) states: If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13 such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based upon the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for the property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined.

        Section 722 requires a debtor, who is redeeming property that is used for personal, family or household purposes to pay the lien holder "the amount of the allowed secured claim". . .

        Des.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
          Section 506(a)(2) states: If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13 such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based upon the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for the property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined.
          Not in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (Florida, Georgia and Alabama).

          The case was In re Perez, 318 BR 742 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005), and the Court found that the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (1997) ("RASH") was deciding. The court held that the wholesale value is the appropriate value for purposes of a debtor’s redemption of personal property under § 722. The court noted that it found comfort in the “apparent unanimity of all of the reported cases which have reached the same conclusion . . . .” Id. at 747.

          See also, In Re Foreman, Case 05-5811-3F7, Bankr. Fla. Middle - Jacksonville.

          Specifically, the landmark case, setting precedence and caselaw on this issue, actually came from the Supreme court, but made caselaw through interpretation in an 11th Circuit Case.

          Perhaps your Appeals Circuit will come up to speed and use RASH. It's really the interplay of 11 USC 722 and 11 USC 506 at play. Section 506 has always been argued and the RASH decision explains it pretty well... and it's from the Supremes. Remember, in 506, it actually reads "... is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property". (emphasis added is mine.)

          At least in my little corner of the World -- the Southeast / 11th Circuit -- that is the law of the land. (By the way, this is what I argued in my Motion to Redeem, the creditor challenged, but quickly backed off when I responded to their "opposition" that this is the law in the 11th Circuit.) I hope others will follow, if you're saying (Dee) that it's not the law where you are.
          Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
          Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
          Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


          I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

          Comment


          • #6
            In response to:

            "At least in my little corner of the World -- the Southeast / 11th Circuit -- that is the law of the land."

            Not sure what happened in your case but Perez and Foreman are pre BAPCPA cases and were in the majority prior to October 17, 2005. See below:

            In re Ortiz, Case No. 06-16243-BKC-RBR (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 2/27/2007) (Bankr. S.D.Fla., 2007)

            "Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 722 a Chapter 7 Debtor has the right to redeem exempt personal property from a valid lien by paying the holder of that lien "the amount of the allowed secured claim... in full at the time of redemption." 11 U.S.C. § 722. However, the value of a secured claim is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 506. The issue before the Court is what test should be applied to determine the value of the car. The Debtor claims the value to be the market value of the vehicle. FMCC alternatively argues that the value should be the retail value of the vehicle.

            Prior to the changes made by BAPCPA, case law in the Eleventh Circuit supported the position that the value was the wholesale value on the date of the hearing. See In re: Perez, 318 B.R. 742, 747 (Bankr. M.D. Fla 2005)(noting "the apparent unanimity of all of the reported cases, which have reached the same conclusion in applying the wholesale/liquidation-value standard as the appropriate standard for valuing collateral in Chapter 7 redemption cases." (internal quotations and citations omitted)); accord In re: Foreman, No.05-5811-3F7, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 2175 at *4 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).

            With the adoption of BAPCPA, § 506(a)(2) was added, it reads: If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13, such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family, or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined.

            Accordingly, under BAPCPA the value must be the "replacement value". What is unclear from the statute is when this "replacement value" is to be calculated. The first sentence of the statute states that the "claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for costs of sale or marketing." 11 U.S.C. §506(a)(2)(emphasis added). The second sentence reads "replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined." 11 U.S.C. §506(a)(2)(emphasis added).. . .

            Accordingly, the Debtor's expert found that the retail cost of repairs to the car would be approximately $2,723.00. This was broken down as $1,923.00 to recondition the exterior of the car, plus $400.00 for new tires and $400.00 for repairing the interior. FMCC expert's repair estimate is not going to be considered because he used a wholesale cost of repair. Therefore, the Court determines that the actual retail price of the repairs is $2,723.00. FMCC's expert testified that he would determine the retail value of a similar car by taking the NADA value adding it to the quotes from two dealers and then dividing by three. His retail value result is $11,841.671. Debtor's expert testified that after repairs and reconditioning the retail value of the car would be approximately $10,500. The Court will average in the Debtor expert's retail figure of $10,500 to FMCC expert's figure of $11,841.67. The retail price of an identical car is thus determined to be $11,506.25. Therefore, the final replacement value of is $8783.252."

            Des.

            Comment


            • #7
              *meekly raises hand to ask a People's Court moment..*

              Ok...but - if what you say is true Des - then how come whenever someone sues for damages to a vehicle (going to assume the basis is the same) - that all judges in any court will not allow damages over and above the actual Blue Book value of the vehicle? Also - same thing goes for insurance companies - if the damage exceeds the blue book value of the car, insurance totals the car. You still owe the difference if more than value - and must roll that into the replacement vehicle you get unless you have GAP insurance....

              isnt it the same thing in BK? Because our entire 13 is based upon non-exempted assets (vehicles owned outright) and their valuations came directly from an average of blue book / NADA, not what it would cost to replace it new.

              *puts hand down and stands firmly in her corner of the world*

              ETA: and... I may not know what the hell I'm talking about..but...it sounded similiar in points so LOL just wanted to add that.
              Last edited by Pandora; 09-29-2010, 01:30 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pandora View Post
                *meekly raises hand to ask a People's Court moment..*

                Ok...but - if what you say is true Des - then how come whenever someone sues for damages to a vehicle (going to assume the basis is the same) - that all judges in any court will not allow damages over and above the actual Blue Book value of the vehicle? Also - same thing goes for insurance companies - if the damage exceeds the blue book value of the car, insurance totals the car. You still owe the difference if more than value - and must roll that into the replacement vehicle you get unless you have GAP insurance....

                isnt it the same thing in BK? Because our entire 13 is based upon non-exempted assets (vehicles owned outright) and their valuations came directly from an average of blue book / NADA, not what it would cost to replace it new.

                *puts hand down and stands firmly in her corner of the world*

                ETA: and... I may not know what the hell I'm talking about..but...it sounded similiar in points so LOL just wanted to add that.
                Simple answer:

                THE CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY THROUGH ITS LOBBYISTS, HAD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT IN ITS POCKETS!!!

                No, I am not biased at all. . .

                In the real world that you are talking about the blue book type valuation is correct. In the fake "bankruptcy world" a higher value is used subject to the condition of that auto and, if in a 13 and not beyond the 910 rule, the balance owed is the value. The bankrutpcy world is "fairy land"but we are stuck with it.

                And. . . in the bk world you use 2 different values. 1) what I like to call "garage sale" value if no lien and 2) "replacement value" if there is a lien..

                Got to go into a meeting. Continue later. No time to do spell check so sorry if spelling sucks.

                Des.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
                  Simple answer:

                  THE CREDIT CARD INDUSTRY THROUGH ITS LOBBYISTS, HAD CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT IN ITS POCKETS!!!

                  No, I am not biased at all. . .

                  In the real world that you are talking about the blue book type valuation is correct. In the fake "bankruptcy world" a higher value is used subject to the condition of that auto and, if in a 13 and not beyond the 910 rule, the balance owed is the value. The bankrutpcy world is "fairy land"but we are stuck with it.

                  And. . . in the bk world you use 2 different values. 1) what I like to call "garage sale" value if no lien and 2) "replacement value" if there is a lien..

                  Got to go into a meeting. Continue later. No time to do spell check so sorry if spelling sucks.

                  Des.
                  wont argue with ya on point 1 at all!

                  well what the hell - for us BK world IS the real world - at least at the moment and for the next 5 long years. Damn double edged swords getcha coming and going. We didnt owe anything on ours...

                  Thanks for the explain...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by despritfreya View Post
                    Not sure what happened in your case but Perez and Foreman are pre BAPCPA cases and were in the majority prior to October 17, 2005. See below:
                    Rash and Perez are still good law in the Southeast. Decisions have been made throughout 2006-present day based on Perez.

                    I still see cases in the Middle District citing Rash and Perez as the law. I used it in my case to my advantage. I'm sure different courts may be re-evaluating, but they haven't in the Middle and North.

                    But you're right, I can't find the "old" 506 language in the BAPCPA amendments! I blame H. Clinton, B. Obama, and the Maverick, if they voted for it.
                    Last edited by justbroke; 09-29-2010, 08:17 PM.
                    Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                    Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                    Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog


                    I am not an attorney. Any advice provided is not legal advice.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ok. I guess I will chime in here. Rash and Perez still ride in Texas, as well, so far as I know. I used Rash, and there is much case law citing both Rash and Perez, post BAPCA, in all of the Texas districts.

                      I have noticed, however, that my judge is just now beginning to catch himself on some other pre-BAPCA issues that were allowed to continue on (perhaps erroneously), going forward, of course. I got caught up in one of those "catches" recently regarding language in my modification confirmation order. I had copied language from a very recently confirmed order written by an attorney to the affect that the lien of the secured creditor shall be released once the fair market value of the collateral is paid in full.

                      My trustee advised this language represents the provisions of the old law prior to BAPCA which now requires that the lien is not released until either you pay all of the claim (including the unsecured portion) as determined in non-bankruptcy law (ie, state law) or until you receive your discharge under the bankruptcy [see Section 1325(5)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code]. He acknowledged that this language had been included in modification orders without notice of the debtors’ attorneys, creditors’ attorneys, or himself for the last several years until just last month when my judge noticed it…..he instructed debtors’ attorneys to remove it from all future orders and instructed my trustee to be his watch dog on this issue.

                      I just changed the language to be in compliance with the current law, and we're good.

                      Comment

                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X