First S. Nat'l Bank v. Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship (In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship)
Decision Date | 26 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 13-16164, No. 13-16180,No. 12-17241, No. 12-17327,12-17241 |
Citation | 859 F.3d 637 |
Parties | IN RE SUNNYSLOPE HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Debtor. First Southern National Bank, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, Defendant-Appellee. In re Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, Debtor. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. First Southern National Bank, Defendant-Appellee. In re Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, Debtor. First Southern National Bank, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sunnyslope Housing LP, Defendant-Appellee. In re Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, Debtor. Sunnyslope Housing LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. First Southern National Bank, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Edward K. Poor (argued), Quarles & Brady LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Brian Sirower and Walter J. Ashbrook, Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Susan M. Freeman (argued), Henk Taylor, and Justin Henderson, Lewis and Roca LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; Bradley D. Pack, Scott B. Cohen, and David Wm. Engelman, Engelman Berger P.C., Phoenix, Arizona; for Defendant-Appellee.
Donald L. Gaffney and Jasmin Yang, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for Amici Curiae Arizona Bankers Association, California Bankers Association, Hawaii Bankers Association, Idaho Banks Association, Montana Bankers Association, and Washington Bankers Association.
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, Carlos T. Bea, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Andrew D. Hurwitz, John B. Owens, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
When a debtor, over a secured creditor's objection, seeks to retain and use the creditor's collateral in a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization through a "cram down," the Bankruptcy Code treats the creditor's claim as secured "to the extent of the value of such creditor's interest." 11 U.S.C § 506(a)(1). That value is to "be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property." Id.
In Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash , the Supreme Court adopted a "replacement-value standard" for § 506(a)(1) cram-down valuations. 520 U.S. 953, 956, 117 S.Ct. 1879, 138 L.Ed.2d 148 (1997). The Court held that replacement value, "rather than a foreclosure sale that will not take place, is the proper guide under a prescription hinged to the property's ‘disposition or use.’ " Id. at 963, 117 S.Ct. 1879 (quoting In re Winthrop Old Farm Nurseries, Inc. , 50 F.3d 72, 75 (1st Cir. 1995) ).
In rejecting a "foreclosure-value standard," the Court also noted that foreclosure value was "typically lower" than replacement value. Id. at 960, 117 S.Ct. 1879. Today, however, we confront the atypical case. Because foreclosure would vitiate covenants requiring that the secured property—an apartment complex—be used for low-income housing, foreclosure value in this case exceeds replacement value, which is tied to the debtor's "actual use" of the property in the proposed reorganization. Id. at 963, 117 S.Ct. 1879. But we take the Supreme Court at its word and hold, as Rash teaches, that § 506(a)(1) requires the use of replacement value rather than a hypothetical value derived from the very foreclosure that the reorganization is designed to avoid. Thus, the bankruptcy court did not err in this case in approving Sunnyslope's plan of reorganization and valuing the collateral assuming its continued use after reorganization as low-income housing.
Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership ("Sunnyslope") owns an apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona. Construction funding came from three loans. Capstone Realty Advisors, LLC, provided the bulk of the funding through an $8.5 million loan with an interest rate of 5.35%, secured by a first-priority deed of trust. The Capstone loan was guaranteed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), and funded through bonds issued by the Phoenix Industrial Development Authority. The City of Phoenix and the State of Arizona provided the balance of the funding. The City loan was secured by a second-position deed of trust, and the State loan by a third-position deed of trust.
To secure financing and tax benefits, Sunnyslope entered into five agreements:
In 2009, Sunnyslope defaulted on the Capstone loan. As guarantor, HUD took over the loan and sold it to First Southern National Bank ("First Southern") for $5.05 million. In connection with the sale, HUD released its Regulatory Agreement. The Loan Sale Agreement confirmed, however, that the property remained subject to the other "covenants, conditions and restrictions."
First Southern began foreclosure proceedings, and an Arizona state court appointed a receiver. In December 2010, the receiver agreed to sell the complex to a third party for $7.65 million.
Before the sale could close, Sunnyslope filed a Chapter 11 petition. Over First Southern's objection, Sunnyslope sought to retain the complex in its proposed plan of reorganization, exercising the "cram- down" option in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A). A successful cram down allows the reorganized debtor to retain collateral over a secured creditor's objection, subject to the requirement in § 506(a)(1) that the debt be treated as secured "to the extent of the value of such creditor's interest" in the collateral.
The central issue in the reorganization proceedings was the valuation of First Southern's collateral, the apartment complex. Sunnyslope asserted that the complex should be valued as low-income housing, while First Southern contended that the complex should instead be valued without regard to Sunnyslope's contractual obligations to use it as low-income housing, which would terminate upon foreclosure.
In that regard, First Southern's expert valued the complex at $7.74 million, making the "extraordinary assumption" that a foreclosure would remove any low-income housing requirements. First Southern's expert also opined, however, that the value of the property was only $4,885,000 if those requirements remained in place. Sunnyslope's expert valued the property at $2.6 million with the low-income housing restrictions in place, and at $7 million without.
During its original proceeding, the bankruptcy court held that, under § 506(a)(1), the value of the property was $2.6 million because Sunnyslope's plan of reorganization called for continued use of the complex as low-income housing. The court also declined to include in the valuation of the complex the tax credits available to Sunnyslope. First Southern then elected to treat its claim as fully secured under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b).
The bankruptcy court subsequently confirmed the plan of reorganization, which provided for payment in full of the First Southern claim over 40 years, at an interest rate of 4.4%, with a balloon payment at the end without interest. The reorganization plan required the City and State to relinquish their liens, but provided for payment of their unsecured claims in full, albeit without interest, at the end of the 40 years.
The bankruptcy court found the plan fair and equitable under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(1) because First Southern retained its lien, would receive an interest rate equivalent to the prevailing market rate, and could foreclose (and, therefore, obtain the property without the restrictive covenants) should Sunnyslope default. The court also found the plan feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11), citing Sunnyslope's financial projections, and noting that "the Creditor has come in with no evidence of a lack of feasibility." The court concluded that it was more likely than not that Sunnyslope could make plan payments based on the history of comparable properties. The court also noted that, when the balloon payment came due, the property would be free of the low-income housing restrictions, making the collateral an even more valuable asset.
After confirmation, First Southern obtained a stay of the plan of reorganization from the district court pending appeal. The district court denied First Southern's request for a stay. Cornerstone at Camelback LLC invested...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Claar Cellars LLC
...which forces a creditor to release guarantors from their personal liability").27 First S. Nat'l Bank v. Sunnyslope Hous. L.P. (In re Sunnyslope Hous. L.P.) , 859 F.3d 637, 646-47 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g. , 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1129.02......
-
Hamilton v. Elite of L.A., Inc. (In re Hamilton)
...must demonstrate that the plan "has a reasonable probability of success." First Southern Nat'l Bank v. Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship (In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship), 859 F.3d 637, 646-47 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting In re Acequia, Inc., 787 F.2d 1352, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986)). "A ban......
-
Claar Cellars LLC v. RC Farms LLC
...which forces a creditor to release guarantors from their personal liability"). 27. First S. Nat'l Bank v. Sunnyslope Hous. L.P. (In re Sunnyslope Hous. L.P.), 859 F.3d 637, 646-47 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1129.02......
-
In re Juarez
...whether the Plan is fair and equitable. "Whether a plan is fair and equitable is a factual determination[.]" In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship, 859 F.3d 637, 646 (9th Cir. 2017), as amended (June 23, 2017), cert. denied sub nom. First S. Nat. Bank v. Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship, 138 S. Ct......
-
The Needs of the Many: Equitable Mootness' Pernicious Effects.
...Ltd. P'ship (In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship), 818 F.3d 937, 944 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2016), vacated on other grounds on reh'g en banc, 859 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2017), cert denied, 138 S. Ct. 648 (2018) ("A secured creditor might be wise to err on the side of caution and seek a stay from th......
-
THE GROWING CANNABIS PROBLEM: A LOOK AT MARIJUANA-RELATED BANKRUPTCIES AND THE INFEASIBILITY OF THE FEASIBILITY DOCTRINE.
...LLC, 524 B.R. 717, 741 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015), aff'd 535 B.R. 165 (E.D. Mich. 2015). (141) See In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship, 859 F.3d 637, 646-47 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Acequia, Inc., 787 F.2d 1352, 1364 (9th Cir. (142) See In re Gentry, 807 F.3d 1222, 1225 (10th Cir. 2015) ......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2017
...App. 4th 170, 195 (2013) (savings clauses are strictly construed to support statutory scheme).117. In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. P'ship, 859 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2017).118. 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1).119. In re Sunnyslope Hous. Ltd. PShip, 818 F.3d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 2016).120. Assocs. Commercial Co......
-
The Problem With Present-value: How Local Bankruptcy Rules Impose Heavy Burdens on Chapter 13 Debtors
...endorsed the use of the formula approach."); see also In re MPM Silicones, 874 F.3d 787, 800 (2nd Cir. 2017); In re Sunnyslope Housing, 859 F.3d 637, 646 (9th Cir. 2017) (each of which extends the formula method to Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases). Contra In re Tex. Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, ......