In Re Market Center East Retail Property Inc.
Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 11-09-11696 SA.,11-09-11696 SA. |
Citation | 433 B.R. 335 |
Parties | In re MARKET CENTER EAST RETAIL PROPERTY, INC., Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Mexico |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Daniel J Behles, Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP, Albuquerque, NM, for debtor.
This matter came before the Court on 1) Orix Capital Market, LLC's (“ORIX”) Motion to Allow Secured Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506 and to Order Payment Thereof (“Motion to Allow”)(doc 120) and the objection thereto (“Objection”) filed by Market Center East Retail Property, Inc. (“Debtor”)(doc 124), and 2) Debtor's Objection to Orix Capital Market's Claim (“Claim Objection”)(doc 121). ORIX was represented by its attorney Thuma & Walker, P.C. (David T. Thuma and Stephanie L. Schaeffer). Debtor was represented by its attorney Cuddy & McCarthy, LLP (Daniel J. Behles). This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(K).
The Court conducted a two day hearing on February 24 and 25, 2010 on the issues presented and the parties then submitted simultaneous briefs and responses (docs. 146, 147, 150 and 151). The matter was submitted on April 15, 2010. The Court has considered the evidence presented at trial, reviewed the arguments of the parties and consulted applicable authorities and now issues its decision. The Court finds that Debtor's objection to the ORIX claim is not well taken and will be overruled. The Court fixes the amount of the ORIX claim to conform to the proof at trial. The Court finds that the Debtor's objections to the Motion to Allow are well taken in part and are sustained in part as set out below. The Court also orders the Clerk to disburse to ORIX the unpaid balance of its claim.
Debtor is a limited liability company that has operated a retail commercial shopping center in Albuquerque, New Mexico since 2006. See Debtor's Disclosure Statement for Chapter 11 Plan Dated June 16, 2009 (“First Disclosure Statement”), doc. 24, p. 3. It acquired the property by purchase from a former owner in 2006 by assuming that owner's obligations under various loan documents and by executing new guaranties. Id. Mr. Danny Lahave is the 100% owner of the Debtor and its sole officer. Id. He is a guarantor for the transaction. ORIX Exhibit 4, p. 1. The transaction is also guaranteed by Top Terraces, Inc. id., which is a California corporation wholly owned by Mr. Lahave. Doc. 24, p. 8.
On April 9, 1999, MCE Associates, L.P. (“Maker”) executed a Deed of Trust Note (“Note”) and promised to pay PW Real Estate Investments, Inc. (“Payee”) $9,175,000.00 at the “Applicable Interest Rate” in installments. (ORIX Exhibit 1) Relevant of the Note include:
If any sum payable under this Note is not paid on or before the fifth (5th) day after the date on which it is due, Maker shall pay to Payee upon demand an amount equal to the lesser of five percent (5%) of such unpaid sum or the maximum amount permitted by applicable law to defray the expenses incurred by Payee in handling and processing such delinquent payment and to compensate Payee for the loss of the use of such delinquent payment and such amount shall be secured by the Deed of Trust and Other Security Documents.
Pages four through six of the Note establish that it is basically a non-recourse Note, with some exceptions that are not particularly relevant to this matter. However, on page six it also states:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Note, the Deed of Trust or in any of the Other Security Documents, the Debt shall be fully recourse to the Maker and any general partner of Maker in the event that ... a receiver, liquidator or trustee of Maker or of any guarantor shall be appointed, or if Maker or any guarantor shall be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent, or if any petition for bankruptcy, reorganization or arrangement pursuant to federal bankruptcy law or any similar federal or state law, shall be filed by, consented to, or acquiesced in by, Maker or any guarantor or if any proceeding for the dissolution or liquidation of Maker or of any guarantor shall be instituted by Maker or any guarantor.
On April 9, 1999, MCE Associates, L.P. (“Trustor”) executed a Deed of Trust, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Financing Statement (“Deed of Trust”) that transfers the “Premises” described in Exhibit A and all improvements (collectively “Improvements”) to First American Title Insurance Company (“Trustee”) for the benefit of PW Real Estate Investments, Inc. to secure the payment of the $9,175,000.00 Note together with all extensions, renewals or modifications thereof. (ORIX Exhibit 2) The Deed of Trust incorporates the Note's provisions and provides many more details regarding the transaction. Paragraph 5 establishes an “Insurance and Tax Escrow Fund”, a “Replacement Escrow Fund” and a “Rollover Escrow Fund” into which the Trustor shall 2 make payments to the Beneficiary to cover the items listed. For each fund, “Trustor hereby pledges to beneficiary any and all monies now or hereafter deposited into the [name of fund] as additional security for payment of the Debt.” Also, for each fund, “upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, Beneficiary may apply any sums then present in the [name of fund] to the payment of the Debt in any order in its sole discretion.”
Deed of Trust ¶ 20 lists “Events of Default” that are referred to in the Note. This paragraph provides that the “Debt shall become immediately due and payable at the option of the Beneficiary”, without notice or demand, upon any one or more of the following events (“Events of Default”): (a) failure to make any payment on or before the fifth day after it is due, (b) if any taxes or similar items such as assessments or government charges relating...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Shelbourne Dev. Group, Inc.
...on the 365/360 method-not the 360/360 method-because there are 365 (or 366) days in a year, not360. See In re Mkt. Ctr. E. Retail Prop., Inc., 433 B.R. 335, 354-56 (D.N.M.2010). Further, there is no conflict between using the 365/360 method and stating that the applicable interest rates wer......
-
In re SW Hotel Venture, LLC
...a charge, and that it must be reasonably related to a lender's costs to be allowed. See, e.g., In re Market Center East Retail Prop., Inc., 433 B.R. 335, 357–58 (Bankr.D.N.M.2010); In re AE Hotel Venture, 321 B.R. 209, 215–16 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2005); Fischer Enters., Inc. v. Geremia (In re Kal......
-
In re A & B Assocs., L.P.
...and only impacts equity interests, there are no equitable reasons to not enforce the contract rate." In re Market Ctr. East Retail Prop., 433 B.R. 335, 358 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010). Here, pursuant to the Court's First Interim Cash Collateral Order, the Debtor has been making adequate protection......
-
In re Cottonwood Corners Phase V. LLC
...applies unless it were to produce an inequitable result.")(collecting cases). See also In re Market Center East Retail Property, Inc., 433 B.R. 335, 357-58 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010)(observing that the rate of interest should be determined based on the contract unless such rate is unenforceable u......
-
Federal Common Law's Long Shadow: Shedding Light on State Law Rights to Postpetition Default Interest.
...Ill. 2013); In re Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, LLC, 449 B.R. 1, 5 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011); In re Mkt. Ctr. E. Retail Prop., Inc., 433 B.R. 335, 365 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2010) (citing AE Hotel for the proposition that creditors cannot collect late fees and default interest); In re Brandywine ......