Two S Corp., In re, 88-2615
| Decision Date | 23 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2615,88-2615 |
| Citation | 875 F.2d 240 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,897 In re The TWO "S" CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, Debtor. Donald ROMLEY, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUN NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association, and The North American Bank, an Arizona banking corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James M. Marlar and Melinda S. Barnett, Teilborg, Sanders, and Parks, P.C., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
S. Cary Forrester, Kalish and Forrester, Clint W. Smith, Smith and Evans, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
Before CHOY, WALLACE and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
OVERVIEW
The bankruptcy trustee, Donald Romley ("Romley"), appeals from a partial summary judgment in favor of two of the debtor's secured creditors, Sun National Bank and North American Bank (the "Banks"). In granting the partial summary judgment, the Bankruptcy Court held that the price obtained for the debtor's equipment at a court ordered sale represented the "value" of that equipment for the purpose of determining the extent to which the Banks' claims were secured under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a). The Bankruptcy Court's decision was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d) and we affirm.
The debtor, the Two "S" Corporation, operated several dry cleaning and laundry establishments. On March 20, 1986, the debtor filed a Chapter 11 petition. In this petition, the debtor listed the value of its equipment as $363,677. At the time the petition was filed the debtor owed $218,585 to Sun National Bank and $135,940 to North American Bank. These debts were secured by the debtor's equipment and accounts receivable (hereinafter the "equipment").
After filing in Chapter 11, the debtor continued to operate as a debtor in possession. On October 3, 1986, Romley was appointed trustee. Two weeks later, Romley sought authority to sell the debtor's equipment, which constituted the debtor's only significant asset. Romley requested that the court approve any offer of at least $225,000.
On November 4, 1986, after notice to all interested parties, the court conducted a hearing on the proposed sale. Several parties bid on the equipment. The court ultimately approved the sale to the highest bidder for a price of $230,000.
On March 3, 1987, Romley filed a complaint against all parties claiming an interest in the equipment, seeking to determine the validity and priority of the various liens on the equipment and to determine its value. The Banks were named as defendants in this complaint.
Sun National Bank and North American Bank came to an independent agreement about the priorities of their liens. The Banks then filed a motion for summary judgment against Romley and against the other creditors. The Banks claimed that the price obtained at the sale dispositively determined the value of the equipment and that the Banks were entitled to the entire proceeds from the sale because their loans were the only debts that were properly secured by the equipment.
In opposition to the motion, Romley submitted his affidavit and the affidavit of the purchaser of the equipment. Romley's affidavit included estimates of the equipment's value which Romley had received prior to the sale of the equipment. These estimates ranged from a liquidation value of $80,000 to a retail value of $171,708. The purchaser's affidavit expressed the opinion that the equipment would not have had a liquidation value of $230,000 and explained his reasons for paying a higher price. One reason was that the equipment was located on the premises where the Two "S" Corporation had previously operated. The purchaser was independently trying to lease these premises and stated that the equipment was more valuable to him because it was already there.
Romley argued that these affidavits showed that the equipment was worth less than the amount that the purchaser paid for it, and that the purchaser only paid the The bankruptcy court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Banks, finding that the $230,000 in proceeds from the sale represented the value of the equipment. The court determined that a court approved sale of assets conclusively determines the value of those assets. 1
price he did because he was purchasing an intangible asset as well as the equipment. Therefore, Romley argued, an evidentiary hearing was required to determine the "real" value of the equipment.
The partial summary judgment was certified as a final judgment in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Romley appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit. The BAP affirmed, and entered judgment on March 21, 1988. This appeal was timely filed.
We review decisions of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel de novo. In re Bialac, 712 F.2d 426 (9th Cir.1983); Both the BAP and this court review the Bankruptcy Court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. In re California Canners and Growers, 62 B.R. 18, 18-19 (9th Cir. BAP 1986). The standard for granting summary judgment in an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding is the same as under Rule 56(c). F.R.Bankr.P. 7056. Summary judgment is appropriate if, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Lundy v. Union Carbide Corp., 695 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1982).
Romley argues that the grant of summary judgment was improper because the valuation of assets is always a factual question. He contends the bankruptcy court erred in fixing a value for the property without holding a full evidentiary hearing in which other factors influencing the value could have been considered. Specifically, Romley challenges the bankruptcy court's refusal to consider two factors. First, he argues the court should have considered appraisals he had gotten on the equipment prior to the sale which stated various estimated values for the equipment depending upon how the equipment was sold. Second, Romley contends the court should have considered his efforts in keeping the business operating. Because of these efforts, he claims, an intangible asset, the beneficial location of the equipment, was sold. Romley argues that the purchaser's affidavit shows that the purchaser bought something in addition to the equipment.
However, Romley has failed to show that any purpose would be served by requiring an evidentiary hearing. At the time the motion for summary judgment was granted, all of the facts that Romley contends should influence the determination of value were before the bankruptcy court and were not disputed. The appraisals and the purchaser's affidavit were included in Romley's opposition to the motion for summary judgment and the court knew what Romley had done to continue operating the business up until the time of the sale. The Banks did not challenge the validity of the appraisals or dispute that they were realistic estimates of the price the equipment may have sold for if it had been sold in All of the facts that Romley argues should have been considered were before the court, and were not in dispute. Therefore, no purpose would to be served by an evidentiary hearing and a summary determination was appropriate.
some other manner. Nor did the Banks question the veracity of the purchaser's statements about his motives for purchasing the equipment for the price he did. The Banks did not dispute that Romley operated the business until the time of sale.
After considering the facts presented by Romley, the bankruptcy court determined that these facts were legally insignificant because of the court-approved sale. We agree.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkland, In re
...for summary judgment. STANDARD OF REVIEW A bankruptcy court's decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. In re Two S Corp., 875 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989). This court must employ the same standard used by the bankruptcy court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), Darring v. Kincheloe, 78......
-
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors, v. UMB Bank, N.A. (In re Residential Capital, LLC)
...transaction, the fair market value of such asset is conclusively determined by the price paid. See Romley v. Sun Nat'l Bank (In re Two “S” Corp.), 875 F.2d 240, 244 (9th Cir.1989); see also Covey v. Davlin (In re Hobbick), No. 97–83543, 2001 WL 34076375, at *14 (Bankr.C.D.Ill. Sept. 10, 200......
-
Everett Assocs., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...the pendency of the bankruptcy case, is usually the best means of determining its fair market value. Romley v. Sun Nat'l Bank (In re Two S Corp.), 875 F.2d 240, 244 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Evidence of other appraised values is also irrelevant, because the sale price is a better indicator of the a......
-
United Energy Corp., In re
...Cir.1989) (citing Harsh Inv. Corp. v. Bialac (In re Bialac), 712 F.2d 426, 429 (9th Cir.1983)); see also Romley v. Sun Nat'l Bank (In re Two "S" Corp.), 875 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989). The bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and its findings of fact under the clearl......