Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

21 ST Mortgage Corporation v. Glenn

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

July 7, 2017

21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION APPELLANT
v.
KAYLA GLENN APPELLEE

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         21st Mortgage Corporation is a creditor in Kayla Glenn's bankruptcy proceeding. 21st Mortgage now requests that this Court review the Bankruptcy Court's valuation of Glenn's mobile home. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court held, over 21st Mortgage's objection, that delivery and setup costs should not be included in the valuation. The Court considered the record, relevant arguments, and authorities, and for the reasons fully explained below, the Court affirms the decision of the Bankruptcy Court.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         The relevant facts of this case are undisputed. Glenn filed her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on February 8, 2016. 21st Mortgage holds a perfected, first-priority, purchase money security interest in Glenn's mobile home. In her Chapter 13 plan, Glenn proposes to retain the mobile home and to pay 21st Mortgage the value of the home plus five percent interest over the life of the plan. The parties stipulated that the value of the home is $21, 900 not including costs for delivery and setup. The record reflects that cost for delivery and setup for this mobile home is $4, 000.

         21st Mortgage objected to the stipulated $21, 900 valuation and requested that the Bankruptcy Court include the delivery and setup costs in the valuation of the mobile home, increasing the value of its claim. The Bankruptcy Court overruled 21st Mortgage's objection and entered an order fixing the value of the mobile home at the previously stipulated $21, 900 plus five percent interest. 21st Mortgage appealed that order to this Court, and submitted a brief of its arguments [55]. Glenn filed a Response [57], and 21st Mortgage replied [58] making this issue ripe for review.[1] The sole question now before the Court is whether, in this context, delivery and setup costs may be included in the valuation.

         Standard of Review

         This Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal from the Bankruptcy Court under 28 U.S.C. § 158. In bankruptcy appeals, this Court reviews findings of fact for clear error and reviews conclusions of law de novo. In re McClendon, 765 F.3d 501, 504 (5th Cir. 2014); In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). The main issue in this appeal involves the interpretation of a statute, 11 U.S.C. § 506, which is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Id.

         Issue and Arguments

         21st Mortgage asserts that under the relevant authorities, namely 11 U.S.C. § 506 (a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, an individual debtor is required to include a retail valuation of personal property in its current condition “without deduction for costs of sale and marketing” in their Chapter 13 Plan. 21st Mortgage further asserts that failing to include delivery and setup costs in the valuation of a mobile home deprives the creditor of the full retail value as contemplated by the statute.

         In support of its position, 21st Mortgage advances two arguments. Its first argument is that a plain reading of § 506(a)(2) specifically requires a “retail valuation” that includes the costs of sale or marketing without consideration for the proposed disposition or use of the property. The Court notes that 21st Mortgage's use of the term “retail valuation” is inconsistent with the differentiation between “replacement value” and “the price a retail merchant would charge” contained in § 506 (a)(2). 21st Mortgage argues that the Bankruptcy Court committed clear legal error and disregarded the statute's plain meaning when it considered Glenn's proposed use -she will maintain possession of the home- and declined to include the set up and delivery costs in the valuation.

         Second, 21st Mortgage argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it relied on the case of Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953, 117 S.Ct. 1879, 138 L.Ed.2d 148 (1997). According to 21st Mortgage, the legislative history of § 506 demonstrates that Congress overruled Rash, and makes clear that (1) Congress chose retail value as the measure for valuing collateral like the manufactured home at issue here; and (2) Congress specifically overruled Rash by providing that costs of sale or marketing should be included in the valuation.

         Plain Language of 11 U.S.C. § 506

         At the outset, the Court notes that “it is well established that ‘when the statute's language is plain, the sole function of the courts -at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd- is to enforce it according to its terms.'” Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (quoting Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U.S. 1, 6, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000)). Title 11 U.S.C. § 506 reads, in relevant part:

(a)(1) An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, [. . .], is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor's interest in the estate's interest in such property [. . .]. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.