In re Anne M. Cummings — Chapter 11 Property Valuation Decision

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 1, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re ANNE M. CUMMINGS

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-30262

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (5.5K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SS NG
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA □□□□
Signed and Filed: April 1, 2026 □□□□□□ □□
2

4 Ve, ahs
5 DENNIS MONTALI
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
6
7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
In re ) Bankruptcy Case
10 ) No. 25-30262-DM
ANNE M. CUMMINGS, )
11 ) Chapter 11
12 Debtor. ) .
) Trial held
13 ) Date: March 23, 2026
) Time: 10:00 AM
14 ) Place: Courtroom 17
15 ) 450 Golden Gate Avenue
) 16th Floor
16 ) San Francisco, CA
)

18 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 On March 23, 2026, the court conducted an evidentiary
21 |/hearing on the motion of debtor Anne M. Cummings (“Debtor”) to
22 ||value her real property (the “Property”) where she resides in
23 ||Greenbrae, California. James E. Till, Esq. appeared for Debtor;
24 ||Amanda N. Ferns, Esq. appeared for creditor Navitas Credit Corp
25 (“Navitas”). During the trial, the court heard evidence from
26 ||Debtor’s expert, Brian Rapela, and from Navitas’ expert, Paula
27 ||Saling. For the reasons explained below, the court fixes the
28 ||value of the Property as of the petition date and as of the date

=- 1 =-

1 of the concurrently issued order, at $1,735,000. Accordingly,
2 Navitas’ lien does not impair the Debtor’s homestead exemption
3 and Debtor is not entitled to strip any part of that lien or
4 otherwise treat any part of the lien as an unsecured claim in
5 her pending proposed, contested Chapter 11, Subchapter V plan.
6 It will hold a fully secured claim under that plan.
7 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
8
Debtor filed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 on April 2,
9
2025. In her sworn Schedules, filed on April 16, 2025 (Dkt 17)
10
she stated that the Property had a value of $1,865,000. She
11
added that the source of value was an appraisal for a divorce.
12
Debtor claimed senior encumbrances on the Property of a
13
first deed of trust held JP Morgan Chase Bank NA (“Chase”) in
14
the amount of $598,973 and Marin County real property taxes in
15
the amount of $9,498.83.
16
Among her secured claims in Schedule D, she listed Balboa
17
Capital Corporation (“Balboa”), with a claim of $281,606.21; she
18
did not indicate any value of collateral securing Balboa’s
19
claim. In that same portion of the Schedule, she listed Navitas
20
as owed an amount of $204,576.21 but, as with Balboa, did not
21
set forth any value of collateral securing that claim.
22
In Schedule C, “Property Claimed as Exempt”, she listed her
23
exemption on the Property in the amount of $722,502. That claim
24
of exemption has never been challenged in this Chapter 11 case.
25
On July 1, 2025, she filed her Chapter 11 Subchapter V Plan
26
(Dkt 36). In her plan, she stated a fair market value of the
27 Property as $1,585,250 and listed classes 2A, 2B, and 2D, inter
28 alia, for which classes she indicated that the respective
1 individual class member was a secured creditor “to the extent
2 allowed as a secured claim under § 506 of the Code.” 1
3 More specifically, the plan listed Chase’s secured claim of
4 $613,691.43 and Balboa’s as $122,237 (secured), with $159,369
5 (unsecured). The plan did not mention the Marin County secured
6 tax claim of $9,498.83. For Navitas, the plan stated that its
7 claim, then at $212,949.26, would be wholly unsecured. Debtor’s
8 own numbers reveal, however, that Navitas would still be
9 partially secured despite her statement to the contrary.
10 On August 1, 2025, Navitas filed an objection to
11 confirmation (Dkt 39), alleged that its secured claim was now
12 $212,949.26 as of the petition date, and indicated in the
13 objection that Debtor had stated that she intended to file a
14 “section 506(a) Motion to strip lien” which would leave Navitas
15 as an unsecured creditor. Navitas’ objection repeated the value
16 of the Property as originally scheduled by the Debtor
17 ($1,865,000), the amount of the Chase lien ($613,691), the
18 homestead exemption ($722,502), and a proof of claim filed by
19 Balboa in the amount of $281,606.21. Based upon those numbers,
20 Navitas contended that at the minimum there was value of
21 $247,209.79, leaving its claim secured or partially secured.
22 Navitas also objected to the unsupported lower value set forth
23 in the plan, notwithstanding the higher value listed in Debtor’s
24 Schedules.
25
26
27 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all chapter, section and rule
references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532,
28 and to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rules 1001-
9037.
1 On August 4, 2025, Debtor filed a Notice of Settlement with
2 Balboa Capital (Dkt 41). In that document, Debtor described an
3 agreement with Balboa where it would receive $50,000 upon
4 confirmation of the Amended Plan, $100,000, payable monthly over
5 five years, with the balance of Balboa’s claim treated as an
6 unsecured claim. Given that agreement on its face, the court
7 considers it as a treatment of a Balboa claim as secured in the
8 amount of no more than $150,000.
9 On August 27, 2025, Debtor filed an Amended Chapter 11
10 Subchapter V Plan (Dkt 44) (the ”Plan”). In the Plan, she
11 repeated her treatment of Chase in the same amount indicated
12 above, clarified that Balboa would have a secured claim in the
13 amount of $150,000 and an unsecured claim of $131,606.21, and
14 that Navitas’ secured claim would be the subject of an adversary
15 proceeding to avoid the lien as a preferential transfer or to
16 file a “section 506(a) motion to strip any lien”.
17 Unsurprisingly, Navitas objected again (Dkt 50), this time
18 adding that its judgment had been recorded prior to the ninety-
19 day preference period that Debtor referred to in her previous
20 filing. It repeated its objection that even with the Balboa
21 lien allowed at $281,606, Navitas’ secured claim was partially
22 secured, based upon Debtor’s sworn Schedules and valuation.
23 Navitas apparently overlooked the Balboa settlement again as the
24 correct number for its secured claim at that time was $150,000.
25 The matter came on for contested confirmation on September
26 12, 2025, and the court deferred consideration of confirmation
27 until resolution of the dispute between Debtor and Navitas
28 regarding the value of the Property.
1 On October 31, 2025, Debtor filed a Motion to Avoid a
2 Judicial Lien Under Section 522(f) (Dkt 65) and supported that
3 motion with a declaration of a real estate broker (not an
4 appraiser) supporting a value of the Property of $1,559,000.
5 Not surprisingly again, Navitas objected (Dkt 83) by taking
6 issue with the change in valuation of the Property from the
7 original Scheduled amount to the later lower amount and raising
8 other issues that are not relevant to the valuation question.
9 The court held a hearing on January 21, 2026 and scheduled
10 trial on the valuation for March 23, 2026. On February 27,
11 2026, Mr. Rapela, for Debtor, filed his expert report,
12 contending that the Property had a value of $1,650,000 as of the
13 petition date. Ms. Saling, for Navitas, filed her expert report
14 on March 2, 2026 (Dkt 95), asserting a value of $2,015,000 as of
15 the petition date. Despite the circuitous route traveled, and
16 the bouncing ball of differing appraisals by the Debtor, the
17 single issue is the fair market value of the Property.
18 III. DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF PROPERTY2
19
Both Mr. Rapela and Ms. Saling are licensed appraisers in
20
good standing in the State of California and demonstrated the
21
requisite training, qualifications and experience to offer
22
expert testimony regarding the value of the Property. Neither
23
side objected to the court’s consideration of their declarations
24
and accompanying reports. The court concurs and accepts their
25
written and oral expert testimony.
26
27
28 2 The following discussion constitutes the court's findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052(a).
1 Ms. Saling has over thirty years of experience, largely in
2 connection with single family residence appraisals for various
3 purposes. At least half of her experience over those years is
4 regarding real property in Marin County.
5 Mr. Rapela has far more experience in commercial or multi-
6 family real property appraisals and a relatively small amount of
7 his experience is with appraisals of single family residences
8 anywhere, including Marin County.
9 A significant difference between their opinions has to do
10 with their selection of properties that they regard as
11 comparable to the Property for their appraisals. Ms. Saling
12 only identified three comparables, including one literally
13 around the corner from the Property. The problem with her
14 comparables, however, is that all three of the sales she
15 considered were more than six months prior to the petition date
16 of April 2, 2025. In fact, the comparable “just around the
17 corner” closed on August 15, 2024, nearly eight months before
18 that date. There have been numerous sales of single family
19 residences much closer in time in Greenbrae in the neighborhood
20 of the Property, as shown by Mr. Rapela, so Ms. Saling either
21 ignored or rejected them. Without knowing the reasons why, the
22 court cannot consider her older comparables as credible or
23 reliable for making an accurate finding for the petition date
24 value.
25 Mr. Rapela used five comparables nearby in Greenbrae. The
26 first two closed only weeks or days prior to the petition date;
27 the other three closed within three months after the petition
28 date. Thus, the bases for his value conclusions are far more
1 credible than Ms. Saling’s and will be considered. Under these
2 circumstances, the court will focus on Mr. Rapela’s analyses in
3 making the fact finding necessary to conclude this dispute.
4 The court takes issue with a few of Mr. Rapela’s
5 adjustments to the comparables as set forth in his Improved
6 Sales Adjustment Grid (p. 73 of 89, Dkt 93).
7 First, he makes a downward adjustment of $25,000 based upon
8 his conclusion that the Property has two and one-half bathrooms
9 in contrast to the three bathrooms reported by Ms. Saling. The
10 court has reviewed the photographs presented by both appraisers
11 and clearly can see visual proof that all three bathrooms at the
12 Property are full bathrooms, not half-baths, and therefore a
13 downward adjustment based upon half a bathroom is not
14 appropriate.
15 Next, in discussing the topography of the Property and the
16 comparables, he appears to make a downward adjustment of
17 $107,000 based upon comparable #2’s price without any meaningful
18 explanation or justification other than what appears to be
19 “sloped” for the Property and “flat” for comparable #2. While
20 there is no question that the difference justifies some
21 adjustment, there is no persuasive evidence to support such a
22 large downward adjustment.
23 To make it more confusing for the court, in the few small
24 photographs provided by Mr. Rapela, comparable #1 does not
25 appear to be sloped, nor does #5. Even #3’s position near trees
26 perhaps gives away its topography, but not for certain. The
27 court will adjust the final valuation of the Property upward
28 somewhat for this reason.
1 Next, in his Price/Unit Method Conclusion (p. 74 of 89, Dkt
2 93), Mr. Rapela mentions the recent capital required to cure
3 major cracking in the driveway and elsewhere on the Property.
4 He adds that a buyer would “consider possible future erosion due
5 to the Property sitting above the Greenbrae Creek.” Without
6 quantifying that speculation, his concluding sentence then
7 arrives at a value of $1,650,000, an amount that appears in part
8 to include some speculation that he engages in.
9 For all of this, the court believes that a proper value
10 increase of $85,000 (half bath; topography; speculation about
11 future expenditures) is appropriate, resulting in a valuation of
12 $1,735,000.
13 IV. LEGAL ISSUES
14 A. Section 522(f).
15 Debtor’s Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien was styled as a
16 proceeding under § 522(f), a provision that permits a debtor to
17 avoid a lien to the extent it impairs an exemption. In re
18 Hanger, 217 B.R. 592 (9th Cir. BAP 1997), aff’d by In re Hanger
19 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 30403 (9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Section
20 522(f)(2)(A), “a lien shall be considered to impair an exemption
21 to the extent that the sum of--
22 (i) the lien;
23 (ii) all other liens on the property; and
24 (iii) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could
25 claim if there were no liens on the property;
26 exceeds the value that that debtor’s interest in the property
27 would have in the absence of any liens.”
28
1 See also In re Hanger, 217 B.R. at 595. Pursuant to
2 Section 522(a)(2), “’value’ means fair market value as of the
3 date of the filing of the petition.”
4 Given that Balboa has agreed that, for confirmation
5 purposes, its lien is $150,000, the formula for whether the
6 Navitas lien impairs Debtor’s Homestead exemption is:
7 The sum of: Navitas Lien $212,949.26
All other liens JP Morgan Chase, $613,691
8
Balboa, $150,000
9 Marin County Tax Assessor,
$9,498.83
10 Homestead Exemption $722,502.00
TOTAL: $1,708,641.09
11
12 The Hanger decision instructs trial courts to compare the
13 value of the property claimed exempt with the total determined
14 in this manner. If the result is a positive number, as it is
15 here ($1,735,000 - $1,708,641.09 = $26,359), there is no
16 impairment. Debtor’s exemption is fully intact.
17 This means that only Debtor’s current asserted valuation of
18 $1,650,000 would result in an impairment of her exemption and
19 thus would result in Navitas’ lien being partially stripped.
20 Debtor’s originally scheduled $1,865,000 and Navitas’ valuation
21 of $2,015,000 would each result in no impairment of the
22 homestead exemption.
23 B. Section 506(a)
24 To complete the analysis on the present record that
25 includes Balboa’s agreed treatment as partially secured and
26 partially unsecured, and assumes the Plan, or a variation of it,
27 will be confirmed, the court proceeds as the Debtor originally
28 contended, namely, through the § 506(a) lens that enables the
1 court to value property “in light of the purposes of the
2 valuation and the proposed disposition or use of such property.”
3 Thus, it is also necessary and appropriate to fix a value of the
4 Property for purposes of resolving the contested confirmation
5 that should only be weeks away. This procedure, which is
6 endorsed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3012, enables the court to
7 “determine the amount of a secured claim under § 506(a).” It is
8 necessary in addition to resolving the Section 522(f) issue
9 because the Plan needs to be analyzed as of the likely
10 confirmation date in the near future.
11 At the trial on March 23, 2026, the court asked each
12 appraiser whether his or her valuation would vary between that
13 determined as of the petition date or the date of the trial.
14 Mr. Rapela opined that it would generally be the same; Ms.
15 Saling did not opine one way or the other.
16 The parties originally briefed and prepared this matter as
17
a motion under § 522, but Debtor, in her Trial Brief (Dkt 100),
18
cited only § 506. Navitas argued (Dkt 103) that its lien could be
19 avoided only to the extent of any proven impairment.
20 Based upon the statements of the two appraisers and absence
21 of any persuasive evidence that the court’s determination either
22 as of the petition date or the trial date would be different,
23 the court treats its valuation as the same for the petition date
24 and the confirmation date in the very near future. For the
25 reasons stated above, the court is concurrently issuing an order
26 consistent with this Memorandum Decision that fixes the value of
27 the Property for purposes of this Chapter 11 case and the
28 pending Plan, both as of April 2, 2025 and at present under the
1 Plan, at $1,735,000. If confirmation is denied, or the Plan
2 revised to alter the amount of the secured portion of the Balboa
3 claim, thus impacting the junior Navitas lien, the court may
4 need to revisit the Section 522(f) determination.
5 V. CONCLUSION
6
The court will hold a status conference in this case on
7
April 24, 2026, at 10:00 A.M. via Zoom. One week prior, Debtor
8
is directed to file an amended Plan, consistent with the value
9
of the Property fixed by this decision. Prior to the
10
conference, counsel for Debtor and for Navitas should meet and
11
confer about remaining unresolved confirmation issues between
12
them and the time the court should set for the contested
13
confirmation hearing.
14

15
*** END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION ***
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28