In re Travis M. Rondo and Melissa A. Rondo, Chapter 13

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 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Travis M. Rondo and Melissa A. Rondo

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 26-20040

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (30K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

NORTHERN DIVISION – BAY CITY

IN RE:
Case No. 26-20040-dob
TRAVIS M. RONDO and
MELISSA A. RONDO,
Chapter 13 Proceeding
Debtors. Hon. Daniel S. Opperman
______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF APRIL 1, 2026 ORDER CONFIRMING
PLAN REGARDING VALUE OF 2015 CHEVROLET EQUINOX

On April 1, 2026, the Court entered an Order Confirming Plan (“Confirmation Order”),
which stated, in relevant part as applicable to the claim of Santander Bank, N.A.:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 2015 Chevy Equinox which secures the
claim of Santander Consumer USA, Inc. shall be paid a “crammed” value of
$5,750.00 plus an interest rate of 7.75%, per annum, as a Class 5.1 claim over the
life of the Plan with equal monthly installments of $115.90. The remaining
portion of said claim shall be treated as a Class 9 general unsecured claim.

This Order was entered after issuance of a bench opinion at the confirmation hearing held
on March 26, 2026, the subject of that hearing being the value of Debtors’ 2015 Chevrolet
Equinox (the “Vehicle”). At that hearing, the Court concluded that the correct starting point for
valuation before making any deduction for costs of repairs, etc. was the retail, or replacement,
value. In its bench opinion, the Court, followed the directive of the United States Supreme Court
in Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (1991), and held that for purposes of
cram down treatment of a secured claim in a Chapter 13 plan, the Court is to use the
“replacement” value as the standard, which is what a willing buyer would pay to obtain like
property from a willing seller. This is akin to the retail value of $10,100.00, which the secured
creditor Santander Bank offered as a NADA Report attachment to its objection to confirmation
and at the March 26, 2026 hearing.
Appraisal, which used the Kelly Blue Book private party value of $6,475.00 as the starting point,
then deducted the costs of repairs of $4,350.00, to arrive at his proposed cram down value of
$2,125.00 for the Vehicle. While the Court adopted the Trustee’s proposed amount of $4,350.00
for repair costs as Santander Bank conceded such at the hearing without further proofs, the Court
rejected the Trustee’s appraiser’s utilization of the private party value as the starting point under
Rash. Accordingly, the Court deducted $4,350.00 from the $10,100.00 retail value of the
Vehicle, resulting it the cram down value for the Vehicle of $5,750.00.
The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Confirmation Order,

specifically limited to the value of the Vehicle. The Trustee requests that this Court reconsider
the value of the Vehicle and “redetermine its value to be $2,183.00 which computed by
subtracting $4,350.00 repair costs from the $6,533 Average Retail Selling price of the three auto
dealer merchants described in TRUSTEE’S written Appraiser’s Report; or in the alternative
schedule an Evidentiary Hearing to establish an Evidence Record with proofs as the basis to
determine the value of Debtor’s 2015 Chevrolet Equinox.” In his Motion, the Trustee asserts
that the valuations of three additional auto dealers attached the Appraiser’s Report should be
considered as retail values for the Vehicle. The Trustee also argues that a proper foundation was
not laid for the Court’s adoption of the NADA retail valuation report offered by Sandtander

Bank.
Pursuant to Rule 9024-1(a) of the Local Rules for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, a motion for reconsideration may be filed within fourteen days
after the order to which it objects is issued. It should be granted if the movant demonstrates that
the Court and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of
the case must result from a correction of such palpable defect. A motion that merely presents the
same issues already ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall
“(1) clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling
law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Schools, 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th
Cir. 2005) (analyzing “palpable defect” standard in the context of a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, which was held to be consistent with the
applicable local rule “palpable defect” reconsideration standard). A “palpable defect” is
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181
F. Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing Marketing Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F. Supp.2d 262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997)).
The Court concludes there was no palpable defect or error in fact or law when it valued
the Vehicle under the applicable standard and deducted the amount for repairs as calculated by
the Trustee’s appraiser. In its determination on value of the Vehicle, the Court relied upon the
pleadings offered by both the Trustee and Santander Bank as well as the representations and
argument of counsel for both parties at the March 26, 2026 hearing. The proofs before it were the
Trustee’s Appraiser’s Report and Santander Bank’s NADA Report as the valuation starting point
for the Vehicle. The Trustee’s starting point was private party value, which is incorrect under
Rash and applicable law for purposes of determining cram down value. Santander Bank’s

starting point was retail value, which is correct. The Court also rejects the Trustee’s argument
that the Court “failed to consider the comparable values of the three other retail auto dealer
merchant’s values listed in Trustee’s Appraiser’s report.” These “sellers” do not include a
standard for valuation and are vague in this regard. Further, any valuations of these “sellers”
were not utilized as a basis for the Trustee’s appraiser—only the $6,475.00 Kelly Blue Book was
relied upon. These three additional valuations were not argued in any of the Trustee’s pleadings
prior to this Motion for Reconsideration, or at the hearing by Trustee’s counsel as reliable
sources for retail value. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there was no palpable defect in
law or fact as to the valuation of the Vehicle.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the April 1, 2026 Order Confirming Plan as relates to the secured claim of
Santander Bank, N.A., is DENIED.

Signed on April 22, 2026 ASSET.
fy 2, /s/ Daniel S. Opperman
ay mT ~=CDaniel S. Opperman
<pauee” «=—-—sUnnnited States Bankruptcy Judge