Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05192/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

FILED 

Unit.eel Stares Co~ (?f Appcala Tent~ C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT 2 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

IN RE: ) 

) 

MOBILE VIDEO, INC., an Oklahoma) 

corporation, ) 

Debtor. 

) 

) 

) 

AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,) 

an Oklahoma banking corporation,) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

KENDALWOOD CORPORATION, an 

Oklahoma corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MOBILE VIDEO, INC., an Oklahoma) 

corporation, ) 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

DAVID A. SIMMONS; CHERYL R. 

SIMMONS, individually, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos. 90-5192, 90-5193 

(D.C. Nos. 89-C-960-E, 

89-C-462-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5192 Document: 010110091415 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 1 
' 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court 

sitting as an appellate court in bankruptcy. We consider two 

issues. First, are we required to hold that the debtor, who is 

the appellant here, has failed to perfect appellate jurisdiction 

in this and the district court by failing to obtain a stay and 

post a bond under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m)? If that question is 

answered in the negative, we must decide whether the bankruptcy 

court correctly ruled valid a second and third mortgage held by 

the appellee bank on the debtor's real property. We conclude we 

have jurisdiction to determine the merits of this case, but 

because the value of the debtor's property determined during the 

foreclosure process is exceeded by the amount of the first 

mortgage, any issue relating to the validity of the second and 

third mortgages is moot. We therefore affirm the judgment of the 

district court. 

Our initial concern in this case was whether we were deprived 

of jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal by debtor's failure 

to comply with§ 363(m). During oral argument, however, counsel 

for the bank conceded that Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 774 (1988) 

applies to these proceedings. That statute states: 

If any judgment or judgments, in satisfaction of which 

any lands or tenements are sold, shall at any time 

thereafter be reversed, such reversal shall not defeat 

or affect the title of the purchaser or purchasers; but 

in such cases, restitution shall be made, by the 

judgment creditors, of the money, for which such lands 

or tenements were sold, with lawful interest from the 

day of sale. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5192 Document: 010110091415 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 2 
The bank therefore 

failure to comply 

jurisdiction to 

correctly concedes that while the debtor's 

with § 363(m) may deprive this court of 

reverse the mortgage sale and order the 

restoration of debtor's interest in the land, we have jurisdiction 

nonetheless to determine whether the debtor is entitled to money 

damages for restitution. 

must next consider the 

Because of this concession, then, we 

issues related to the second and third 

mortgages. 

This consideration is tempered, however, by debtor's 

concession of the validity of the bank's first mortgage. At oral 

argument, debtor's counsel admitted if the value of debtor's 

property found in the record does not exceed the amount of the 

first mortgage, any issue related to the second and third 

mortgages is moot. Therefore, resolution of this case is moored 

upon what the record has to say about the value of this property. 

Debtor contends the only evidence of value is the value 

placed upon the property for the purpose of determining whether to 

grant the bank relief from the automatic stay imposed by 11 u.s.c. 

S 362. Upon the basis of the evidence presented, and for that 

purpose only, the bankruptcy court found the value of the property 

to be $950,000. The court also determined all three of the bank's 

mortgages were valid and set the secured claim represented by 

those mortgages, again for the purpose of the motion to modify 

stay, to be $1,002,805.22. Part of that finding was the court's 

additional finding that the first mortgage totaled $727,125 

including principal, interest, costs, and 

May 16, 1989. (R. Vol. III, 267-69). 

-3-

attorney fees, as of 

On the basis of those 

Appellate Case: 90-5192 Document: 010110091415 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 3 
findings, the bankruptcy court granted the bank relief from stay 

to proceed with foreclosure. 

As required by Oklahoma law,1 for the purpose of foreclosure 

the United States Marshal submitted the property to appraisal by 

three appraisers. (R. v. I, tab. 50). The appraisers determined 

for that purpose the property was worth only $475,000. The 

bank contends this determination represents the true value of the 

property for the purpose of foreclosure. 

Value is ephemeral, and like beauty, it is found only through 

the eyes of the appraiser. Short of an arm's length sale by a 

willing and unhampered seller to an equally willing buyer, value 

can only be determined by reliance upon expert opinion. While 

debtor's counsel contended the appraisals conducted in Oklahoma 

for the purpose of foreclosure were not to be highly regarded, we 

nonetheless believe the appraisers' determination represents the 

only evidence of value for the purpose of foreclosure that is in 

the record. 

When this value is coupled with the bankruptcy court's 

finding on the amount of the uncontested first mortgage and viewed 

in light of the concessions made at oral argument, we are 

constrained to conclude the debtor's argument on the validity of 

the second and third mortgages is moot. Because the foreclosure 

value of the property did not exceed the amount of the first 

2 mortgage, which continues to grow each day, debtor would have no 

basis for restitutional damages even if the second and third 

1okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 759B. 

2 rt surely exceeds $727,125 by a substantial sum at this time. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5192 Document: 010110091415 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 4 
.. 

mortgages were invalid. Although for a different reason than that 

decided by the district court, its judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5192 Document: 010110091415 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 5