Source: http://nv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171002_0009676.DNV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-09-23 08:15:47
Document Index: 478315899

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001', '§ 2001']

EDWIN YOSHIHIRO FUJINAGA and MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendant(s).
The receiver's motion requests this court to issue an order (1) authorizing, approving, and confirming sale of real property located at 9009 Greensboro Lane (“the real property”) and sale and overbid procedures and for related relief; (2) authorizing sale of personal property located therein (“the personal property”); and (3) granting relief from Local Rule 66-5 pertaining to notice of creditors. (ECF No. 437).
On September 21, 2017, this court held that “the receiver's proposed appraisals presumptively satisfy the statutory requirement of three appraisals prior to the proposed sale of the real property. 28 U.S.C. § 2001.” (ECF No. 449) (emphasis added). The receiver obtained two valuations from accredited appraisers and one valuation from a real estate broker. The relevant statute does not specify who must conduct appraisals, except that it must be “three disinterested persons to appraise such property.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b). The court held that “the valuations submitted by the receiver can constitute appraisals for the purpose of satisfying the statutory requirements.” (ECF No. 449) (emphasis added). However, the court was unable to determine whether these three proposed individuals met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b) without in camera review of the valuations and the credentials of the individuals.
Accordingly, this court ordered the receiver to “file with this court within seven (7) days a proposed order as referenced in its filings. (See ECF No. 437 at 22). The proposed order must explicitly appoint the three proposed appraisers by name, among the other required findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders therein.” (ECF No. 449). Further, the court ordered the receiver to, “within seven (7) days, submit to the court for in camera review copies of: the appraisal performed by Tammy L. Howard and Matthew J. Lubway, the appraisal performed by W. Snow, and the written opinion of Greg Clemens as to the value of the property.” Id.
The receiver submitted for this court's in camera review the three valuations of the real property as requested. Upon review of these documents, this court finds that the receiver has not provided this court with “three disinterested persons to appraise” the property. The first two submissions are appraisals that clearly comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b).
However, the third submission fails to comply with statutory requirements on multiple levels. It is a broker price opinion or comparative market analysis of the broker, Greg Clemens, who is selling the real property at issue here, not an appraisal conducted by a disinterested person, as required by statute.
Greg Clemens is not a “disinterested person, ” as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b) because he is the broker hired to sell this property. (ECF No. 437 at 9). Also, this court cannot construe this valuation as an appraisal for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b) because the face of Mr. Clemens's written valuation explicitly disclaims any reliance on it as an “appraisal.” The top of the first page of this document reads:
This is a broker price opinion or comparative market analysis and should not be considered an appraisal. In making any decision that relies upon my work, you should know that I have not followed the guidelines for development of an appraisal or analysis contained in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation.
Therefore, the court is bound by 28 U.S.C. § 2001(b) to deny the motion to approve the sale of real property. The court is unable to appoint Greg Clemens as a “disinterested person to appraise” the property. Thus, the receiver has failed to comply with the statute's requirement of obtaining three ...