Opinion ID: 2298807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Judgment as to Damages

Text: Bertram's final argument is that the value of the collateral that Distributive agreed to surrender to ArX was far less than the amount of [the Stadium's] claim, that the Stadium did not prove otherwise, and that the court made no determination of the value of the surrendered collateral and had no basis for finding that the value supported a judgment in Stadium's favor for the full $1,883,230.70 that it sought. [18] Bertram premises his argument on the UFTA's remedial standard, i.e., that the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred ... or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less. D.C.Code § 28-3108(b). At the damages hearing, Bertram asked no questions and presented no evidence about the value of the collateral, so we have no basis for accepting his argument that the value was far less than the amount of the Stadium's claim. On the other hand, as described earlier, the Agreement required not only that Distributive surrender property to ArX, but also that other Bertram-controlled companies transfer property to ArX to fully satisfy the debt to the Lenders. This suggests that the value of the collateral surrendered by Distributive was significantly less than $2 million (even if it was not, as Bertram claims, far less than $1,883,230.70). At the same time, although the Stadium did not present an appraisal or other estimate of the value of the surrendered collateral, it presented sufficient evidence (in the form of a copy of the Agreement, which listed many items of Distributive's property, including the dollar amounts of surrendered accounts receivable) to support a finding that the surrendered property had some value, which should be the measure of the Stadium's recovery (up to $1,883,230.70). We agree with Bertram that if the collateral he caused Distributive to surrender pursuant to the Agreement had a value of less than $1,883,230.70, the Stadium was entitled to a judgment in only that lesser amount. [19] We conclude that the appropriate course is to remand to the trial court to conduct such further proceedings as may be necessary to make a finding as to the value of the collateral that Distributive surrendered to ArX, and, if the court finds that the value was less than $1,883,230.70, to reduce the amount of the judgment accordingly. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as to liability, reverse the judgment as to the amount of damages, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered.