McQuinn v. Dial Finance Co. (In Re McQuinn)

D. Nebraska

McQuinn v. Dial Finance Co. (In Re McQuinn)

6 B.R. 899, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4135

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska

DecidedNovember 10, 1980

Docket19-80231

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 B.R. 899 (McQuinn v. Dial Finance Co. (In Re McQuinn)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McQuinn v. Dial Finance Co. (In Re McQuinn), 6 B.R. 899, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4135 (Neb. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAVID L. CRAWFORD, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor wishes to redeem a 1968 mobile home. The sole issue in this proceeding is the value of the home. The expert witnesses were in substantial agreement as to the retail value, which I find to be $2,800.00. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not necessarily contemplate that debtors should pay retail value in order to redeem property.

Section 722 of the Bankruptcy Code permits debtors to redeem by paying lienhold-ers the amount of the allowed secured claim. Section 506(a) of the Code states that the value of an allowed secured claim “shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use ...” of the collateral. In this case, the purpose of the valuation is to give the debtor the first right to purchase property which would otherwise simply be repossessed and sold to someone else. H.R. Rep.No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 380-81 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6336.

I find that the debtor should pay the replacement value which the collateral has for her. Ford Motor Credit v. Miller, 4 B.R. 392, 6 Bkrtcy.Ct.Dec. 410 (S.D. Cal. 1980). However, the retail value of the collateral includes costs such as dealer overhead, salesman’s • commissions, and profit which the debtor should not be required to pay in this type of transaction. I find that those costs total $1,000.00. Therefore, the debtor should be permitted to redeem for $1,800.00. See Ford Motor Credit v. Miller, supra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAVID L. CRAWFORD, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor wishes to redeem a 1968 mobile home. The sole issue in this proceeding is the value of the home. The expert witnesses were in substantial agreement as to the retail value, which I find to be $2,800.00. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not necessarily contemplate that debtors should pay retail value in order to redeem property.

Section 722 of the Bankruptcy Code permits debtors to redeem by paying lienhold-ers the amount of the allowed secured claim. Section 506(a) of the Code states that the value of an allowed secured claim “shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use ...” of the collateral. In this case, the purpose of the valuation is to give the debtor the first right to purchase property which would otherwise simply be repossessed and sold to someone else. H.R. Rep.No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 380-81 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6336.

I find that the debtor should pay the replacement value which the collateral has for her. Ford Motor Credit v. Miller, 4 B.R. 392, 6 Bkrtcy.Ct.Dec. 410 (S.D. Cal. 1980). However, the retail value of the collateral includes costs such as dealer overhead, salesman’s • commissions, and profit which the debtor should not be required to pay in this type of transaction. I find that those costs total $1,000.00. Therefore, the debtor should be permitted to redeem for $1,800.00. See Ford Motor Credit v. Miller, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 B.R. 899, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcquinn-v-dial-finance-co-in-re-mcquinn-nebraskab-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack